Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12

December 12

:Category:State terrorism

- del. You cannot base categorization on controversial notions that have no clear, universally accepted definition, unless you really want revert wars all over wikipedia. We already had this kind of problem with :Category:Dictators. mikka (t) 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I do think that the term "terrorism" is used too loosely in general, particularly when used in the context ot the phrase "state-sponsored terrorism". However, that loose (improper) usage isn't a reason to delete the category as such. Courtland 00:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is not with usage, but with definition. If the definition is loose, you never agree what usage is "proper". mikka (t) 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the contents are only tangentially related to the title. For example I don't think classifying the Holocaust as terrorism is appropriate. Genocide is quite different. Rhollenton 06:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Ill-defined, lends itself to POV categorisation. Valiantis 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete' as per Mikka. gidonb 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Energy Subsidies

Unnecessary category. This category has only one entry, which it shares with its parent category. The parent also has only one entry, but i think it might have more general usefulness under the overal heading of economics. (though I am still unsure whether a more appropriate alternative for the parent might also exist already.) Sandpiper 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Convert to article It looks like this was intended to be an article instead of a category was created by someone who wasn't quite clear on the generally accepted distinction between the two. Courtland 00:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Essay. Not a useful start to an article. Rhollenton 06:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Databases by nationality to :Category:Databases by country

"By nationality" should refer to people only. GregorB 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. Rhollenton 06:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

American skyscrapers

:Category:Jewish foods to :Category:Jewish cuisine

To bring the category in line with every other sub-cat of :Category:Cuisine by nationality, which are labeled Japanese cuisine, French cuisine, and the like. LordAmeth 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- While debatably a people/nationality/race/ethnicity, I still vote rename for continuity's sake. --Hersch 22:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nom gidonb 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Massachusetts-related stubs to :Category:Massachusetts stubs

In accordance with stub policy to remove -related from stub category names.--Mark Adler (Markles) 14:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename but I don't think it is an improvement. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) :
- Why isn't it an improvement? --Mark Adler (Markles) 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Hebrew Bible

This category should not have been created because the VERY comprehensive :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh already exists with many specific sub-categories in it. :NOTE: :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh represents Judaism's beliefs. To use "Hebrew Bible" alone would mean a partial acceptance of a Christian "compromise" by Judaism which would not be truthful. Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through :Category:Old Testament books and :Category:Biblical books (which includes the purely Christian :Category:New Testament). And, in the end, all the above DO fall under :Category:Bible (representing both the Christian and Jewish criteria for the categorization/s). IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this double ASAP, (or perhaps redirect it to :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh). IZAK 11:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Or even better, create :Category:Tanakh as suggested by Olve below, for categorization that would be in keeping with Judaism and since Christianity already has :Category:Bible. IZAK 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to) ... all content in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category should be merged upwards to the Hebrew Bible category. ALKIVAR ™™ 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alkivar: So according to your logic then just leave it at :Category:Bible? And the problem with that would be, how do you indicate the differences between Judaism's and Christianity's views of these Holy books? Furthermore, the point is that :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is not for :Category:Torah (which is only for those articles in the Five Books of the the Torah) and :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is for the remainder -- it's been that way for almost two years now. The problem with just having :Category:Hebrew Bible is it creates too large a category and makes it harder to locate Torah-based articles. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is not what I said... merge upwards to HEBREW BIBLE... there should be a Bible category, within it a Christian sub folder (Christian Bible) ... and a Jewish subfolder (Hebrew Bible)... as both religions have a claim on said book's contents, and different interpretations. The name Tanakh could be a redirect to the Hebrew Bible category (I think category redirects work now?) if not it could be listed as an alternative title on the Hebrew Bible Category page. ALKIVAR ™™ 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alkivar: Firstly: No-one can "re-arrange" historical and religious facts. You are confused, the Hebrew Bible is Judaism's ONE and only Holy book and Jews have ALWAYS called it the Tanakh (similarly, just a small thought, why is Das Kapital always known only by that name???) (See my comments above that Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through :Category:Old Testament books and :Category:Biblical books.) Only a long time later did Christianity come along and decide to take for itself the Jews' Holiest books (that would be called a "copyright infringement" or "plagiarism" in today's legal parlance to be kind) and then they decided that it was to be "replaced" by a "New Testament" and they left the Hebrew Bible "behind". Judaism's view is NOT as you write: "..both religions have a claim on said book's contents" (which is Christianity's argument.) Because you can't "claim" what is not yours to begin with! But leaving historical and theological arguments aside for a moment, please NOTE: "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" is the compromise version, because "Hebrew Bible" alone is still used by Christians as another name for "Old Testament" (see Hebrew Bible article intro: "Hebrew Bible refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons") which is absolutely NOT universally used by Jews. When :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and all it its sub-categories were created in June 2004 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Hebrew_Bible/Tanakh&oldid=4346826] this matter was given a lot of thought and this was meant to bridge the differences and the discussions at Talk:Hebrew Bible which were incorporated. Because there is a lot of information in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh it was necessary to create additional sub-categories to hold all the information. Thus in addition to :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh events; :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people; :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places; :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh prophets, you also have :Category:Torah (for the Humash/Pentateuch); :Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and :Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. Finally: Why are you talking about "sub-folders"? You seem to be confused about how categories work. And by the way, redirects are not usually used for categories. IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Izak, I think you're conflating a few unrelated issues here. First, Tanakh isn't one book but 24, not that this matters here. Second, either the Torah category (if referring strictly to the original five books) should be a subcategory of Tanakh, or, if the latter is restricted to the Prophets and Writings, it ought to be a Nakh category. Third, your analysis above suggests that Christianity developed as a wholly seperate religion before claiming the Jewish bible, which is contrary to fact; depending on your perspective, either Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, or the two are forks from a common origin. That modern Christianity has become a totally different religion than Judaism in no way makes the Hebrew Bible / Tanakh / Old Testament less fundamental to it. That said, this isn't really the place for that discussion. So. Getting to the main claim, by Alkivar, that "policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to)" if true, this would be a compelling reason to rename the existing category. However, that's not what the relevant policy actually states. What is prohibited is a name that uses a slash to suggest a hierarchy. That is, if /Tanakh here were meant to be a subset of Hebrew Bible -- which some have suggested, and which I'll return to in my reply below -- then Hebrew Bible/Tanakh would be out. As an equivalent term, however, there's nothing in the policy to discourage it.24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is, Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)
- Shmuel: See Olve's comments below about how they overcame this conundrum on the Norwegian Wikipedia! We already have a "Nakh category" in two parts: :Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and :Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. I would be overjoyed to have :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh become purely :Category:Tanakh with three main sub-categories (1) :Category:Torah (it's the the T in Tanakh, for Humash information), (2) :Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim should then be renamed :Category:Ketuvim, and (3) :Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im should be :Category:Nevi'im. Finally, your views about "early Christianity" are moot in terms of the reality of things, meaning: Christianity as we know it today, rejects the Jews' views of the Tanakh because for the Christians it has been replaced by the New Testament. It's that simple. The history of Christianity is an exercise in futility at this point, and I certainly hope you are not trying to introduce the arguments of Hebrew Christians here. It is important to see that one cannot be both Christian and Jewish and think that it's "normal" to "unite" opposites, i.e. the conflicting views of how Christianity view the Bible vs. how Judaism views the Tanakh. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- No, I'm not claiming that Christianity and Judaism are compatible in their current forms; they're definitely distinct religions. With that said, Christianity does not hold that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. It does hold that God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant, but it certainly sees the OT as both vital and relevant. Christianity has a different view of the scriptures in question than Judaism does; that doesn't inherently make it a lesser view. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Shmuel: If they maintain that "God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant" they are telling the Jews to "buzz off" -- and no Jew could ever take such a claim seriously. Nice of some of them to think of "the OT as both vital and relevant" but I wonder who you are speaking for or about? Your average Christian thinks that the Jews are the agents of "Satan" a far cry from your detached view of things here. IZAK 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. And move the "/Tanakh" into it. The / in titles creates confusion. Not to sday it is redundant: Tanakh article says that the word denotes nothing but Hebrew Bible. It also says that the words Mikra or Miqra are also used, so by this logic the proper name of the category would be :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Mikra/Miqra. Finally, Hebrew Bible article says that Tanakh is a less neutral term. mikka (t) 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mikha: No-one in their right mind would add "Mikra/Miqra". The word "Tanakh" in this category indicates that it is category according to Judaism because only Jews use the designation Tanakh for the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, Christians do use the name "Hebrew Bible" as another name for the Old Testament which is rejected by Judaism. This is more complicated than it seems. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Use as renaming target This should probably have been listed as a Category-for-renaming from :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh → :Category:Hebrew Bible; whether this now would require a deletion and re-creation I don't know. I agree with the comments on proper titling above. Courtland 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per Courtland and mikka. The contents of the "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" category should be moved into this one. "Hebrew Bible" is a much more recognizable term to the majority of the English-speaking populace, and is arguably a more neutral term as well. LordAmeth 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- LordAmeth: "Hebrew Bible" is "neutral" to non-Jews but not always to Jews, and there is a need to convey the desigantion of the category in a more specific way the way Jews and Judaism would use it too, and "Hebrew Bible" would be insufficient in this case, that is why having "Tanakh" in it is important. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Adooni, when I look up on my shelf, it doesn't say Hebrew Bible it says Tanakh: the Holy Scriptures. Yes, for the record, it's an english translation. I think the goal here should be accuracy, not convenience or what's more generally recognizable. --Hersch 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Tanakh is more precise and should be used. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. Per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No need for it and I agree that including Tanakh is important. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per SlimVirgin. --Yodamace1 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is more than sufficient for this. The inclusion of the word "Tanakh" is quite important as it demonstrates the non-acceptance in Judaism of the terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Old Testament" as they imply that there is another Bible that is relevant - which, in Jewish tradition, there isn't. Thus, the Tanakh category is necessary. pm_shef 18:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but rename it "Tanakh". As this categories contains the hebrew views on the bible, it might as well be denoted by the proper hebrew word.
- Hey anonymous, you did not sign your vote or comments with the four tildes ~~~~. Why? Your vote cannot be counted unless you do so. Thanks. IZAK 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete :category:Hebrew Bible and move :category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to :category:Tanakh. Thus, one keeps the necessary multiple-point-of-view with practical, short and clear category names: :category:Old Testament (Christian POV) and :category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This has already been deemed the most suitable way in the Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia. -- Olve 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow Olve: Even I never went that far (to create a "pure" :Category:Tanakh), but I would most definitely support such a move! Thanks for this important information as to how this was resolved by the Norwegian Wikipedia contingent. Well done! Finally, in point of fact, there is already a de facto division between the Christian and Jewish categories for Bible vs. Tanakh, but your system has used clearer words. IZAK 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and ideally restructure. I agree that having :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and :Category:Hebrew Bible is redundant, and that, in the absence of a compelling reason to change, the established category ought to be the one to stay. In this case, I think the current one is also closer to the NPOV ideal. With that said, I have two problems with the status quo. The minor one is that Torah ought to be a subcategory of Tanakh, not a separate category, as explained in my reply to Izak earlier in this section. The major one is the current division between the Christian Bible and the Jewish perspective, found on the :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and :Category:Old Testament books pages. This strikes me as artificial, substituting a choice of two POV approaches rather than devising a NPOV compromise. This might be the best we can manage right now, but I'd like to encourage the development of a more integrated scheme.24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is, Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)
- Shmuel: The solution is simple, as per Olve above, let us then rename :Category: Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to :Category:Tanakh, plain and simple, see my response to you above. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Izak: If we're going to keep the two perspectives separate, then sure; as regards my concerns, however, this proposal makes the problem worse, rather than being a solution. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- :Category:Tanakh makes things worse? How so? We have just been informed that that was the precise solution used on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and I think it's a marvelous idea worth exploring. IZAK 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE as per Izak. Hebrew Bible is just not a term used by Jews. But used by Christians. The goal is to be neutral. Therefor we use the /. Not a big deal. No one should be offended. --Kempler video 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Hebrew Bible -- Rachel1 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE category:Hebrew Bible and move category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This is a true original name of Torah, Neviim & Ktuvim --fivetrees 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fivetrees had said: Please wait - I feel I have some wise decision for this problem. I'd like to chat directly with all of you about this question --fivetrees 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Er Fivetrees what are you up to? The discussion is talking place here, use the Talk page here if you must. There is no need for a major conference in cyberspace. Olve has given the best exmaple of a resolution above: A Christian categorization would use :Category:Old Testament and the Jewish categorization would use :Category:Tanakh as explained above. That would be perfect. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The problem I believe is with the name Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. Hebrew Bible may be used as a common reference and a compromise name for the Old Testament and the Tanakh, but should not be used next to Tanakh as it refers largely to the same content. The name is worthy only in order to reach a common discourse and should not be used to refer to the Tanakh exclusively (yet may be used sometimes to alternate phrases in an essay). Hebrew Bible refers as much to the Old Testament as it does to the Tanakh. The name of the Jewish Holy Book is Tanakh and not Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the names should be either Old Testament and Tanakh seperately or Hebrew Bible combined. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have initiated shared categories, with Hebrew Bible as a theoretical shared reference to these books. The categories Hebrew Bible is now the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testament combined and Old Testament is now the Catholic and Orthodox ones combined, i.e. Hebrew Bible plus Deutero-Canonial Books. Such a shared structure is extremely complicated to reach and took endless debates. In all other cases I would go for the plain Tanakh category. Theoretically Hebrew Bible could still contain Old Testament and Tanakh, but in practice this brings only confusion. The terminologies are complicated anyway. In short: delete Hebrew Bible, rename Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to Tanakh. gidonb 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to the already existent category. No need to waste space on the 'pedia if we already have a more correct version of the sort. Evolver of Borg 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per a less passionate IZAK. We should not condone anti-semitism, however subconscious it may be. We should, however, promote accuracy. Wikipedia's ultimate goal, as any encyclopedia's goal, is accuracy. Alkivar's reasoning is archaic and contrived from a formulaic mindset. So therefore I vote to delete the new category. If it kept, it should redirect to the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category... the category should ultimately be renamed to Tanakh for accuracy reasons, but since that is unlikely, my current vote is delete. --Hersch 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kempler video and IZAK. I support keeping the term "Hebrew Bible" in there simply to avoid confusion, but feel it is important to have "Tanakh" be present, as well. The ideal solution is a compromise, accomplished by the /. ShalomShlomo 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and restructure as per Olve et al. As an observant Jewish person I am unoffended by the term Hebrew Bible: be its origins Christian as they may, I have no inferiority complex when "my" bible is compared to the Christian Bible. However, IZAK is correct in his point that since this category basically reflects Jewish POVs, its title should also reflect the Jewish name (at least in addition to the "common name"). To preserve WP naming conventions and sort out the mess in the different related cats/subcats, I suggest a super-cat of :Category:Tanakh with sub-cats :Category:Tanakh events, :Category:Tanakh prophets, :Category:Tanakh texts Torah, :Category:Tanakh texts Ketuvim etc. altmany 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete Judaism uses certain terms to describe the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh - create Category:Tanakh maayan 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per IZAK. Given that it is coming from the Jewish perspective the term Tanakh should be used. Alansohn 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

CityRail stations with Easy Access and subcategories

These categories are concerned with the ease of access status of railway stations in Sydney. It is quite proper for Wikipedia to include this information, but it should do so through annotations to the list of Sydney railway stations. Categorisation places an excessive emphasis on this matter which is pov and unencyclopedic. An annotated list would also be easier to use than three separate lists. Furthermore there is a risk that the categorisation will go awry, with some stations placed in one of these categories only, when that is not appropriate. Indeed I don't know that this hasn't happened already. The three categories are:
- :Category:CityRail stations with Easy Access
- :Category:CityRail stations with Easy Access (planned)
- :Category:CityRail stations without Easy Access
- Delete all Rhollenton 07:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete but I don't think this is a POV or un-encyclopedic issue, otherwise we should be arguing it shouldn't appear in the List mentioned either; I agree with the notion that annotation of the List is a better approach. Courtland 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's the overemphasis that is pov. Rhollenton 06:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Mushroom 08:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Subcategories of railway stations in Australia

Some of the Australian railway station categories do not use the standard form "railway stations in X", as used for :Category:Railway stations in Australia, and the other national railway station categories:
- :category:Adelaide railway stations amend to :Category:Railway stations in Adelaide
- :category:Brisbane railway stations amend to :Category:Railway stations in Brisbane
- :category:Perth railway stations amend to :Category:Railway stations in Perth
- :category:Sydney railway stations amend to :Category:Railway stations in Sydney
- :category:Melbourne railway stations amend to :Category:Railway stations in Melbourne
- :category:Geelong railway stations amend to :Category:Railway stations in Geelong
- Rename all Rhollenton 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all - Darwinek 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Subcategories of prisons in Australia

These do not use the standard form "prisons in X", as used for :Category:Prisons in Australia, the five sub-sub categories for prisons in Australian cities, the other national prison categories and the U.S. state prisons categories:
- :category:Australian Capital Territory prisons amend to :Category:Prisons in the Australian Capital Territory
- :category:New South Wales prisons amend to :Category:Prisons in New South Wales
- :category:Northern Territory prisons amend to :Category:Prisons in the Northern Territory
- :category:Queensland prisons amend to :Category:Prisons in Queensland
- :category:South Australian prisons amend to :Category:Prisons in South Australia
- :category:Tasmanian prisons amend to :Category:Prisons in Tasmania
- :category:Victorian prisons (which also means something quite different) amend to :Category:Prisons in Victoria
- :category:West Australian prisons (which is incorrect in any case as there is no such state as West Australia) amend to :Category:Prisons in Western Australia
- Rename all Rhollenton 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all - Darwinek 11:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Sporting grounds in Perth

It is unusual for a city to have such a category, but the usual form for countries is "sports venues" as in the parent :category:Sports venues in Australia. Rename :Category:Sports venues in Perth. Rhollenton 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. Consistency is good. Sikyanakotik 04:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. as the creator, I have no argument with this rename -- Ian ≡ talk 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Brisbane bus stations to :Category:Bus stations in Brisbane

Should be changed to the usual form for categories of buildings. Rename Rhollenton 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Herostratus 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Brisbane railway stations to :Category:Railway stations in Brisbane

Should be changed to the usual form for categories of buildings. Rename Rhollenton 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Herostratus 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Nude users

Not relevant to the production of a better wikipedia. And anyway, everyone is nude some of the time. Delete Rhollenton 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ill-defined. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Silly. Naked people have little or no influence in society

Mark Twain Herostratus 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to "Nude Wikipedians" as it is only being used by wikipedians on thier user:pages for the Template:User nude--Ezeu 07:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Delete. I agree, its silly and useless.--Ezeu 09:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename helohe (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not harmless. Makes wikipedia look like an adolescent's joke. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I created the nude userbox as a humorous userbox like the and boxes, but I don't like the quasi-pornographic image that has been added to it, and I don't think a category for "nude Wikipedians" is appropriate because the userbox is not intended to be serious. If someone wants to create a serious category for real nudist Wikipedians, that would be acceptible. Otherwise, the box is intended to be humorous and a category is inappropriate. --Tantalum T e lluride 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete No point. Noah 23:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Mushroom 08:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wrong name and stupid. Ashibaka tock 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Wikipedians who have ran for a public office

Any wikipedians who achieve prominence in politics can have an article. Otherwise their aspirations are irrelevant to the production of an encyclopedia. Only 2 members and it should be "run for" anyway. Delete Rhollenton 02:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. May indicate the user has practical political experience, which would be useful to know if said user wishes to contribute to political articles. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems like it could be useful, although the lack of population is a problem, but that might be alleviated over time. Herostratus 04:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename :Category:Wikipedians who have run for a public office (reasons to keep a grammatically named cat are as per Herostratus). Valiantis 14:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not harmless. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. the notion of "Wikipedian" as per user page has problems with wikipedia:Verifiability. The real person (i.e., one who can run for office) may be declared wikipedian only if he made such public statement in a verifiable source. BTW, what the heck is public office? It is a redirect to an article which does not explain the term and which pequires a solid cleanup mikka (t) 00:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- If this were a cat for articles in the main namespace then verifiability would be an issue. However, this is a user cat. By definition a user is a wikipedian. There are therefore no verifiability issues. Valiantis 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Soltak. Mushroom 08:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ze miguel 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Wikipedians who love Julianne Moore

One member fan category. Will not help to produce a better wikipedia and why should anyone care which celebrities other users love? Delete Rhollenton 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. One-person category for B-list actress. The person can note his affection on his user page.Herostratus 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There remains such a thing as an unnecessary user cat. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Stupid. Noah 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I love Julianne Moore too, but this is frivolous. -- Taiichi «talk» 03:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Mushroom 08:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Wikipedians accused of being possessed

More irrelevance. Like those below, this will not help to improve wikipedia's depth or breadth. Delete Rhollenton 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Bizarre. Sounds like a joke. Herostratus 04:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There remains such a thing as an unnecessary user cat. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Valiantis Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Silly. Noah 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Mushroom 08:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Wikipedians by input device

Parent to the two irrelevancies nominated below. Otherwise empty. Delete Rhollenton 02:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Too broad. It can be re-created if and when more than a tiny handfull of users are using devices other than keyboards. Herostratus 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not harmless. User server resources, wastes time and creates clutter. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am the creator of this category, the dvorak subcategory, and the user box :template:user dvrk. If :Category:Wikipedians by web browser and :Category:Wikipedians by text editor are wiki-kosher, why isn't this one? :
- Because one's input device and browser determines how they view the site, which may be important in issues of formatting. You cannot adjust a website to be more "Dvorak friendly". Sikyanakotik 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) :
- Only because its not technically necessary. I think Dvorak should be kept, but not By Input type or QWERTY. By Input Type -- as far as I know, no significant numbers of users are inputting except via keyboard. If this proves otherwise, the category can be reinstated. So it is really By Keyboard Type. But QWERTY is the assumed default, does not need its own category. In the same way as you might have a category "Users in Iron Lungs" but not need the category "Users NOT in Iron Lungs", for example. Herostratus
- Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ze miguel 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Qwerty keyboard users

Even more pointless than the ones nominated below. Only one person has wasted time and server capacity putting himself in it, and I hoped it stays that way. Delete Rhollenton 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not necessary since this is the assumed default. Herostratus
- Delete. As per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Silly. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This would be practically everyone. Noah 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Another whiny dramafest as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_12#Category:Anthropomorphic_Wikipedians below], except this is even more useless. Ashibaka tock 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Dvorak keyboard users

More silliness. Not relevant to the production of a good encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 02:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless, though this might change if a userbox template is formed. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep.. This is an unusual enough category that (unlike QWERTY users) it can contain a reasonably-sized subset of users, neither too large nor too small. If its parent is deleted, just move it up to top level. As to not being relevant to encyclopedia production, I'm not so sure. Anything reasonable that makes a user feel there is place where she can attach to a like-minded subset of editors may engender a greater sense of attachment to Wikipedia, and thus lead to increased contribution. Sort of like -- you know, putting flowers in the women's rooms in a factory mught seem to have nothing to do with making widges, but might lead to greater productivity in the long run. And who knows, two Dvorak users might meet up because of being in that category, and collaborate on great articles. There are six people in this category. I myself would not be inclined to kick them out of their category. I think we should give more leeway to editor categories than to article categories, since editor categories can't confuse or annoy readers. Herostratus 03:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, harmless.
hotel kiev hotels Krakow zujer pozycjonowanie sms

:: RELATED NEWS ::

Сиатъл
Сиатъл е най-големият град на американския щат Вашингтон и в северозападната част на страната с население от 569 000 души (2003). Той е разположен между залива Категория:Начална категория Категория:Академични дисциплини Виното е алкохолна напитка, обикновено получавана чрез ферментация на грозде. Виното

Император
Императорът е монарх и суверенен владетел на империя. Женската форма на титлата е императрица и може да се отнася както за съпругата на императора, така и за жена, която действително е мон

Лъв III (папа)
Лъв III (неизв. — 12 юни 816) е римски папа от 795 до 816. Лъв предизвиква недоволството на благородниците и през април 799 е нападнат. След това е свален от поста си и изпратен в

Слийз-рок
Слийз-рокът (sleaze rock) е хибридна форма на глем рока. Улична форма на метализиран рокендрол, който извлича отношение и отпуснат имидж от всеки тон. В песните често става дума за секс и Химичната връзка представлява връзката, която се осъществява между атомите или между йоните във веществата. Химичната връзка се осъществява чрез обща електронна двойка. Основна причина при свързването на атомите е понижаването на енергията им в хода на взаимодейст�

Глем рок
Глем рокът произхожда от началото на 70-те години, когато изпълнители като Slade, T. Rex, Гери Глитър и Sweet пробиват в рока. Свирейки поп-рок