The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Duplicate listing ∞Who?¿? 19:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged on September 15 by user:TexasAndroid [1], but not listed here. — Instantnood 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC) See below. — Instantnood 07:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed listed below on this very page. It's one of seven categories grouped under the heading Isabelle Arnfjell. They're grouped that way because, except for one, they all have only that one article as members. TexasAndroid 15:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. — Instantnood 07:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note listed here. ∞Who?¿? 19:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 07:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We use "in" for settlements and "of" for subdivisions. These are subdivisions. There are separate categories for category:Cities in the Netherlands and category:Towns in the Netherlands. The whole of the Netherlands is divided into municipalities and many of them contain multiple settlements. Rename category:Municipalities of the Netherlands. CalJW 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 07:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Dungeons & Dragons computer and video games. -Sean Curtin 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 07:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overly restrictive, "nativeness" is a difficult concept to measure. Excludes people who would be covered by more general People from Birmingham i.e. those who have strong links with city but only arrived as adults. No category for such people and naming it would be untidy. Valiantis 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the standard form for UK people/places categories. Someone who wasn't born in Birmingham isn't "from" Birmingham either. I would prefer the categories to be in the form "People associated with..." but I believe there have been objections to that sort of form in the past on the grounds that people would be added to categories on slender grounds. In any case, we should certainly not change just one member of a large group of categories. If you would like to see a change, you really need to start an overall discussion of the matter. CalJW 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I hadn't noticed it was part of a particular hierarchy. And yet for cities in the US, I found Category:People from Los Angeles, Category:People from New York City, Category:People from Dallas, Category:People from San Francisco etc. Shouldn't there be international consistency? After all, being "from" a place is not inherently different regardless of whether that place is in the US or the UK. (And one's "fromness" is hardly a question of birth in any case, either). Valiantis 22:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Fromness", or the concept of being "from" somewhere can certainly be inherently different internationally. It seems to me to be very much a dialectical issue of equivocation. siafu 22:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't there be international consistency? No. All across Wikipedia the consistency is based on local word usage (note the recent discussion on Transport/Transportation). This is why we have Category:Los Angeles neighborhoods but Category:Districts of London, for instance. Grutness...wha? 06:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True in general. However, with regard to the specific issue here (the meaning of native of and person from) what do you consider to be the dialect differences between British English and American English? Valiantis 12:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Americans use "People from", Brits use "Natives of" (QED). To someone using British English, a person from X would be someone who lives in X, whereas a native of X would be someone who was born there. I am a native of the UK, but I am a person from New Zealand. This category, from what I gather, is for people born in Birmingham, and therefore should use "Native of", as per standard British English usage. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the idea that Americans use "People from", Brits use "Natives of" with the identical meaning "people born in"? Can you provide any examples that the phrase native of is a usage that Americans would find foreign or that when Americans say he is from California, they always specifically mean he was born in California? As to your example of yourself, you appear to be saying that you are "from" New Zealand because you now live there. Your "fromness" with regard to New Zealand is a personal choice. I on the other hand lived for years in Wales but I was never "from" there just because I lived there. I remained "from" England. "Fromness" is vague and dependent on personal, social and political perspectives. When that noted British English speaker Basil Fawlty said Manuel was "from Barcelona" he didn't mean he currently lived there. Conversely George W. Bush is in Category:People from Texas (and is regularly described as being from Texas in both the US and the UK) even though he was born in Connecticut. Valiantis 18:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles in this category are specific to it (save the Wraith: The Oblivion page itself, and all are already listed under its parent category. Supermorff 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 00:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No subcategories and only eight articles. Inclusion of articles in overview category inconsistent, e.g., Geography of Antarctica not included. — RDF ^talk 19:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 22:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 00:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling. TexasAndroid 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only one extant article that can fit in this category. Rename per nom if populated before the week is up. siafu 20:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per siafu. ∞Who?¿? 05:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 00:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was on CSD with the reason "there are no mountains in Belgium". Not empty, but the one thing in it doesn't sound much like a mountain, so moving here. ~~ N (t/c) 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category:Hills of Belgium. Osomec 18:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note however, this category is empty, and can be deleted if it remains empty under CSD, as it seems it has been empty for over a week. ∞Who?¿? 00:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I changed the name to Communities of Belgium Julien Tuerlinckx 19:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the new name is better Vb07:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 19:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 03:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category's name is a neologism and therefore acts as original research. It's concept is also novel, alleging a connection between computer science and general relativity which is based on a faulty understanding of relativity theory.

• Delete per my reasons above EMS | Talk 18:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism and inaccurate Salsb 19:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category page says "Relativistic information science in concerned with the effects of General relativity on computation.". However, none of the articles listed are related to general relativity effects, and in fact I don't know any part of Computer Science which uses general relativity. The actor model may be inspired by general relativity, but that is not the same. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe recategorize to Category:Information science (relativistic) a per discussion at Category talk:Relativistic Information Science. However would results on black holes that have information science implications (e.g. Black hole information paradox) be categorized at the new category "Category:Information science (relativistic)" among other places?--Carl Hewitt 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. It looks like the hard core GR physicists who have shown up here are not into into information science. So let's try the interdisciplinary approach the other way and see if the information scientists are more into interdisciplinary connections on the Wikipedia. So I have created "Category:Information systems (relativistic)". It's interesting that we also have had terrible problems with interdisciplinary work at MIT. Often there have been purists in one camp or another who cannot tolerate interdisciplinary work. So if upper management does not take a strong hand in protecting the work, it soon perishes at the hands of the purists. One problem seems to be that it is too easy to be a purist: a purist only has to be an expert in their own silo; they don't have to do the hard work to actually understand the other guys;-)--Carl Hewitt 06:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The hard core GR physicists who have shown up here are not into into information science? That's a belly laugh!! You might take a closer look at my user page.

  The problem is not hostility toward interdisciplinary endeavours. Quite the contrary; my entire existence has been devoted to elucidating and explaining connections between seemingly very different areas, and in general trying to popularize important but underappreciated concepts, tools and methods. Since I too have encountered endless bafflement, I am by no means unsympathetic to the challenges faced by someone trying to persuade people in camp A to learn theory B and people in camp B to learn theory A. But you have to begin by acknowledgeing that it makes perfect sense that A-ites will be reluctant to drop everything to learn theory B just because someone like you or I claims to see beautiful, deep, and powerful connections. Blaming them for prioritizing their efforts is just childish. Rather, one needs to figure out who is most likely to be receptive, how to explain your vision to them, etc.

  It sounds like you might be embittered by some bad experience at your uni, but it won't help resolve the present dispute if you insinuate that we have bad attitude or a hidden agenda. The first rule is to try to put yourself in our shoes. You might not like this, but the fact is you are in effect asking us to learn about distributed computing, when you have obviously bothered to learn very very little about general relativity, for if you had, you wouldn't need to ask why we feel that if you want to convince anyone with any critical faculty worth mentioning that there is a deep connection between relativistic physics and your work on your actor model, you have a great deal of explaining to do. It's not up to us to make huge efforts to understand your vision; it is up to you to explain why we should, even in principle.---CH (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  As you point out, interdisciplinary work is obviously more difficult than work within a single discipline. I have found it interesting how often attempts are made to suppress interdisciplinary work and would be interested in any research that has been done in the history, sociology, and philosophy of science on this suppression and the various tactics and strategies that have been employed. Of course there can be mitigating factors. For example, I can understand how some of my physics colleagues (especially in relativity and quantum physics) might feel burned by some of the poplular media on these topics because much of it does appear to be pretty flakey!

  I initially set out to report on some relationships between established fields of research that have been published. The response seems to have been vigorous attempts aimed at suppressing reporting these relationships. In the fullness of time, after every one has a chance to chill out, this attempted suppression may come to be viewed as an over reaction.;-)--Carl Hewitt 05:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Suppression?! You just racked up another 40 points on The Crackpot Index! (See item 34).---CH (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops. The purists already suppressed the new category also;-)--Carl Hewitt 06:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At present, Category:Information science (relativistic) is a blue link instead of a red one. It has already been created and populated as a duplicate category. I have also requested its deletion, but this is ridiculous and is a de-facto (if not an actual) attempt to dodge this deletion vote. --EMS | Talk 05:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At present, "relativistic information science" exists only in Carl's head. It is completely inappropriate to present as established knowledge vague personal speculations. Indeed, so far, all Carl seems to be able to say is that general relativity somehow helped motivate some concepts in his actor model. To say the least, the alleged connection is apparent to no-one else I have talked to about this.---CH (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above. linas 04:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The administration needs to be firm with this miscreant. The category is part of an attempt to put original research into a Wiki context. Actually, the thrust seems to be to create a global time out of event-order, without the concept of normal clocks. This could make a tiny bit of sense in the very early universe, where clocks in the usual sense can't exist and even elementary particle decays and reactions may be subject to large fluctuations. So it might have a germ of an idea. But it has no physics in it and is original work in the sense of a possible germ of a new idea; thus if the proponent can develop it further with more physics in it, it should be sent to a journal of record.
  I wonder if this chap is a bit in his dotage. Thomas Jefferson Jackson See, onetime director of the U.S. Naval Observatory, suffered from some kind of what used to be called "distraction" in his old age and published stuff like this - only more - about a 6 foot shelf of books extolling a Reverend Whewell and attacking Einstein and GR. See: The tragic case of T.J.J. See: "Astronomer T.J.J. See's career started off with great promise, but he ended up working in obscurity."Mercury, November, 2002 by William Sheehan. Also: [2] and [3], as well as the thorough coverage in [4] pp. 29-54. See especially the first page, p. 48 with See's rediscovery of the Luminiferous Aether in the N.Y. Times, and p. 50 with his diagrams probably indicative of mental disorder. Pdn 12:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter, it seems you and I independently came to very similar conclusions viz a viz his germ of an idea and publication (I told him the same thing in the talk page of one of these categories). Er, you might be right about the other thing but we don't want to uneccessarily alienate him, or to any suggestions which could possibly be interpreted as a "personal attack", and indeed, right now, I tend to think his problem is more emotional than neurological. But yeah, every aging human needs to bear in mind that unfortunately, he/she won't find it so easy to rapidly acquire and retain new knowledge as a much younger person would. Similarly for aging and poorly maintained software packages, sigh... (See my recent article on Cartan-Karlhede algorithm, where I couldn't help some "editorializing", which possibly should be moved to the talk page.) Off-topic comment: someone with excellent knowledge of USNO history and personalities needs to write a carefully WP:NPOV article explaining the true story of the (at least sometimes) cranky contributions of See, Alley, and Flandern (c.f. GPS). Thanks for the cite to the Sherrill article.---CH (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  
  I also feel that the above is not good Wikiquette. Your support is appreciated, but I have seen general relativity trip up otherwise intellgent people quite regularly. If nothing else, the creativity of Carl's approach speaks against senility. Instead, I have a sense of someone with more than adequate brains that are surrounded by an overly thick skull. In any case, we should be as polite as possible (if not more so) while still making sure that our message gets across. --EMS | Talk 03:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Another suggeston: recategorize to "Category:Quantum Information and Relativity Theory" as per the terminology of the following reference:

  Asher Peres and Daniel Terno. Quantum Information and Relativity Theory Rev.Mod.Phys. 76 (2004) 93.--Carl Hewitt 09:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  "A rose by any other name ...", or maybe in this case a skunk by any other name ... . Carl - If our objection was to the name, this action would be a vote for renaming, not deletion. "Information" in a physics context involves the ability to pass signals between observers. The actor model instead is concerned with when to send them and what to do with then once they are received. It therefore is not relevant to the subject matter of Peres et al either. Without your misconception of the relevance of the actor model to relativity, this category would not exist. For that reason, it should not exist under any name.

  P.S. You are warned against creating a category of this name. If the current one survives, you may nominate it for renaming. --EMS | Talk 23:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though maybe relativistic information science isn't what Carl Hewitt says it is (I honestly don't know) such a thing exists. Besides the work of Peres etal, see the work of Chris Fuchs. (One of his recent papers is entitled something like Quantum Mechanics as Information Theory and a little more). The borderline between physics and computation is quietly disappearing. ANd this is not Carl Hewitt's invention. Even Feynman in the 70s and 80s was aware of the fact that computation is physical. I am really mystified why everybody is ganging up on Carl Hewitt for making this category.--CSTAR 20:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the question is whether specific and implicit claims made in Carl's articles (see the talk pages) are cranky or well-founded. All the physics-literates who have spoken up here feel these claims are sounding crankier by the minute. I think the best thing is to delete the (my vote above) and let Carl pursue other avenues for his ideas. As for whether a category with a name like "relativistic information science" should exist, I take it you are not a physicist, in which case you'd probably know why we all hate that name. No doubt as time goes by, some knowledgeable user will write more articles on suggestions by Bekenstein and others which are well known in physics, and eventually there might be enough to warrant a category. It would have another name, however, since "relativistic" conjures up Lorentz group or maybe General relativity, which are irrelevant to the non-Hewitt ideas I think you have in mind. See the long review by Matt Visser on analog gravity at the Living Reviews website and see reviews on black hole thermodynamics and such like listed at Relativity on the World Wide Web. These ideas involving horizons and semiclassical QFT now appear to be more general than gravitation theory (much less gtr), and this is the most important aspect to explain in articles about them. This is why Carl's name for such a category is the most terrible choice possible.---CH (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  
  I agree with CH. You are right that computation is physical, and that physics is involved in the hardware of computers. However, this is about software, and the connections between physics and software are of a very different sort. You also need to be aware that relativistic considerations are normally not considered in the creation of the hardware or software for information systems, and is never an issue for terrestial systems anyway. So I kindly call on you to reconsider your vote. Such a category may come to exist eventually, but when it does it will be a very different beast then the one created by Carl Hewitt. --EMS | Talk 23:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, I was very early on quite critical of much of Hewitt's contributions to WP (see the talk pages of Actor model, Scheme programming language, and the talk page of Hewitt himself. Moreover, I don't claim that Hewitt has a clue what he's talking about, but that the category in here arguably makes sense. Quite frankly, I find the decibel level here too high (For instance, referring to me, Hillman retorts I take it you are not a physicist, in which case you'd probably know why we all hate that name. What kind of argument is that? --CSTAR 02:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. See also the talk page of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Hewitt finally relented and removed the section on the actor model. However, I didn't need to suggest Hewitt was "in his dotage" as someone above suggested. --03:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  I think that you are missing the points:

  1. "Relativistic information science" as you or I would use it refers to the ability to pass signals and/or information between events.
  2. "Relativistic information science" as used by Carl Hewitt means the use of general relativity theory in software engineering. This is a totally new meaning for that term, making it a neologism and therefore a violation of the no original research policy.
  3. If the category was retained and put to it's proper use, the result would be an empty category, which is also a violation of Wikipedia policy.

  So your point, while appreciated, is moot. --EMS | Talk 16:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my comments on the talk page of this category. In regard to your statement means the use of general relativity theory in software engineering. This is a totally new meaning for that term is very hard to justify. See the example of GPS (with a specific published reference). Now isn't that an example of what you call Hewitt's intended meaning of the term?

  And what is the following statement supposed to mean So your point, while appreciated, is moot. Moot has several meanings (moot court) but in this instance I take it to mean "irrelevant". So should I intrepret the statement as meaning my contribituion is irrelevant because

  • It's wrong
  • it doesn't address Hewitt's definition

  Or maybe you mean something else entirely (e.g., bug off).

  Please. in this discussion avoid using unspecific terms, hyperbole, similes or anything else whose meaning is not absolutely clear.

  If you can't figure that out my meaning from the context, you are not trying. If you are not interested in trying, there is no need to continue this thread. I accept that you will not change your vote. --EMS | Talk 18:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the purpose of this vote? It seems to me that a few Wikipedia editors should not decide at this time that the Wikipedia will never have a category in physics so that some papers published in reputable physics journals can never be categorized. For example Wikipedia needs to be able to categorize articles like the following:

• Asher Peres and Daniel Terno. Quantum Information and Relativity Theory Rev.Mod.Phys. 76 (2004) 93.

The above article states:

Quantum theory and relativity theory emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century to give answers to unexplained issues in physics: the black body spectrum, the structure of atoms and nuclei, the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Many years later, information theory was developed by Claude Shannon [1948] for analyzing the efficiency of communication methods. How do these seemingly disparate disciplines affect each other? In this review, we shall show that they are inseparably related.

Of course there will be Wikipedia articles reporting the results of the above and future publications in this area.

The Wikipedia needs somewhere that articles like the above can be categorized. It seems to me that this discussion ought to be about the name of that category.--Carl Hewitt 18:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Not tagged properly (no change). ∞Who?¿? 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat that looks like an attempt at a portal or a Wikibooks entry. Also misCapitaLized. Delete. --Quuxplusone 18:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Placing articles on basic physics into a category on anaethesia is rather unencyclopedic. siafu 22:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note empty category can just be deleted as CSD or resubmitted. ∞Who?¿? 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞Who?¿? 00:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pop

Category:Country-Folk

Category:Country-Rock

Category:Country-Pop

Category:CCM

Category:Country

Category:Folk

Here we go again. Seven categories this time. All but the last have only a single entry, the singer at the head of the section. Most, if not all of the single-genre categories have more appropriate places that she could be placed in. And Category:Folk has a much more populated category structure in Category:Folk music, down which homes could be found for both entries. As for the double-genre categories, do we really need to start categorizing every time a performer bridges two genres? As previously with these cases, I want to stress that I am *not* submitting the article for deletion, just the categories. - TexasAndroid 18:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all There are plenty of musician categories already. CalJW 21:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: redundant. The double-genre categories are currently overcategorization, though something like "Folk-Rock music" could be possible. siafu 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please be advised to use {{cfdu}} for umberlla nominations. Thank you. — Instantnood 07:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted to {{cfdu}} ∞Who?¿? 05:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization. Someone had used a #REDIRECT to point this to Category:Punk rock groups. Or simply delete the category, it has 0 articles. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category (also applies to Category:M4 Motorway service stations. Can be recreated if articles for this cat are created; otherwise to justify this one there should be a (potentially empty) services category for every motorway in Britain (possibly worldwide?) which would be daft. CLW 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unwanted, unnecessary cat (I'm not sure that articles on every service station would be encyclopedic anyway). --G Rutter 09:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I personally have no problem with the articles. the wub "?/!" 11:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category (also applies to Category:M5 Motorway service stations. Can be recreated if articles for this cat are created; otherwise to justify this one there should be a (potentially empty) services category for every motorway in Britain (possibly worldwide?) which would be daft. CLW 05:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unwanted, unnecessary cat (I'm not sure that articles on every service station would be encyclopedic anyway). --G Rutter 09:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I personally have no problem with the articles. the wub "?/!" 11:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. Merge into category:Kenyan media, which is by far the more common form, and delete CalJW 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspend debate pending resolution of debate on the naming format for national subject subcategories. Bearcat 07:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't suspend. How long is this going to take? Is it dealing with media specifically? CalJW 21:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've explained before, the "media" category does not get to define its own special standard independently of the standard elsewhere on Wikipedia; it must conform to overall Wikipedia policy on the naming of national subcategories. Policy, consequently, does not have to be particular to media categories. Bearcat 16:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are many differences between the standards for different subject areas, and I don't think you have much chance of changing that - it would be a disaster if you did. CalJW 19:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Current proposal prefers "Fooian Fooers" whenever this doesn't cause any problems, and is based on consensus. siafu 22:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. Osomec 18:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations should be avoided, if nothing else. siafu 02:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I will equally support the creation and merger to Category:Poets of the United States as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) seems to remain agnostic on the matter. Category:American poets just happens to exist already. siafu 02:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:American poets which is the form of most of these categories. CalJW 03:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't find People are categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians. The template Fooian fooers is used to provide navigation on each category page. in any way ambiguous. Dictates nationality foo. Either Rename to United States poets and delete American poets or merge into American poets per nom. Do not create Category:Poets of the United States Hiding talk 08:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page also says: Please note that this template may need to be modified for some categories, because some nationalities are listed as "People of Foo" instead of "Fooian", such as Category:Musicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since "United States poets" does not make grammatical sense, and it's not clear if "American" is accepted by consensus, there is ambiguity, but only between "American poets" and "Poets of the United States". siafu 17:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also no consensus on Wikipedia that "United States poets" does not make grammatical sense, since the format United States foo is used in a number of categories and was supported by a number of people during the straw poll in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) archives. Hiding talk 18:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There doesn't need to be consensus on whether or not "United States poets" makes grammatical sense - it simply doesn't. "United States" is not an adjective. siafu 18:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This argument is now circular. There is notable support to use United States poets whether you are aware of or accept that fact. As to its grammatical correctness, that is a matter of opinion, and also disregards somewhat the common usage policies within Wikipedia. Hiding talk 22:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing circular or opionated about it; unless you're going to attempt to make a case for it being a compound word, it is aggrammatical to shove two uninflected nouns together and pretend one is an adjective. If you're going to support the noun form, it should be "Fooers of Fooland" not "Fooland Fooers". As stated above, this is per wikipedia policy. siafu 22:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:American poets. - Darwinek 08:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if you can have a United States Marine you can have a US poet, it's just a noun phrase. Anyway, there was a huge debate on this, I'd suggest three or so people voting merge here would *not* be an example of the community operating on concensus. --zippedmartin 23:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into category:American poets A few people out of millions of readers having a debate amongst themselves isn't either. Let's just change them all for consistency Osomec 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer. It has been replaced by Category:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, referencing the official name of the hockey club. ccwaters 01:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer, like above nominee. It has been replaced by Category:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim coaches, referencing the official name of the hockey club. ccwaters 01:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should at least be a subcat of Police weapons, but I don't think the number of articles makes it worthwhile. Salsb 00:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Only one article. siafu 22:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. --zippedmartin 18:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Washington, District of Columbia" follows category naming conventions I propose that Category:Washington, D.C. be replaced by Category:District of Columbia and Category:Washington, District of Columbia as appropriate. Due to the overlap between the city and District, some articles will have both categories. These categories encounter the boundaries of several conventions due to Washington having absorbed the District, but still fit within conventions. (SEWilco 00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment: There was a previous CFD involving these categories. (SEWilco 00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep as per article title "Washington, D.C.". -- User:Docu
• Oppose There is no need for this. This is a unique case and using the normal form is fine. CalJW 03:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you referring to Article normal form "Washington, D.C." or Category normal form "Washington, District of Columbia" as "normal form"? (SEWilco 06:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with CalJW. - SimonP 05:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename, overwhelming common usage supports current name. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per my previous vote. siafu 20:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Rename. If titles were a card game, then I'd say that common names trumps avoid abbreviations. --zippedmartin 23:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Say that to a bot shuffling through Categories on States and Subdivisions, or one only looking at Cities. (SEWilco 04:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Just 'cos someone does it, doesn't make it right. Personally I'd be interested if you linked to the discussion that lead up to the start of that shuffle. If it's one of these three-people-in-some-corner-of-wikip affairs... --zippedmartin 18:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming. I grew up about 10 miles from D.C., and I never ever heard anyone say "Washington, District of Columbia". In any practical sense, D.C. isn't really an abbreviation. Furthermore, SEWilco's strongest point is that the category naming conventions instruct us to "Avoid abbreviations", yet he cites Category:U.S. states as an example! Shall we rename that to Category:United States states? Finally, what's the deal with Category:Cities in District of Columbia? The District of Columbia is a city! dbenbenn | talk 14:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, Category:U.S. states will be renamed; its contents, the states, is the example, as it is not full of "New Orleans, La." and "Springfield, Oh." The District is not a city but rather it now contains a city. The part of the USA which contains the city is "District of Columbia", so the Category for the city is "Washington, District of Columbia". (SEWilco 16:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • comment once DC was not covered by one urban concretion, there used to be separate real municipalities. 132.205.45.148 20:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename Outside the US I don't think many people even know what DC stands for. Osomec 18:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rename Nobody ever says "Washington, District of Columbia", they always say "Washington, D.C.". I live 4 miles away in Arlington, Virginia and people say that, that way. They also say Silver Spring, Maryland for the town 4 miles in the other direction. But I can't remember hearing anything except "D.C." used. It is so commonplace to use DC that it should be considered an exception to the usual rule (if there is a usual rule) to spell out state names. Paul Robinson 03:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, was originally a neopaganism subcat, but nothing is in it anymore. Salsb 00:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: badly named (traditions of what?), wrong cap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Y (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 September 2005
• Delete in tradtition of destruction. Empty, bad caps, ambiguous. ∞Who?¿? 17:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.