The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete per CSD C2c. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the term "skin" should probably be renamed to "cutaneous" as the scope of this category is not strictly limited to conditions that affect the skin, but also the mucous membranes (i.e. inside the mouth, lining of the eyes, nose, etc.). There also seems to be a strong consensus in favor of using the term "cutaneous" in this context (see, for example 1, 2). For a listing of conditions being considered part of this category, see the list of cutaneous conditions. With that being said, if this rename is enacted, I will (1) add additional information to the category introduction discussing the category title in language directed towards the general reader, and (2) create a redirect from the existing category name. ---kilbad (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedily deleted as vandalism.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be almost an attack page with only one member article - added by the creator of the category as a disparaging remark about the article subject NtheP (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete I could see possible uses for this category (and for 'young fart' to be used on certain younger politicians...), but I don't think the legal situation would be very good if it were brought in and used. Shame, really... Peridon (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination. Moving a suggested rename from the speedy section. A copy of the speedy discussion is below. Not knowing enough about the topic, I take no position on the merits. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this fits under C2A. Isn't either one acceptable?—how can "female supervillains" be a "typo" of some sort? Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, per the Wikipedia article Supervillain, the correct term is Supervillainess, that is why I propose the change (it would like changing "Female actors" to "Actresses"). But if "Female supervillain" is accepted, then leave it like that. --LoЯd۞pεth 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see—I don't think the change is necessarily a bad idea, I just don't think that speedy rename is the proper forum. It seems like this would be a good candidate for a full discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved at this point from WP:CFDS. Make new comments below this line.
Leaning to keep as is. The proposed name is too fancy... like mayonnaise. East of Borschov 10:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - seeing as how the nominator has said that the current name is acceptable, mark as withdrawn and close. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. No reason to change category names to their synonyms. Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is—I think the current title is clearer. –Grondemar 07:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per previous consensus at Category talk:Connecticut Huskies and this CfD, categories referring to University of Connecticut athletics teams should be named Connecticut Huskies instead of UConn Huskies. –Grondemar 04:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:mergedelete. Realized that the sole article is already categorized in the parents, so might as well delete outright. — ξxplicit 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge to both parents. Single entry category with limited growth potential. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no - please tell me this isn't what it sounds like! (Back in a moment... ) Cgingold (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew... I was afraid that was somebody's lame idea of a jocular name for a gathering-place for Jews. (A bunch of other ethnic-slur variations instantly came to mind: The Polack Pad? The Kraut Crib? The Dago Dugout?) I was relieved (albeit a bit disappointed, truth-be-told) to discover that Hebe Haven is merely a harbor in Hong Kong. And it surely is not in need of a Category... so by all means, upmerge per nom. Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy close so category can be tagged for C1. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy close so category can be tagged for C1. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete – empty and inappropriate category. Categories should not contain content other than the redirect code, redirect templates, categories and defaultsorting. McLerristarr / Mclay1 01:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment personally I think that some redirects should contain documentation on why they exist. It would make figuring out why they exist easier for RfD. 76.66.192.49 (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They already should contain templates such as {{R from misspelling}} or {{R to related topic}} to explain why they exist. The documentation of all those templates needs fixing but no more documentation on redirect templates is necessary. The person who created the category, created only one redirect to go in it, which was an actor redirected to a film. The redirect contained a picture of the actor, which was not displayed anyway because nothing is on a redirect page. I removed the picture and removed the redirect from the category, adding {{R from people}}. McLerristarr / Mclay1 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sven70[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. CfD is not WP:Arbcom. If redress of a possible injustice is needed, take it there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wholly unnecessary aggravation of an indef block. User openly admitted to having previously used another account, and the IPs were used for less than four days in sequence between said accounts. - talk 01:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mr. Cunningham appears to be a friend of this person or something. I could not even remember who Sven70 was until a minute ago. Why Mr. Cunningham is so aggravated that he would make attacks and bad-faith accusations on my talk page is beyond me. As you can see here [1], I did not even tag the IP as a sockpuppet, I just created a previously nonexistent category. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this cfd not a much more visible aggravation of the alleged scarcely visible aggravation? Occuli (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complicated. I think I will abstain on this one. Occuli (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidence of minor sockpuppetry is revealed at WP:ANI every day, and it is pointless to make a category for each inconsequential incident. Care is needed when dealing with issues like this due to the need to avoid drama, to WP:DENY recognition, while managing significant problems. Contrary to the ANI report linked to above, I have good reason to assume that good faith applies to this nom, and the category is unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still can see no really good reason to delete. Deleting the category will make it a red link, but the tagged account and IPs (at least one of which was tagged back in 2009 and not by me) will simply populate a redlinked category. Why are we trying to "avoid aggravating" an editor who has been blocked multiple times, including indefs on both of his registered accounts? Kindzmarauli (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and disambiguate, per Lenticel above; 'One Nation politicians' is ambiguous. Robofish (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and dab per Lenticel. --Soman (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 01:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Based on the introduction, this is the focus of the category so use it in the name for clarity. This rename also eliminates harbours/harbors from the title by going to a name that is English version neutral. This suggestion is from a related CfD discussion which provides some additional background and reasons for renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there harbors without port facilities? Yes? I think the harbors that are natural bodies of water belong in the Category:Geography tree just like Category:Lakes and Category:Bays. For artificial ones and anchorages, we would need to do something different. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One other concern from looking around. St. Joseph Bay is referred to as a natural harbor in St. Joseph, Florida. This supports a suspicion of mine that many bays are also natural harbors. Don't know what that would mean. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I suggested this at the other nomination, and would love to see it happen.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There should be reference to, and ideally a summary of, the several previous debates on this category, most in the days when debates got much more attention than they do now. I doubt the proposed name reflects the current contents well, and who is going to split out the harbours without port facilities, and how will they be categorized? A great number of the articles at the bottom of this large tree - probably the large majority, are general articles on the places, not specialized ones on the port facilities there, though these may well be covered. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the edit history and did not see any other nominations. Did I miss some? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the October 17 discussion was rather thin. It was pointed out there that ports is language neutral. This did not specifically discuss the fact that the settlements are in a separate tree. The November 29 discussion adds nothing other then to point out that harbor category was depopulated without a discussion. The September 24 and September 27 discussions seem to support that there is a different category tree for ports and port cities. The January 17 discussion supports the city form over seaports. The July 3 discussion was no consensus. The September 14 discussion switched to using settlements over other forms like coastal cities and port cities. The July 29 discussion points out that the cities are in different parents then the port articles. The May 7 discussion was about settlements. So I don't see the proposal here really going against anything in the past. In fact, it may actually address some of the concerns raised. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal until further clarification. Right now Category:Ports and harbours is a pool of (a) common names: port infrastructure, port equipment etc. (b) proper names: which are mostly seaport cities. The former group may be grouped under a common heading of port facilities but maybe existing category:Port infrastructure will fit the purpose too. The other part, Category:Ports and harbours by country (and related sister categories), is not so straightforward. It includes articles on ports as facilities and seaport cities (as such: cities), so both Port of Le Havre and Le Havre are included. Perhaps you should draw up a chart of who belongs where; renaming a mess still leaves a mess. East of Borschov 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone wants to clean this mess up, that's OK? I may try and do that along the lines of settlements, facilities and named ports. So using your example, Port of Le Havre would be moved to a category for named ports and Le Havre would be in the settlement category. Oh and if we did the move as proposed, then we could move the settlements and ports and harbour categories to settlements and then do the manual cleanup to move out the named ports to Category:Named ports. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some cities are not in Category:Port settlements is not an issue here. They simply need to be added to the correct subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Port facilities" is too restrictive. I appreciate the desire to avoid BE/AE problems, but I feel that the cure here is worse than the disease. --Bejnar (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
