Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 17



Clothing and textile companies

 * 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 all. Kbdank71 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming

added to nomination
 * Category:Swedish clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Sweden
 * Category:Serbian clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Serbia
 * Category:Italian clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Italy
 * Category:Indian clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of India
 * Category:Chinese clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of China
 * Category:German clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Germany
 * Category:German clothing retailers to Category:Clothing retailers of Germany
 * Category:Belgian clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Belgium
 * Category:Bulgarian clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Bulgaria


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent and siblings. Sorry, I don't know how to do a mass rename nom; if someone wants to combine these into one please feel free. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Phase one complete: fixed links on category pages and removed editable section headings. I'll leave the rest to you, Otto. Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I picked up the rest of the untagged subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support no compelling reason to use "FOO(ish|ian|ite|er|an|der|ese|ist|ch|n|lese|ine|eno|etc) BAR" when "BAR (in|of|from) FOO" will suffice. — CharlotteWebb 15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. However, as long as we're dealing with these categories, I noticed that there are a bunch of sub-cats in Category:Clothing and textile companies by country that are either for clothing companies or for textile companies, but not for both. So I'm wondering just how useful it is to maintain all of these joint categories, since their only function seems to be to group those two related sorts of sub-categories. Cgingold (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with deleting these as parents but that should probably be a separate discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Owen Wister Award

 * 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. Kbdank71 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Owen Wister Award to Category:Owen Wister Award winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - per previous similar categories (either "winners" or "recipients") or if deemed not prestigous enough for categorization, delete in favor of the list in the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Clarifies the category's purpose. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Already listified in main article. This is the usual solution for award categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the existence of the list which is the bulk of the article. Seems to be a niche or minor award.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Rathbone-Bruce films

 * 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. Kbdank71 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Rathbone-Bruce films to Category:Sherlock Holmes films
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Wikipedia administrators open to recall

 * 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: somewhere between keep and no consensus with clearly no consensus on whether it is worth asking about whether an RFA candidate intends to join the category.  (There are alternative forms of the question that might solicit interesting and informative responses - such as "what are your thoughts on ..." or "what are the issues with ..." or "how could ___ work better ...")  I do believe that if we ever find a better solution this category will depopulate itself (of the active admins at any rate) fairly quickly.  But unless a superior solution is found, given all the prior discussions, it is unlikely that a consensus to end it will emerge any time soon.  I didn't see a single new argument this time around, just old arguments with some new examples used.  GRBerry 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * wikipedia administrators open to recall


 * NOTE: This has been announced on at least ANI and RfA. I don't know about other boards, but full disclosure should exists.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: For gfdl attribution. I'll copy another editor whose sentiments mirror mine: "It has a divisive and destructive influence at RFA, since one can't refuse this "voluntary" process without some people assumming you are unfit to lead. As shown with Elonka and others it has a destructive influence when people attempt to use AOR as a shortcut to meaningful dispute resolution. I actually would support a well-thought out mandatory recall process that was neither easily gamed and nor easily abused, but the AOR process as it stands is bad for Wikipedia. If an inidivual admin wants to resign because of someone's request, that is their right, but the collective structure that has arisen around AOR and the unfair expectations of participation in a "voluntary" process is a bad approach that is unduely divisive and the community is better off without AOR." This of course includes the marking of historical the subpages.  Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The irony of who nominated the category aside, Deleting the category and marking Recall "historical" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Administrators will be open to recall if they choose to be, and marking the pages historical merely adds confusion to the process. The Recall pages do nothing more than create a central location for those admin available for recall to list themselves and their criteria. If you have a problem with the use of the recall process, take it up with the individual admin/editor. Marking an active process "historical" because you don't like the actions of a few admins/editors isn't the point of historical. If you're wanting to "fix" the problem, ensure each admin who is available for recall has explicit instructions set up. - auburn pilot   talk  18:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What in Wikimedia does the irony of who nominated have to do with the merits of this discussion. To be perfectly honest, if you want to discuss the irony of the nominator, put that shit off topic stuff on the talk page of this discussion.  I honestly get so sick of reminding my comrades and teamates here to stop attempting to poison the well.  When you start doing that, its time to hold short.  NonvocalScream (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you know very well what I meant by the irony, but that statement was merely the first eight words of a valid opposition to your nomination. It was not an attempt to poison the well, and I simply found it ironic. - auburn pilot   talk  19:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you feel the need to include the irony of the nominator into this discussion? You see what that does, no?  I respect you as an editor, and I know from previous interactions that you are intelligent, hard working, and experienced on this project.  That you know what type of weight that kind of comment would have, intentionally or unintentionally.  NonvocalScream (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely didn't mean for it to be the focus of any discussion, and was merely stating my amusement at the irony. As it seems you've taken offense, I apologize and have struck that part of my comment. - auburn pilot   talk  19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It is not totally you, it has happened in the past and I guess I've grown tired in that regard.  I happened once on the WP:IPBLOCK policy when I first proposed it.  I apologize for my large reaction as well, it was too much.  NonvocalScream (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. We should rather forbid discourage "Will you be open to recall?" questions on RFA's. --Conti|✉ 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Voluntary restrain was also pushed back in the beginning when Lar was routinely adding it to RFAs, and yet you'd be hard pressed to find an RFA in the last year that went the entire time without someone asking about AOR. Dragons flight (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine somehow escaped it. TravellingCari  04:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not just me at first, but yes, I did. I was wrong about that. I've since changed my tune, and strongly oppose asking the question or requiring a certain answer as a prerequisite for a vote. It did get the category off the ground ... the category now has 180+ members, which is what, just over 10%? ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Problems at RfA should be sorted out at RfA. The nominators suggestion won't work anyway. If the category is deleted and all sub-pages are marked historical an admin can still be open to recall independently, and users can ask at RfA "Will you be open to recall?", and oppose if the answer is no. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Deletion. NonvocalScream took the words right out of my mouth, literally.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - the category is merely a place to record details and deleting it will not have any effect on the recall process. The historical template is for use on pages that aren't used anymore which clearly doesn't apply here. There is no point deleting something which is used by a large number of editors because some people use it inappropriately at RFA - that is an issue to be sorted out at RFA, not here. This is the fourth time that this category has been nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 19:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If this page is correct, it has been nominated for deletion three previous times (resulting in: no consensus, keep, and deletion) and undeleted by DR once. For the sake of openness, I was the nominator in the first discussion in 2006.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others have said, if people are misbehaving at RFA, then address the people or fix RFA.  Deleting everything that gets abused at RFA is not the solution.  Plus, removing the category won't stop people from asking "Will you be open to recall?".  They can still ask that.  We just won't be able to categorize those who say "Yes" in response.  •  I also can't help but think that, if the community-at-large has effectively started to require AOR to become an admin, then perhaps that reflects consensus and AOR should be promoted to guideline status.  Wikipedia rules are supposed to reflect consensus (descriptive, not prescriptive), right?  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not recall creating this category at all... Seems like I crated it this time last year... :o Mind going blank... -- Cat chi? 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yours was the very first edit. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You were retitling it. The original history is here.--chaser (away) - talk 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! And I almost felt significant in this discussion. :P -- Cat chi? 10:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per above? Per something else? Huh? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep but close as historical While I think AOR is not viable and am a huge critic of it, I don't think it should be deleted.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reconsidered: The reality is that even if an admin never signs up for AOR, they are still subject to the community's whims. Take an admin to RfC/ANI and call for his/her head, and you can exhert just as much pressure on the admin to resign as you can via AOR.  In fact, I suspect that we've had more admins step down over the past year due to pressure from these avenue than we have from AOR.  AOR's primary role and appearance is in RfA's, where it is used as a badgering tool to get people to commit to sign up for a bad idea or face opposes.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Just to make my position clear, Delete or Historicize preferably delete.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep ... as per usual. We should rather: discourage asking "will you" questions in RfAs, discourage opposes for answering no, encourage admins who choose to join to firm up their criteria and process, encourage admins not to join it lightly, reminding them that the community will not look kindly on wiggling, and encourage admins to abide by their committments, without wiggling. A CfD does none of those things. My committment to be recallable survives the category in any case. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The encourage / discourage language is rather empty. Would you support a ban on asking about AOR at RFA?  Dragons flight (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean as in "If you mention the word Recall in an RfA you're banned from en:wp" Um, no. But I bet you don't mean that. What do you mean, though? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. Do we have "bans" on any other sorts of questions? why or why not? That might guide us. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean introducing a practice at RFA that questions asking about AOR are to be kindly but firmly removed (unless the candidate mentions it first). Dragons flight (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd support that. You can't unmake an omelette though, once asked, it can't be unasked. If I happen to spot a discussion seeking consensus on that, I'm happy to support. But still... do we have bans on other sorts of questions? ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but if the USDA issues a recall on eggs, damned if you won't figure out a way. [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px|]]. — CharlotteWebb 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I don't get stuff. This is one of those times because I'm not sure what you're trying to say. ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lar. I don't much like it, but am in it. Sigh. It's the worst option except for all the others. Jehochman Talk 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; this is a dispute resolution which has never actually resolved a substantial dispute and has little prospect of doing so in the future. At the same time, it has managed to spawn multiple new, time-consuming disputes. A dismal failure. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep whether the category is deleted or not users administrators will still be able to be open to recall and AOR questions will still be raised on every RFA. - Icewedge (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - If you're a candidate at RFA that is truly worried about AOR's supposed "divisive and destructive influence", it's time to talk your doctor about ulcers. &mdash; scetoaux (T | C)  23:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept of voluntary recall is still a good one. The trick is coming up with criteria that allow it to work as the volunteer intends, rather than just being gamed by opponents. --Elonka 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Conceptly may be valid, but experience shows that recall process is easily gamed by the volunteer. Per WP:HONESTY lets not have a system in place that encourages an admin to  say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument.  Shot info (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark as historical. Per the nomination, and the comments at Administrators' noticeboard. As I argued there: the existence of this category gives the 'recall system' a sense of formality, uniformity and certainty that simply is not appropriate. There is no standardised 'recall process': this category encompasses many different admins with numerous different criteria for recall, and different opinions on whether they would actually go through with it. As it is, the existence of this category misleads people into thinking that any admin in this category can be recalled by the community if misbehaving, which is not necessarily the case. As a result, people frequently oppose candidates at WP:RFA for not adding themselves to this category, despite the fact that doing so means precisely nothing; and this leads RFA candidates to add themselves to the category without necessarily having any intention to go through the recall 'process'. I therefore agree that the existence of this category has a pervasive and destructive influence, and it should be deleted. (And as an after-thought: it has little or no use as a navigational category anyway. Why would you ever need to look through a list of admins who are 'open to recall'? I can't think of any good-faith reason to do so.) Terraxos (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At last count, the redlinked Category:Rouge admins still lists 20 members. I wonder if CAT:AOTR will have a better retention rate... ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At least that category means something, I think. — CharlotteWebb 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a voluntary "process". The main issue of "misuse" that I see is that the idea of "voluntary" has been abused by those commenting at RfA, by including it in "personal requirements" for supporting a candidate. If that becomes frowned upon (as I believe it is, or at least should be), then it's merely a personal choice, no different than anyone referring/deferring to an essay. If someone disingenuously decides to not follow it, in particular, after their personal recall requirements seem to have been met, then that's their choice, but just as any choice, repercussions may follow such a choice. And since adminship is about trust, I would think that other measures would likely follow shortly after. But again, just because this optional process can be (and apparently has been) abused by some, that doesn't mean that it should be deleted for all. (Can anyone here name a single process on Wikipedia that hasn't been misused or abused?) - jc37 04:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd argue that it is better to assess if the recall process itself is worth preserving before nominating the category for deletion. That's a whole different discussion though, and one that's probably more suitable on either the AOR talkpage or at AN. At this point in time though, I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with an admin submitting themselves to a voluntary process if they so desire. As for the discussion around it being a suitable question for RfA, I would suggest that WT:RFA would be a better venue for discussion. Once the discussion reaches consensus on whether or not AOR itself should be kept, either at AN or elsewhere, then I'd suggest restarting this CfD. As it is now, the whole thing feels premature.  Gazi moff  09:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The proecess was kaputt from the start. Per NonvocalScream. --Cameron* 09:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Strangely.  I very much supported this when it was set up, but my thinking has changed dramatically over the years.  This category is divisive, and viewed from one historical perspective one could argue that is its very intent. The arguments for and against are very well defined, and I doubt we'll see a consensus emerge this time around either but I would like to ask one pointed question to every person who has suggested we keep this category:  Do you believe the only admins open to recall are those so categorised?   If the answer is no, this category is useless, since it does not meet its stated purpose. I know the answer is no because I am not categorised within it. Therefore the category is useless. Hiding T 09:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is "no", of course, but I don't see why the category is therefore useless. With that reasoning, we could just as well delete Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, right? --Conti|✉ 11:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't either. The fact that a category isn't complete is not a reason to delete it. Hut 8.5 11:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of the category? The purpose of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks is to find those admins willing to make difficult blocks when you need someone to make a difficult block.  Are you suggesting this category is needed when we need to find an admin to recall?  Oh, User:Hiding is acting badly, I'll just go and nominate User:Lar for recall?  It doesn't work, it is apples and oranges.  This category is useless because all admins are open to recall.  What does this category actually do?  Very little.  Any user who wants to recall an admin needs simply to start an RFC.  You only need two users to agree and you are away.  This category puts an extra bar in front of the process and divides.  It says, we are better than those other admins, even though they are not.  All admins are open to recall.  This category is therefore redundant, because to fulfill its stated purpose it would simply be a category of admins. As I have stated above, historically, one can view this category as being created for a divisive purpose.  It is divisive.  It is flawed.  It does not achieve its goal. Hiding T 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "this category ... created for a divisive purpose. It is divisive. It is flawed. It does not achieve its goal." -- So, um, it doesn't achieve its goal of being divisive? I don't mean for you to take this personally, but I find myself lost in the self-serving pseudo-logic you've employed in your comments. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm not explaining myself well, just say so. Let me try again. What is the goal of this category? If it is to categorise admins open to recall, well, all admins are open to recall, so it must fail that purpose. No, looking at the the way you quote me, you seem to be missing a key contextual phrase, that from a historical perspective this category can be viewed to have been created to foster divisiveness. Is that the intended purpose, for all that so categorise themselves there? Are they even aware of the historical events that led to the creation of this category? I don;t know. It is not my contention that the stated purpose of this category is to be divisive. It is my contention that one historical reading of the creation of the category was to divide. Whether that is the stated purpose of the category I leave to others to decide. If I'm still not being clear, I'm perfectly hap[py to try again. My real point is this. The category is both useless and divisive. It is useless because all admins are open to recall. It is divisive because it implies those not categorised here are not open to recall, when they are. Does that help? Hiding T 12:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite all right, I understood your point to begin with. I just disagree with the reasoning that this category is useless, since it is a sign of commitment to a voluntary recall based on individual criteria. So for the admins listed in that category, it is a useful and unobtrusive indicator, and for people interested in the voluntary recall process it proves to be a convenient hub. The argument that it is divisive because it implies that uncategorized admins aren't open to recall doesn't make any sense, since it is each admin's prerogative what to put on their userpage. I'm not aware of any mandatory categories for admins, even Category:Wikipedia administrators is voluntary - yet by your logic it would also count as divisive. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don;t follow your logic at all. You seem to be saying that because an apple should be picked in October, an orange should be picked then too.  Instead of making bad comparisons which do not work, we should stick to the discussion at hand.  Why is this category divisive?  Because it implies that any admin who does not wish to categorise themselves within rejects the ideals espoused by the category.  It implies that the standard on Wikipedia is that admins are not open to recall.  This is the reason this category is bad, because by implication it states that some admins are untouchable.  This is simply not the case. If you examine the history of this category and events leading up to its creation, you can argue that it was created in order to create such a divide because it was felt by those creating the category that some admins were in fact untouchable. This was not the case, never has been and never will be.  Admins are not untouchable.  All admins are open to recall.  Having this category implies some admins are not open to recall, which is not the case and is therefore wrong.  To compare to your example of Category:Wikipedia administrators, such a category would only be wrong and divisive in the same manner if all users on Wikipedia were admins. It would still not create as much of an issue.  Imagine I were to create Category:Wikipedia administrators who are not racist? This category is quite possibly, in relation to admins, the perfect enunciation on Wikipedia of the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" As to the idea that it is each admin's prerogative as to what to place on their user page, this is not entirely the whole of the matter.  User page content is limited to what the community feels is appropriate.  The community can decide that this is inappropriate conduct.  Therefore that argument is somewhat redundant and besides the point.  We should not maintain the status quo simply because it is the status quo. We should in fact do what betters Wikipedia.  Recognising that RFC is the best recourse for admin recall is better for Wikipedia than creating an artificial divide. Hiding T 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all admins are open to recall; no, all processes of recall are not the same. I'm not sure that everyone realizes that RFC is the best recourse for admin recall -- I, for one, would disagree. Your implication that CAT:AOTR somehow suggests that some admins are untouchable simply does not follow from the facts at hand, it appears to be a subjective judgment on your behalf. To make a colorful analogy: if thirty percent of an object is white, that does not imply that the other seventy percent is black. CAT:AOTR has (apparently) been deemed useful by some 190 admins who've added themselves to the list, that does not necessarily mean that the rest of the admin constituency finds it useless or are somehow harmed by its existence. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything in life is subjective. As to the implication, you'd have to ask if Aaron set the category up because he felt Tony was untouchable. I'd contend that was a major factor in his thinking. As to whether the other admins are harmed, isn't the proposition exactly that this category biases RFA debates and in fact harms potential admins?  Isn't it also a contention of a number of admins in the many debates this category has sparked that it does indeed have connotations for them given they choose not to so categorise? I would submit my contentions fit the facts a lot better than you allow, and that a number of admins and admin candidates find it unhelpful at best. Hiding T 14:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, a lot of this plays into the reasons why I left this category. I don't want to be put in the position of trying to judge who six or five good faith editors are.  I don't want to be put in the position of deciding if they have just cause.  I don't want all the trolling and discussions that can ensue from such a process.  It's counter-productive.  I always had it in my head that I'd just point people to RFC or arb-com, in fact I pretty much indicated this way back when I posted this to my talk page, . Over time I have decided I just don't feel it is the right way to go forwards.  If two people can start an RFC, why make the limit 6?  If you decide when push comes to shove you don't actually want to be recalled, then what do you do?  By listing myself here, I'm pretty much signing up to an ideal that I don't have to agree with.  The ideal is that I will walk if people want me to.  The issue is that the terms are so subjective any admin can simply declare their criteria has not been met and, well, and that's that./  I'd rather point people to the proper channels up front.  This in no way means I am not open to recall.  It just means I will not be brow-beaten into it, nor will I be brow-beaten into a decision on my own behaviour.  I will stand or fall on my edits and actions, and I will defend them as and when i see fit and do so through the correct procedures for so doing, with neutral parties determining the outcome.  Whether that happens to be Jimbo, Arb-Com or my peers is irrelevant.  That's what will happen, and having a category tag missing from my talk page doesn't make me any different from the admin's so categorised. Therefore I can't really see the point of the category, unless you wish to make the distinction into some sort of WP:POINT. I don't see the value in it.  Especially if, when push comes to shove, you can't actually walk the walk.  Yes, this is all subjective, but life is subjective.  That doesn't make it any less informed, or any less right. Hiding T 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) You've thoroughly explained your distaste for the recall process. I don't see why this view necessitates the deletion of a category, however I'm inclined to summarize our discussion as resulting in an intractable difference of opinion and leave it at that. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair play. Would you really support Category:Accountable Wikipedia administrators? How about Category:Trustworthy Wikipedia administrators? How about Category:More trustworthy Wikipedia administrators? If you wouldn't support those categories, you have no business supporting this one, because that is what it is for. And if you do support those categories, well... Best, and peace, . WHOA NELLIE. I have not outlined my distaste for the recall process.  I have outlined my distaste for this category, and I would like that statement retracted.  This is exactly the mentality I am arguing against.  I do not and have never opposed recall.  I would hope even Lar would back me up on that. My point is that this is not the recall process.  This is not even a recall process.  It is merely a category.  Hiding T 09:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that you are against recall in general. Allow me to rephrase: You've thoroughly explained your distaste of the recall process currently associated with this category and its use as leverage in RfA discussions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I apologise for misreading you. I take it you'd like me to stop expanding on my distaste now? ;) Hiding T 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The category is useful because you can go to User:Akhilleus (random example) and see that this user is open to recall. Of course, a userbox or a hand written typed message would serve the same purpose, but I don't see much of a difference there. As for the general question whether all admins are open to recall.. I doubt all admins would agree with you there, and I don't think it's used as some kind of "I'm better than you" message, either. It'd be nice if all admins were open to some kind of recall process, but alas, that's not the case yet. You can just ignore any RfC about you (or get it deleted because of technicalities), and the only step left then is arbitration. --Conti|✉ 12:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All admins are open to recall. Any user who wants to recall an admin needs merely to start an RFC for that stated purpose. Therefore I don't understand your suggestion that not all admins are open to recall. That's another reason why this category is a bad idea.  It implies that it is the only process for recalling admins.  It is distorting what is actually possible on Wikipedia. It seems to confuse people into believeing the power of consensus is limited in certain ways on Wikipedia.  Hiding T 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure if I understand your point. Of course you can start an RfC for the stated purpose of an admin recall. But as I said, the admin in question is free to ignore that RfC, even if there are 100 people asking that admin to resign. Anyhow, we could simply explain on Administrators open to recall that it is not the only process for recalling admins, in case there's any confusion about that. I don't get it yet, tho, how an RfC can be used as a recall process. --Conti|✉ 12:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've seriously lost me here.  If 100 editors support the removal of the bit from an admin, and they form an undeniable majority, you seem to suggest this will not be acted upon by those with the power to remove that particular admin's bit.  I submit that that would not be the case. Jimbo or arb-com would take notice of such an rfc and take the appropriate action.  Wikipedia is ruled by consensus.  That's recognised in every policy page written.  It is implicit in the social contract between all editors.  It is, to me, impossible that such a vocal majority would be ignored, since the ramifications are enormous. Hiding T 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course (or rather, hopefully) something would happen in such a case. But that's because Jimbo or ArbCom or a Steward would step in and take away the admin's bit, whether the admin agrees with it or not. It's not a voluntary recall process. Administrators open to recall, on the other hand, is. The idea is to voluntarily resign your bit if the community agrees it is a good idea, without having to involve Jimbo or ArbCom in any way. Maybe we just have a different definition of "All admins are open to recall". If you mean that it is actually possible to lose your admin bit, then yes, all admins are open to recall. Not all admins are open to a voluntary recall, tho, which is what I meant. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But now we get into another reason why this category is useless. Because not all admins who have so categorised here turn out to be voluntarily open to recall.  Therefore this category is disruptive, since it allows politicking, and is somewhat useless. We cannot count on it to mean what it purports to mean. Hiding T 14:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a problem, but, once again, that doesn't make the entire idea of a voluntary recall useless, IMHO. I fail to see the disruption. Or rather, I fail to see how this category is disruptive (and not those people that add themselves to it and then don't do what they promised to do). --Conti|✉ 17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well take a look at User:Lar/catmsg. Lar, describing himself as one of the developers of the category, here states that part of the reason the category exists is "as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall". That means the admins in that category should be trusted more than admins like me. That means they are in some way more worthy than me.  That means a divide is created, and means there is disruption on Wikipedia, since I, and a vast other number of admins on Wikipedia, are not to be as trusted as the admins in this category.  This again plays into why I left the category.  For me, It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. It isn't about listing yourself in categories, or making the biggest speech, or editing the most articles.  It's about the way you interact, the way you improve the encyclopedia, the way you treat others.  You don't earn trust by listing yourself in a category, you earn trust by trusting other people.  You earn trust by never betraying it.  Am I more or less trustworthy than the admins in that category?  I don't know.  But apparently Lar does, without ever looking at my balance sheet. Is that fair?  Is that right?  Is that trusting?  Is that just?  Is that disruptive?  I guess I kind of think so, yes. I'm being labelled for nothing more than not adding a category tag to my user page. Is that really the sort of thing we want to encourage on Wikipedia?  Is that really not divisive? Maybe I'm the only admin this bothers.  Fair play.  But I owe it to myself to speak up. Hiding T 09:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Although Elonka disappointed me and keeps disappointing me (even with her thread here articulating poor arguments about some guys "gaming" the system [?!]), and has lost any sense of credibility (concerning her not keeping her word, and not the main issue of the RfC on her), and I believe she should remove her name from the category and keep a distance from it, I am still a strong supporter of the recall procedure per my arguments in the AN. Jenochman and Lar covered me there; I just repeat here that I believe in the ethical dimension this procedure exhibits: sysops ready to undertake their responsibilities and listen to the Community's voice before being forced to do so by ArbCom. ArbCom has still the right to act on its one, and undertake a case already through recall procedure. But these are two different things: ArbCom will do its job, and we'll do ours as members of this category. I know the dangers; I know that the system can be "gamed", but this is a risk me and others are willing to take, trusting the Community and believing in the safety valves we set on our own. I also know that many revered editors of this project (strongly) disagree with my point of view, but, although I carefully listen to their arguments, I still believe that burying this category and setting a gravestone on it ("historical category"!) is going to be a great loss for the project.


 * The fact that Elonka disappointed us does not mean that we should try to heal this trauma with a second disappointment in a row. The people setting and organizing this category believed in ideals, such as self-commitment and honor. These ideals are indeed traumatized; but burying the category constitutes an official declaration that we should bury these ideals as well, and disappoint all these users who believed in them and in the notion that this project can work based on them.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Being one of those who "set and organized this category and believed in ideals", let me say that I do not believe deleting this category betrays those ideals. Instead, I believe keeping it betrays those ideals.  It betrays teh idea that the community is empowered to act against admins.  It implies there is a bureaucracy preventing such a thing, when its very existence in fact entrenches the idea. Hiding T 12:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, the main purpose of deletion seems to be that users are beaten over the head with it in RFAs, and it's fairly clear that'll still happen either way. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any admin candidate who is asked about this category at an RFA can feel free to point to WP:RECALLME. That should solve any issues, shouldn't it? Hiding T 13:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depending on who you ask, "recall" is either a suicide pact or an elaborate inside joke. There is no in-between. Personally I think it's a crock of holier-than-thou bullshit which (a) honest admins are coerced into joining because they happen to be stupid enough to think it will help keep them honest, and (b) corrupt admins willfully join because they are stupid enough to think it will help them at least look honest. However it is a fool's paradise for everyone involved as the entirely voluntary at-will this-week-only until-further-notice nature of it punishes integrity and rewards skulduggery, without even exposing the difference until it's too late. — CharlotteWebb 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy. I've been in it from the get go... since before it WAS a category. I am neither stupid nor corrupt, last time I checked. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Stupid" is not part of the dichotomy. There do exist both honest and corrupt people who aren't stupid, just to clarify. Oh, delete by the way. — CharlotteWebb 21:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is part of your dichotomy. It's actually in both A and B... you're calling everyone who's in it either honest and stupid or dishonest and stupid. Again, false dichotomy, because you omitted honest and not stupid (as well as dishonest and not stupid). Unless you ARE calling everyone in it stupid. If you want to call me idealistic, I'm fine with that, but I'm not stupid. Nothing personally taken, trust me. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you pronounce "tomato". Let's call the whole thing off. — CharlotteWebb 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing more than a political tool to assist in passing RfAs that is usually disregarded the moment one passes. There are probably a few people that would have the guts and integrity to honour their promises, but on the other hand it is probably better for them if they are not lumped in the same group as those that are clearly devoid of principles or ethics. That said I don't hold any of the naive faith displayed by some above in the power of AN/I or RFC. The sad truth is that it is almost impossible for the community to remove the bits from admins that are patently abusive or consistently foolish. c.f. Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV.  naerii  18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just what I tried to explain above, to nobody in particular though Lar seems to be taking it very personally. The people who have the integrity to honour their promises are the ones we really shouldn't be sacking, and the others shouldn't have been selected in the first place, but we don't ever know these things until after the fact. — CharlotteWebb 21:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Na.... you can call my baby ugly all day long and I'm fine with that. :) If you think I'm taking it personally, let me apologise in advance. I don't think I am. I just think you're wrong. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka is actually the first person not to resign after a recall request meeting the criteria. See Administrators open to recall/Past requests. Hut 8.5 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what people don't seem to get is that the only good reason to recall somebody is if they're abusive, and why on earth would an abusive administrator honour their promises? They're abusive, lying and manipulating is what they do. If someone willingly submits to recall without moving the goalposts and creating a fuss then they're probably the kind of person we should be keeping.  naerii  22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait until the results of the RFA Review come in, then decide whether there is support or not to keep or delete.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the process has become a platform for editors with an axe to grind.  Yes, the category is somewhat irrelevant anyways since any administrator may be recalled at any given time, regardless of whether or not they are in the category.  But, it is one of those "principle of the thing" items in that if an administrator places themselves in the category, it gives a stronger perception of accountability to the community, in my opinion.  --Winger84 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See, this really gets my goat. You imply I was more accountable for the actions I preformed during my two listings in the category than for all those performed when not listed in the category. Like Lar my membership predates the category.  My accountability dates to the day I got my bit.  My accountability postdates my leaving it.  My accountability is not and should never be based on my membership of a category, and people should not base their perception of accountability upon category membership.  Should we view members of Category:Wikipedia administrators as somehow more accountable?  Because it has been suggested above this category is no different to that category.  Really, and this is venting rather than directed at you, Winger84, it would be nice if we could all at least get on the same page.  Either this category makes a distinction or it doesn't.  And for those who admit it does, it'd be nice to hear why I shouldn't take it as a stain on my character that you perceive me different when I am in the category from when I am out of it. Now I ain't stupid, so I can see there isn't going to be a consensus to delete, but seeing as how some feel free to perceive me as different based on my category membership, I figure I'm entitled to perceive them less than perhaps they are. Think about it.  Would anyone here really support Category:Accountable Wikipedia administrators? How about Category:Trustworthy Wikipedia administrators?  How about Category:More trustworthy Wikipedia administrators?  If you wouldn't support those categories, you have no business supporting this one.  And if you do support those categories, well... Best, and peace, Hiding T 09:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I am not thrilled with the whole idea-- it has not necessarily fixed the problem it was intended to, it is still a optional category for admins to join, and there are significant numbers who see it as important. That some oppose or support based on one's willingness to so designate oneself just goes to show it is still alive and and valid. Winger puts it well. cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Though I'm not opposed to the idea, I am concerned that it is becoming an expectation. It should be a completely voluntary process, and you shouldn't be put on the spot if you don't want to do it.  SunDragon34 (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the pretence of it being a voluntary category (like the pretence of optional questions), anybody who doesn't volunteer to put themselves in this category is harming their chances at RfA. It is effectively a back door policy change. Those who want all admins to be open to recall can't win the policy debate, but they don't have to. By asking potential admins about this category, they can make it a de-facto policy with as few as 20 supporters. Mayalld (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Administrators who may be open to recall, or may not be. You'll never know unless you try. to accurately describe the category. Wily D  14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This category is pretty useless. As it stands, it simply outlines administrators open to a policy I don't recognize; therefore the category should be deleted as well. An entire category is not necessary to document several administrators' philosophies. NSR 77  T C  18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh, come on. Per the above, particularly the comment about ulcers. SQL Query me!  18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, now proven useless, and I regrained from opposing several RfAs based on this false premise. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and this from an admin who is not in the category due to concerns about the possibility of abuse, and thinks an overhaul of the process is badly needed. However, I strongly discourage the "are you open to recall" question at RFAs, also.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a volintary catagory. If you don't want to be a part of it simply remove yourself from it. Personally I were an admin I wouldn't join, but I would not hold that against those that do. I realize that this system is not too effective, but there are legitamate concerns about the inability to de-admin anyone on wikipedia --T-rex 00:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I can't stand this cat. I can't stand most of the Admin cats.  Maybe I just don't like cats, I'm a dog person.  I quite openly refused to tie myself to this during my RfA (not to say I won't quit if asked, but that's not a definable process).  I think it's use in RfAs is unfortunate, but the perceived divisiveness of the cat and the lack of usefulness for search purposes are more credible arguments.  Maybe some non-admin will join the cat (maybe to get a jump on her RfA), someone can block her, and then the blocking admin can be recalled, or we could delete the cat in the middle and save the blocking admin from the agony of having to find a clerk able to count to six and simply RFAR and desysop the uncivil, power hungry bastard - Better yet, let's figure it out now and get rid of him before he initiates the block!  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I really like CAATTS--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful what you say next. Us cats have a legacy to consider...  -- Cat chi? 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Some adminstrators join this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Message From Xenu (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be causing more problems than it's worth and it's unneeded. Banj e  b oi   21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Have any admins actually been recalled through this process?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage</b> 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. And the reason for recall was something that the editor could resolve via talking with me.  Instead, we remove the bit from folks.  This is why the process is a bit divisive.  I'm biased I'll admit.  NonvocalScream (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bias noted. How many others beside you have been successfully recalled?--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a hand maintained record. Located in the Akashic records. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think anyone here is a fan of the integrity (or lack thereof) of the recall process, but as I opined in the previous CSD, I think it's relatively useful to see which admins currently subscribe to this farce (their ranks, btw, include a number of editors I deeply respect)--that, after all, is the purpose of a category. Now, if you'll allow me to mount my soapbox, The Fat Man is a huge supporter of compulsory WP:AMR as an alternative to well-meaning but toothless (and largely disingenuous) propositions like this one.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This either needs to be a formal process or it needs to go. It's arbitrary, the rules can be changed at any moment, and it generally only serves to further divisiveness and hurt feelings. Seems to me that a formal process (Requests for deadminship?) would be a better venue so accusations of gaming the system will be moot. A  ni  Mate  21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depopulate and move to Wikipedia: namespace, then clearly and conspicuously mark as not for RfAs. It is a voluntary process, so it shouldn't hold any meaning to RfA voters.  Much of the Wikipedia: space is unofficial, and deleting/ marking as historical this page won't change the fact that many admins are, in fact open to recall.  Having said that, I don't see the purpose of a category given that if you want to recall an admin, you should already know which admin you want to recall (and hence don't need a list of recallables).  You would only need to know whether the admin in question is recallable, which a userbox/notice on the admin's user page could accomplish just fine.  You don't need a list unless you're recalling at random, which IMHO is in bad faith.  --Thinboy00's  sockpuppet  alternate account 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, but Keep associated Wikipedia: ns pages (which I clearly forgot the existence of). Mark those as I said above.  --Thinboy00's  sockpuppet  alternate account 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I just noticed the "holier than thou" argument above (yes, I'm blind), and I feel that it strengthens my !vote: Since anyone can add him(/her)self to this cat with unreasonable requirements, it doesn't really define a "trusted sector" of the admin community. Presence in a cat, as a rule, shouldn't define trustworthiness, even if the cat is for something like this, unless the rules behind the cat have teeth (for example, a cat of admins demonstrates trust, but a cat of people who made an unbinding promise really doesn't).  Since that appears to be the only reason to have an actual cat or list, and since its members aren't bound by any hard and fast rules, I feel the cat no longer needs to exist because it doesn't actually define who can be trusted, though the process certainly should continue to exist.  Does anyone have any ideas about this?  --Thinboy00's  sockpuppet  alternate account 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the category, but ban from RFAs this kind of process, in itself, is a moderately ok ideal, If you want to be open for recall, then sure, people who believe in this can add themselves to the cat. The fundimental flaw with such a thing is that when asked in a RFA, it becomes a very hard to say no. The problem with such a question is that when the question is answered no the asker and many others automatically assume that you are untrustworthy to be presented with adminship and oppose your RFA, whereas there may be other reasons as to respond in such a way. This leads the recipient of the question to either lie and say yes, or write a long (and sometimes generic) statement on how the entire process is fundimentally flawed and how you would rather to discuss problems first then taking the desysop first, talk later approach. The question is really irrelivent, its more of a different way of asking Can we trust you?, which in itself, is a really dumb question to ask because barring the phycological "<Phycoligist> says past behavior is a good indicator of future action" (which should be ovious anyway) you really can't tell if a person is lying or not (as if they would say No, of course not, I'm just here to get power and ruin Wikipedia). —Atyndall &#91;citation needed&#93; 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- This allows normal Wikipedians to know which admin has not done a good job. It should remain for accountability sake. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

'''Proposal to allow Stewards to deadmin noncompliant sysops is here. (crossposting across noticeboards). NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete, category has historically been full of lies and I see no reason to believe that will change in the future. --Random832 (contribs) 00:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - This is now "officially" closable. I'm not going to be closing it... prefer to avoid any appearance of COI here, but it looks like either a keep or a no consensus keep to me. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just left a notice at WT:AOR - I don't think anyone left a note there previously about this category being up for deletion. Maybe it might be best to see if those who have WP:AOR watchlisted want to weigh in here? I would have closed this, but as I've just proposed a new recall system (sort of) and want to see the current system kept, then I guess I can't close either. I would say no consensus, with a pointer that people should really decide whether they want CAT:AOR deleted, or WP:AOR, or both, and try and nominate both next time. Also, I'm thinking that even though it started as a category (did it?) an MfD of the WP namespace page, with a notice at the category page, might have been a better way to proceed. When a category produced by a template needs deleting, the discussion takes place at TfD, not CfD. Oh, and even more to the point, shouldn't this have been at User categories for discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Southern rock bands et al
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Southern rock bands to Category:Southern rock groups


 * Propose renaming Category:Street punk bands Category:Street punk groups


 * Propose renaming Category:Flamenco bands Category:Flamenco groups


 * Propose renamingCategory:Klezmer bands Category:Klezmer groups
 * Nominator's rationale: Almost all other subcategories of Category:Musical groups by genre use "groups" instead of bands. These are the only ones that use "bands" (except "Big bands", which should stay because "Band" is part of the genre name), and they should be renamed to match the others. Furthermore, I feel "group" is more inclusive than "band".  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support When I created the Southern Rock Bands category, I was not aware of the naming convention. Let's rename this to stick with the convention so everything is the right place and easier to find.JeffStickney (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Machine tools
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Machine tools to Category:Metalworking tools
 * Nominator's rationale: These two current categories encompass the same types of articles. According to the machine tool article machine tools are "powered mechanical device, typically used to fabricate metal components of machines by machining". Based on that description I don't see why the two can't be merged. Wizard191 (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Object: Category:Metalworking tools is broader; it also includes Category:Metalworking hand tools, and the latter is quite different from Category:Machine tools. `'Míkka>t 18:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Category:Machine tools be broader than Category:Metalworking tools? Metalworking tools are just that, tools that work on metal; whereas machine tools doesn't have the metal qualifier. --Wizard191 (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Object. Machine tools machine things (example: Lathe). Metalworking tools work on metal. (example: Tin snips). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are not overlapping categories.  Category:Machine tools actually should be a child of Category:Metalworking and Category:Woodworking.  Machine tools are not limited to working on metal.  I believe that they are used used on plastics and composite materials as well as metal and wood. Category:Machine tools and Category:Metalworking tools do not share a parent child relationship.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned on TV last night that machine tools are also used on clay, Who would have thunk? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it as is -- Machine tools is a familiar descriptive category to me. The definition uses the word "typically", suggesting there are cases where other materials are worked, for example wood or plastic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Occupational safety
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

occupational safety
 * Merge into Category:Occupational safety and health. I have to admit I'm perplexed by the coterminous existence of these two very similar categories since 2004, with the narrower of the two categories serving as the parent cat to what is arguably the broader category, Category:Occupational safety and health. Unless there is something I'm just not seeing here, there's no good reason to maintain both of these categories.   Cgingold (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:Occupational safety and health. Unnecessary duplicate. — Satori Son 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as duplicate per nom, though I would have phrased the original one "health and safety", if anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Occupational health and safety" is the more common term in the US. Not sure about elsewhere. — Satori Son 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really?? You might want to drop a note to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and let them know that they got the name wrong. :) Cgingold (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, 'cause the United States Congress is just a fountain of thoughtful, well-researched decisions and always gets everything just perfect... Seriously, I know OSHA is very prominent in the US, I was simply referring to general usage unrelated to the organization itself. It's fine with me either way, though, and your merge proposal is quite sound. — Satori Son 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't referring to U.S. usage at all. I'm not American, nor do I live there. It was just a comment in passing, though; I don't think changing it is necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so there's no confusion, I wasn't being at all sarcastic -- I was just very amused at the thought of telling OSHA that they got their name wrong. Maybe I should have gone with "LOL" instead of a ":)"? Cgingold (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I realised that at the time, though the discussion that followed seemed a bit tongue-in-cheek. It certainly wasn't troubling me or anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries at all! — Satori Son 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Transportation ministers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Transportation ministers to Category:Transport ministers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate categories. The "transport" category is older. Parent category Category:Transportation contains some categories that use "transportation" and some that use "transport"; there doesn't seem to be any consistency right now. An immediate parent category is Category:Transport ministries.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, didn't notice that category when I created it. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. --Bhadani (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball merge per all. --Thinboy00's  sockpuppet  alternate account 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Indians at the 2008 Summer Olympics
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * indians at the 2008 summer olympics


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. We do not categorize sportspeople by their nation and Olympics at the same time. There are separate categories for sportspeople of various sports and countries, and categories for sportspeople at specific Olympics, i.e. "Olympic tennis players of India" and "Tennis players at the 2008 Summer Olympics" for example. Darwinek (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per above. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - triple intersection per above (nation, recurring event, year), and not supported by the Olympics wikiproject. Neier (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Categories:Hongkongers by Fooian descent
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 all to Category:Hong Kong people of Fooian descent. Kbdank71 12:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:American Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of American descent
 * Category:Armenian Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Armenian descent
 * Category:Australian Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Australian descent
 * Category:Brazilian Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Brazilian descent
 * Category:British Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of British descent
 * Category:Scottish Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Scottish descent
 * Category:Canadian Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Canadian descent
 * Category:Filipino Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Filipino descent
 * Category:German Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of German descent
 * Category:Macanese Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Macanese descent
 * Category:Pakistani Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Pakistani descent
 * Category:Portuguese Hongkongers to Category:Hongkongers of Portuguese descent
 * Nominator's rationale: as per conventional naming pattern 'Booians of Fooian descent' Mayumashu (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the rename should surely be to Category:Hong Kong people of Fooian descent per the parent Category:Hong Kong people by ethnic or national origin and per substantial precedent away from Booiers. Occuli (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per suggestion by Occuli. Use "Hong Kong people" instead of "Honkongers". (But also would accept rename per nom as mentioned below.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per suggestion by Occuli. - Darwinek (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. But the pattern has been, where possible, to use the plural noun, which provides a slightly shorter name (and slightly less clutter) ie. Americans of Irish descent, Germans of Italian descent.  Mayumashu (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never really agreed with that approach in these descent categories, because it's not universally applicable. Using "Foo people" can be applied fairly universally, and it's the way the ultimate parent categories (the subs of Category:People by nationality) are worded. In this case, it's Category:Hong Kong people, not Category:Hongkongers. Perhaps it's too late to turn back now ... ? Under the circumstances, I'd be fine with either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename as Occuli -- Hongkongers is not a word that I have come across before as far as I remember. Some nationalities (and this is not strictly a nationality) do not have a suitable single word in the form Booians.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.