Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ezeu, you've removed my comments. Please be more careful. In any case, you can still comment in stricken text. You will not be permitted to vote, however, without participating in the discussion.
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)
172,064 edits
m Reverted edits by Gmaxwell (talk) to last version by Ezeu
Line 11:
====[[:Category:Living people]] to [[:Category:*]]====
It is agreed that it is an administrative category. It was intensensly unpopular when nominated for deletion, but Jimbo Wales will not consider deletion. Therefore the idea of giving it the least noticeable possible name has been floated a couple of times on the talk page. Renaming it to a symbol should reduce the risk of subcategories popping up when they are not appropriate. '''Rename''' [[:Category:*]] [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
*<s>'''Rename''' [[:Category:Funct people]], to Wikify against [[:Category:Defunct people]]. [[User:12.73.196.175|12.73.196.175]] 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to *, it takes up minimal space, does not tempt people to try to navigate with it, and because it doesn't actually say "this is a living person" it can be used for other things which equally require monitoring like a band article containing biographical info (or in fact anything we like). Incidentally the CFR tag has been removed from the category [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ALiving_people&diff=36421586&oldid=36420327] , not sure if it was intentional or not. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
**I found no mention of the tag removal on the talk page so I replaced it. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose renaming'''. Proposed target of renaming is uninformative. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**It's supposed to be uninformative. The hope is that casual readers (ie. nearly everyone) will ignore it. When people see it they only need click on it once to find out what it is about, and then they can forget about it again. Much better than having the absurdity of "living people" under your nose all the time. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. If the category must exist, make its meaning transparent. If its scope is changed, ''then'' rename it. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename'''. I'd also agree to [[:Category:Watched bio]]. Nobody is advocating that this is a useful category for browsing, its creation is just for administrative purposes. For this reason I think it should have a very low profile. If it has a longer name, the TALK page should be categorized instead of the article page. At present, that would make it difficult to look at related changes for all the articles, so a compromise is to make this name as unobtrusive as possible. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' [[:category:*]] as the best available alternative to deletion. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 25 ⟶ 22:
*'''Rename''' or do whatever to make it as invisible as possible. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 03:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' at least with "living people" one can figure out which articles are in there. A name such as " * ", might be acceptable for a template based category. If one wants to make it disappear, it might be possible to do this on the custom CSS. -- User:Docu
*<s>'''Rename''' as proposed. Keep it out of the way as much as possible. This won't impair its intended use. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm tuning in late on this one, and amn't fully up to date (though I'm vaguely aware of there being an edict in effect) so sorry if this has been covered already. Can't we simply keep the category as-is, but use it on talk pages only, as is fairly usual for "advisory" or "administrative" categories? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
**I have suggested this several times with no "official" response. I suspect the problem is that currently the category is being monitored using ''Related changes''. Putting the category on the talk page would defeat this. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 06:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 35 ⟶ 31:
*******But it's not being done automatedly anyway, is it? Subcategorisation of "Living people"'s already been mooted, so it's not clear to me that a ''single'' place to watch is an absolute requirement. Or even that it's a good idea, given the scale of the monitoring task. Splitting by initial letter, or by nationality, would give feasibly-sized pages to watch. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
******Well it's automatic in the sense that editing the article puts it in the category, whereas editors would have to edit the (huge) lists themselves if there was no category. I suppose we should try to get a definite answer on whether partioning is an option. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. There is nothing wrong with "Living poeple". [[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 07:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Rename'''. Kappa's arguments are good ones. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
**I agree, however since you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename'''. Kappa'sWhen argumentsI aresaw goodthis onescategory existed it made me twitch a little bit. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] Far, far too broad a category. Anything to make it less visible. [[User talk:SjakkalleBaldghoti|<small>(Check!)</small>Rob]] 0713:2739, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename'''. When I saw this category existed it made me twitch a little bit. Far, far too broad a category. Anything to make it less visible. [[User:Baldghoti|Rob]] 13:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' as per Kappa. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s> '''Oppose''': what kind of stupid name is "*"? Are we trying for the special category in the [[obfuscated code]] competition again? What is the problem with having a biographical article belong to the appropriate category according to the subject's death date, with a handy <del>little</del>&nbsp;<ins>enormous</ins> box for those who haven't yet had the courtesy to drop dead and provide us with a proper date? Stop mucking around and get categorising! HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
* '''Oppose''': I agree that "Living people" isn't a category that I'd create, but making it ''unobtrusive'' by making it obfuscated is just bad form. Let's keep it as "Living people" and work to make the category invisible using a software change, if it really shouldn't be visable to users browsing. It's not a usable category, but at least we know what it is by looking at it. [[User:Jrp|JRP]] 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''': *I agree with that... "Livingwhen people"I isn'tsaw athis category that, I'd create, but makingthought it ''unobtrusive''was byway makingtoo itbroad obfuscatedfor isthe justaverage badperson form.to Let'sreally keepcare itabout, asand "Livingwould people"be andmore workof toan make theadministrative category. invisible usingI'd asay software change, if it really shouldndon't berename visable to users browsing. It's not a usablethe category, but atmake leastit weinvisible knowsomehow whaton itthe isarticles byabout lookingliving at itpeople. [[User:JrpFreakyFlyBry|JRPFreakyFlyBry]] 1520:4914, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
**I agree with that... when I saw this category, I thought it was way too broad for the average person to really care about, and would be more of an administrative category. I'd say don't rename the category, but make it invisible somehow on the articles about living people. [[User:FreakyFlyBry|FreakyFlyBry]] 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose renaming''', obfuscation is not the way to make this idea more useful. Skin-modifications for hiding/separating administrative categories may be. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename'''. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' -- suggested change is uninformative. Another idea... We've already got a tickbox for indicating a minor edit. What about a similar tickbox like 'this is a living person'? Or something similar to the current image upload system where we choose a licence? The 'living flag' set could be disabled from view via changes to the skin, or enabled for those who want to view it. This idea needs some work but I'd much prefer something along these lines than using a category. - [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**The whole point of doing this with a category is to avoid using up developer's time with code fixes. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' rename. * is completely meaningless. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. When I first saw this category, I thought it was a rather odd idea (and would become ridiculously large), but per Jimbo, it should be kept, and under an informative name. <nowiki>*</nowiki> is used when we're indexing something particularly important, that a reader would be specifically looking for, into a category - plus the other uses that <nowiki>*</nowiki> has in wiki code. To have a category by that same name would be quite confusing. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont havaname|Talk]]) 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' rename. * is completely meaningless. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because'''Rename''' youThis havereally hadis noessential involvementto instop thethis ongoingbecoming talka pagemassive weburden havethrough nocreation causeof tosubcategories. believeIf youit areis sufficientlynot informedrenamed onwe thisshould subjecthave toa havepolicy earnedthat anyall abilitysubcategories tocan decidebe speedy deleted on itsight. --[[User:GmaxwellCalJW|GmaxwellCalJW]] 0322:0653, 3124 January 2006 (UTC)
* <s>'''Oppose'''. When I first saw this category, I thought it was a rather odd idea (and would become ridiculously large), but per Jimbo, it should be kept, and under an informative name. <nowiki>*</nowiki> is used when we're indexing something particularly important, that a reader would be specifically looking for, into a category - plus the other uses that <nowiki>*</nowiki> has in wiki code. To have a category by that same name would be quite confusing. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont havaname|Talk]]) 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename''' This really is essential to stop this becoming a massive burden through creation of subcategories. If it is not renamed we should have a policy that all subcategories can be speedy deleted on sight. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''THIS IS INSANE--A CATEGORY FOR ALL LIVING PEOPLE--DO WE HAVE 6 BILLION WIKIPAGES TO SPARE??!!!
**Technically, yes: [[WP:NOT]] paper. Your next question…? —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 65 ⟶ 52:
:Yes, but there are still 100 million people that are noteworthy. <b><font color="darkblue">[[User:Rogerthat| R]]</font><font color="red">[[User:Rogerthat|o]]</font><font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/Rogerthat|gerthat]]</font></b> ''<sup><font color="black">[[User_talk:Rogerthat|Talk]]</font></sup>'' 06:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::It'll only be 57,000. The thinking is this will allow them to monitor all 57,000 for potential lawsuits. This is supported by the fact that this category has been around ten whole days and there hasn't been a Wikipedia related libel scandal in that vastly long stretch of time. If you don't think this proves the case for it, as I don't, you should bring that up in a more appropriate venue.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 13:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete'''.</s> Agree with 67.101 etc. This has to be the most dumbass category outside the various "Wikipedian" cats. It will also require constant monitoring, every time a few hundred thousand people per day pop off, they will all have to be shifted to [[:Category:Dead people]]. Or don't they count? Anyway, it will only draw still more time away from RESEARCHING AND WRITING INTELLIGENT AND ACCURATE ARTICLES on the several billion topics not even yet identified in Wikipedia, not to mention adding all the living people yet to be included in this cat. Wikipedia at the breaking point... [[User:12.73.195.185|12.73.195.185]] 01:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC) </s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**"Delete" is not an option, by decree of Jimbo. I've taken the liberty of striking that out, please choose another option. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
***On thinking on it I'm erasing my previous comments. I went to the category talk page and got a sense of its true purpose. The purpose is simply stupid and there's no rename that could really alter that. The purpose intended will inevitably fail for reasons that would take too long to get into. I vote '''Delete''' If Boss Jimbo doesn't allow that then I simply support this rename.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete'''</s> and populate [[:Category:Year of death missing]]. Anybody who is not there or [[:Category:(year) deaths]] should be alive. --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Question''': how would you be proposing that we tell the difference between an article on a living person but without a "Death Year" category and an article on an [[cane toad|animal]] or a [[Glubbdubdrib|fictional ___location]] which would obviously not have such a category either? You would have to label all the articles on people, right? So why not put them into this category? HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**"Delete" is not an option. There has to be an actual category, no just an absense of other categories, so that that the articles can be monitored. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 79 ⟶ 64:
*******In the living people category page click on the "Related Changes " link situated on the left side of the page. This will generate a page similar to "Recent Changes" but only showing changes to articles in this category. This can then be patrolled in the same way as the Recent Changes patrol. Look out especially for any edit by anons. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 13:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per CalJW. -- [[User:Jjjsixsix|Jjjsixsix]] <sup>([[User talk:Jjjsixsix|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Jjjsixsix|contribs]])</sub> <small>@</small> 05:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. Living People is at least informative. "Oh, horrors, 12 whole additional characters in a box at the bottom of the page, whatever shall we do?" Give me a break. Besides, using * for a textual label when it can be avoided? The vast quantities of code that use wildcarding alone make that not even an option under most circumstances. -- [[User:Jake Nelson|Jake]] 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename'''. Very "useful" category. Rename to more invisible variant. Oh and btw. create also "Dead people", to be ironic. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename'''. Anything to make this inane category less visible. Perhaps [[:Category:☥]] (see [[ankh|☥]]) would be better, and use [[:Category:†]] (see [[dagger (typography)|†]]) for the dead? &mdash; '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR<sub>x</sub>TURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>10:41, Jan. 25, 2006</small></s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Sean Curtin. If the goal is to make maintenance categories disappear, change the MediaWiki software to do that instead of having Category:! and Category:@, etc. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**A software fix is not available, that's why we are having this discussion. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename'''. When I first saw this category, I thought "this is the worst category I have ever seen in my life" until I looked into it a bit. A rename to make the category more obviously administrative and less obviously seen is alright by me. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Rename'''. I don't really even see the point of the category (why do admins care?), but if deletion isn't a possibility, definitely rename it to something like '''*'''.
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.
*'''Oppose''' - Keep it simple. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 18:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename'''. I don't really even see the point of the category (why do admins care?), but if deletion isn't a possibility, definitely rename it to something like '''*'''.</s>
* '''Oppose''', because what the heck is "funct", to the average reader? -- [[user:zanimum]]
**Because you (as far as I can tell, mr. unsigned) have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' - Keep it simple. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 18:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''', because what the heck is "funct", to the average reader? -- [[user:zanimum]]</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**The proposal is to rename the category "*", not "funct people". That was simply the first vote, and likely a joke. [[User:EWS23|EWS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' proposal to rename</s>. "Living people" is a straightforward and simple way to describe the category. "*" is not at all descriptive. I don't believe this category will clog up the list of categories for an article because the words "Living people" only takes up about the same amount of space as something like "[[:Category:1984 deaths|1984 deaths]]", and there will never be an article with both "Living people" and a deaths by year category. [[User:Q0|Q0]] 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**<s>I am changing my vote to '''support rename'''. I suspect that there are articles on Wikipedia that are not frequently watched by informed people. I believe that if the subject of an unwatched article dies, the article might remain categorized as "living people" a period of time after the person has died, and I don't think it would be a good thing for deceased people to be classified as "living people". I therefore believe that this is an "administors need to watch these articles" category rather than a "these people are alive" category. I do believe that if it is renamed to "*", the category's page should explain that it is an administrative category so that the reader is not confused as to what "Category:*" means. [[User:Q0|Q0]] 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose''' -- How many people are going to look at this category and say, "Gee, this should really be named '*'?" Perhaps an "administrative category" template or something similar would work better --[[User:Fermatprime|Fermatprime]] 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (original author of vote)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it.
*<s>'''Oppose''' -- How'''Everyone''' many people are going to look atin this category and''is'' say,a "Gee,living thisperson. should really be namedHowever, '*'?"'none''' Perhapsof anthem "administrativeare category"asterisks. template orSimple somethingas similar would work betterthat. --[[User:FermatprimeCrazyLegsKC|FermatprimeCrazyLegsKC]] 0103:0042, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (original author of vote)</s>
**Because'''Delete''' you- havethe hadcategory nois involvementpretty inredundant. the ongoing talk page weI have no causeidea towhat believepurpose you are sufficiently informed on this subjecttrying to haveaccomplish earnedby anychanging abilityit to decidean onasterik. it.--([[User:GmaxwellIbaranoff24|GmaxwellIbaranoff24]] 0304:0658, 3126 January 2006 (UTC))
*<s>'''Oppose''' -- '''Everyone''' in this category ''is'' a living person. However, '''none''' of them are asterisks. Simple as that. --[[User:CrazyLegsKC|CrazyLegsKC]] 03:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. Although, I do think you have a good point.. Why not join the discussion?--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete''' - the category is pretty redundant. I have no idea what purpose you are trying to accomplish by changing it to an asterik. ([[User:Ibaranoff24|Ibaranoff24]] 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC))</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**Delete isn't an option; Jimbo runs things around here and says it stays. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font></small> 07:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename''' Needs to be made invisible. [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] <small>[[User_talk:CanadianCaesar|The Republic Restored]]</small> 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Rename''' to * or something else small&mdash;this is administrative, and will confuse people and look weird if not renamed. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font></small> 07:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename''' to * or something else small&mdash;this is administrative, and will confuse people and look weird if not renamed. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font></small> 07:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*This sounds sensible. A very populous category should have a short name. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
**But * doesn't actually '''mean''' anything: it's the "universal wildcard", you might as well categorise '''all''' articles into it. What happens the next time we want to make a big category like this for administrative purposes? We have to name that one '''''[[:Category:**]]'''''? how would we ever tell the difference? HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 13:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' -- The category is meaningful when placed next to the appropriate year of birth category in an article as it provides confirmation the person is still alive. It will also provide an alphabetic list of all notable living people , a sort of global Wiki ''[[Who's Who (UK)|Whos Who]]''. This is being created to combat possibly expensive and damaging libel suites. It needs to be as plain and open as possible about its function so no coded names please. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 13:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*If we wanted to hide the category it would be better to do that technically. However, I don't agree it shouldn't be hidden. Why on earth is this debate happening here? [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 13:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because people are trying to subvert the discussion on the talk page because, in general, informed people do not agree with them. ... At least thats my take on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this is a kludge. Create an option in user preferences to hide this and other administrative categories. As this is not useful to ordinary readers, it should not appear on the article by default. This is not the way to accomplish that. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 15:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename'''. If I could vote delete, I would; however, if it must stay, rename it to something practically invisible. [[User:EWS23|EWS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' s/w should be modified to hide it. In either event someone should create a bot so that any bios without a "died" date get tagged with the category. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
* <s>'''Oppose''' rename - While the category is going to be huge, renaming it to category:* will make it huge and confusing. This way, at least people know who should and shouldn't be part of the category. [[User:Sreed1234|Sue Anne]] 18:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*<s>'''Oppose''' rename. Too confusing. I'd rather just see it deleted. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 20:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*<s>'''Oppose renaming'''. If the category must exist, then it should have a proper name, just like any other category. [[User:McPhail|McPhail]] 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*<s>'''Oppose'''. Make this category visible to administrators only. [[User:The lorax|The lorax]] 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose''' per [[User:CrazyLegsKC|CrazyLegsKC]], [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]], [[User:McPhail|McPhail]]. Would vote to delete if I could. —[[User:Caesura|Caesura]][[User talk:Caesura|<sup>(t)</sup>]] 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because the six above have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' per [[User:CrazyLegsKC|CrazyLegsKC]], [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]], [[User:McPhail|McPhail]]. Would vote to delete if I could. —[[User:Caesura|Caesura]][[User talk:Caesura|<sup>(t)</sup>]] 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 
*<s>If my vote counts in this CfD, then: '''Ask Jimbo to reconsider deleting this category''' otherwise, '''rename''' or '''keep, but don't use the category'''. This is a stupid category that doesn't need to exist. Is their a link for Jimbo's reasoning regarding keeping this category, or does he just not want to part with it? It's just an extraneous category that doesn't need to exist, and renaming it is really not going to do much, b/c people are just going to remove the category from articles if the category name makes no sense to the article in question. If Jimbo makes us keep it, then we should just not use it at all, and maybe he'll reconsider if enough people boycott it's use.--[[User:Azathar|Azathar]] 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
:*'''QUESTION''' OK, this is probably a dumb question, but what is an "administrative category"?--[[User:Azathar|Azathar]] 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::*A category that is used by editors but not by users, for example cleanup and stub categories. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 15:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as a category and introduce, if it is really necessary, a new kind of administrative category accessible only to administrators and not to us mere mortals. Then those who wish to use it for administrative purposes can do so to their heart's content, and it can be out of everyone else's hair. Can I point out that I have up for vote (25th January) the deletion of a '''real''' category I initiated (Wagnerites) which even those who don't like it would concede fits Wikipedia criteria rather better than this one does --[[User:Smerus|Smerus]] 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
**It doesn't, because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete''' as a category and introduce, if it is really necessary, a new kind of administrative category accessible only to administrators and not to us mere mortals. Then those who wish to use it for administrative purposes can do so to their heart's content, and it can be out of everyone else's hair. Can I point out that I have up for vote (25th January) the deletion of a '''real''' category I initiated (Wagnerites) which even those who don't like it would concede fits Wikipedia criteria rather better than this one does --[[User:Smerus|Smerus]] 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Please don't vote "delete", the category is undeletable and this discussion is just about the name. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 09:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' renaming. "*" is unacceptable. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' renamingrename. "*" isIf unacceptable.we Thanks!have [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]]to <small>(have it, its name needs to make sense so that it's not misunderstood and misapplied. '''''×'''''[[User talk:FlcelloguyMeegs|A <font color="brown">note?</font>Meegs]])</small> 23:1433, 27 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose''' rename. The current category name makes more sense. In case we'll need another similar category, what will we name it, "**"? --[[User:Lbmixpro|LBMixPro]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|<sup>&lt;Sp</sup>]][[WP:EA|<font color="green"><sup>e</sup></font>]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|<sup>ak|on|it!&gt;</sup>]] 05:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' rename. IfPure wesilliness. have to have it, its name needs to make sense so that it's not misunderstood and misapplied. '''''×'''''[[User:MeegsGene Nygaard|MeegsGene Nygaard]] 2306:3313, 2728 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**BecauseI youthink havethe had'''rename''' noproposal, involvementthough inbizarre theat ongoingfirst talkglance, pagemakes wesense. haveBut noI'm causewondering toif believewe youmight aredo sufficientlybetter informedto onconsistently do this subjectvia toa havetemplate earnedthat anywill abilitymake sense to decideeditors, e.g. {{tl|living-bio}} or onsome itsuch. -- [[User:GmaxwellJmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|GmaxwellTalk]] 0206:4928, 3128 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s> '''Oppose''' rename. The current category name makes more sense. In case we'll need another similar category, what will we name it, "**"? --[[User:LbmixproTrödel|LBMixProTrödel]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|<sup>&lt#149;Sp</sup>]][[WP:EA|<font color="green#F0F"><sup>e</sup></font>]][[User talkUser_talk:LbmixproTrödel|<sup>ak|on|it!&gt;talk]]</supfont>]] 0513:4756, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose'''; either the new name is ''totally'' invisible, or it's better being meaningful. - [[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]]([[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|T]]) 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' '''Support''' Category name "living" is silly. I would prefer deletion but a discreet symbol would be okay. Symbols are not "meaningless". People will understand them [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. Pure silliness. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 06:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>I think the '''rename''' proposal, though bizarre at first glance, makes sense. But I'm wondering if we might do better to consistently do this via a template that will make sense to editors, e.g. {{tl|living-bio}} or some such. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' rename [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]&#149;<font color="#F0F">[[User_talk:Trödel|talk]]</font> 13:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**<s>Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*** In my case at least, lurking (on the mailing list and on the talk page) makes me plenty informed. PS - although I agree that this CfD is not necessary - the category is needed, your actions border on a violation of [[WP:POINT]] and in my case I feel you have failed to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] of my succint view [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]&#149;<font color="#F0F">[[User_talk:Trödel|talk]]</font> 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''; either the new name is ''totally'' invisible, or it's better being meaningful. - [[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]]([[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|T]]) 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename''' '''Support''' Category name "living" is silly. I would prefer deletion but a discreet symbol would be okay. Symbols are not "meaningless". People will understand them [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and use [[:Category:Year of death missing]], or replace 'Year of death missing' with [[:Category:Year of death not yet available]], [[:Category:Year of death not entered]] and [[:Category:Year of death not in historical records]]. Keeping it is stupid; replacing with a symbol is stupid. Do something useful like working on [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] instead. [[User:Noisy]] | [[User talk:Noisy|Talk]] 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**I think it would be pretty creepy to look at an article on a living person and see [[:Category:Year of death missing]], but I guess it would be handy as a kind of ''[[memento mori]]''. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
***I agree, which is why I suggested the clarification of the categories. [[User:Noisy]] | [[User talk:Noisy|Talk]] 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
****Only people who are dead but their articles lack a precise year of death are and should be in that category. There are loads of people in this case. Same as the case of year of birth missing.--[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' and '''Delete''' or speedy delete -- silly/unworkable category as above -- [[User:max rspct|<b><font color="#A0522D" face="Cartier Book"><big>max rspct</big></font></b>]]<font size="1"> [[User_talk:max rspct|<font color="Red">leave a message</font>]] </font> 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose''' rename, per LBMixPro. [[User:Jareha|jareha]] 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' rename, per LBMixPro. [[User:Jareha|jareha]] 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Would it be possible to categorize the talk pages of articles instead of the articles themselves? That way editors can be encouraged to look at the category but non-editors would not be. [[User:Q0|Q0]] 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**The only reason (I understand) for this cat is to monitor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living_people related changes] to the articles. If the cat was placed on the talk pages, we would see which talk pages have changed, but not which articles have change. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''<nowiki>{{Support}}</nowiki>''' the renaming. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because'''Weak youoppose''' have hadNeither noof involvementthese inis theideal, ongoinghopefully talkeither pagewould wesimply havebe noa causestopgap tountil believesomething youbetter areis sufficientlyimplemented. informed onCurrent thisname subjectis tolonger, havebut earnedhas anyless abilityof toa decide"huh?" on itfactor. -- [[User:GmaxwellAlai|GmaxwellAlai]] 0221:3957, 3128 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak opposeOppose''' I Neitherthink ofit's thesea isbit idealrediculous, hopefullytoo eithermuch would simply beof a stopgapbroad untilcategory, somethingas betterthere isare implemented.plenty of Currentpeople namealive istoday longer,I but has less of a "huh?" factorbelieve. [[User:AlaiJamandell (d69)|AlaiJamandell (d69)]] 2100:5717, 2829 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because'''Oppose''' yourename. haveIt's haddeliberately noobscure. involvementAnd init's themore ongoing talk page we have no causelikely to believeattract youattention, areget sufficientlydeleted informedby onanon thisips subjectif toit's havenot earnedclear anywhat abilityit to decide on itis. --[[User:GmaxwellMegapixie|GmaxwellMegapixie]] 0203:3920, 3129 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''OpposeWeak oppose''', Icurrent thinkcategory it'sname ais bitclearer rediculous,and toohardly muchtakes ofup a broad category, as there are plentylot of peoplespace. alive[[User:Christopher todayParham|Christopher I believe.Parham]] [[User talk:JamandellChristopher (d69)Parham|Jamandell (d69talk)]] 0004:1718, 29 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' rename. It's deliberately obscure. And it's more likely to attract attention, get deleted by anon ips if it's not clear what it is. [[User:Megapixie|Megapixie]] 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak oppose''', current category name is clearer and hardly takes up a lot of space. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 04:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*Why wouldn't we just have a category for all people that are dead, those that are disappeared, and those that have Year of death missing? <b><font color="darkblue">[[User:Rogerthat| R]]</font><font color="red">[[User:Rogerthat|o]]</font><font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/Rogerthat|gerthat]]</font></b> ''<sup><font color="black">[[User_talk:Rogerthat|Talk]]</font></sup>'' 06:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' If it exists it should have a real name. Not sure why it's not allowed for CfD, not that I particularly care either way. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] <sup>[[Wikipedia:Limited administrators|?]]</sup> 06:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' Asterisk what? People from the outerspace? Living people is lame enough (I don't get the point how this category helps in administration except if wikipedia were the world government), a star for everyone alive is even more stupid. --[[User:Starryboy|Starryboy]] 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose'''. The asterisk is meaningless, I think we should strive to be as clear as possible in all matters. Although, that being said, I am not sure why we need to create a category to keep tabs on what is being written on Wikipedia. There are other ways of doing this which are less intrusive to our readers. [[User:Rje|Rje]] 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Just get rid of it'''. Pointless, pointless, pointless. [[User:Bigdottawa|Bigdottawa]] 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. The asterisk is meaningless, I think we should strive to be as clear as possible in all matters. Although, that being said, I am not sure why we need to create a category to keep tabs on what is being written on Wikipedia. There are other ways of doing this which are less intrusive to our readers. [[User:Rje|Rje]] 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Support''' as an improvement, but it's still a kludge. If what we really need is a way to know all people not yet dead, we should build that into wikipedia. If we really need is invisible categories, we should build that into wikipedia. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''JustSpeedy get rid of itdelete'''. Pointless, pointless, pointlessSilly. [[User:BigdottawaDavid Sneek|BigdottawaDavid Sneek]] 1409:2955, 2930 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because<s>'''Rename''' youso havethat hadat noleast involvementwe in the ongoing talk page wedont have no cause to believesee youthe are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability toinherently decideannoying oncategory itname. --[[User:GmaxwellEzeu|GmaxwellEzeu]] 0210:3914, 3130 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
:Changing to '''Oppose'''. Replacing something bad with something worse is pointless--[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' as an improvement, but it's still a kludge. If what we really need is a way to know all people not yet dead, we should build that into wikipedia. If we really need is invisible categories, we should build that into wikipedia. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because'''Oppose''' yourenaming. haveAn hadasterisk nois involvementuninformative. inThe argument seems to be that the ongoingcategory talksounds pageinane so we haveshould nohide causeit. toAn believeasterisk youwouldn't arehide sufficientlyit, informedhowever, onand thisas subjectlong toas havethe earnedcatgeory anyis abilityproperly toexplained decideI ondon't itsee what harm is done. --[[User:GmaxwellJohn FitzGerald|GmaxwellJohn FitzGerald]] 0213:3948, 3130 January 2006 (UTC)
*I Agree with those who say this is insane - although not to that degree of intensity. Simply put, this is a bad idea because Category:* doesn't really make sense and doesn't really explain anything. I understand, from above discussion, that this is ''intentional'', but it's still a bad idea. Since actually deleting this category is not an option, '''vote to leave it where it is'''. -[[User:155.42.20.241|155.42.20.241]] 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Speedy delete'''. Silly. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 09:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Support''', I guess. No good solutions, but Rename arguments are slightly better. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''RenameDelete'''. soJust thatuse ata leasttemplate weinstead, donte.g. have[[Template:Living topeople]], seeand themonitor inherently[[Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:Living annoying category namepeople]]. --[[User:EzeuJhs|Jon]] [[User talk:Jhs|Harald]] [[:no:Bruker:Jhs|EzeuSøby]] 1018:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:Changing to *'''OpposeRename''' per nom. ReplacingThe somethingpurpose badis withfor somethingmonitoring, worsenot isnavigation. pointless--[[User:EzeuBDAbramson|Ezeu<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] 22[[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 21:5605, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose''' renaming strongly. Not only are we proposing to subvert the main purpose of categories, but now we're trying to '''''hide''''' what we're doing by making the name of a category "*"?! Good grief. That's like trying to shove a round peg in a square hole and then painting it bright pink and drawing a smiley face on it in the hopes that nobody notices it ain't fittin' in the hole. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' renaming. An asterisk is uninformative. The argument seems to be that the category sounds inane so we should hide it. An asterisk wouldn't hide it, however, and as long as the catgeory is properly explained I don't see what harm is done. [[User:John FitzGerald|John FitzGerald]] 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>I Agree with those who say this is insane - although not to that degree of intensity. Simply put, this is a bad idea because Category:* doesn't really make sense and doesn't really explain anything. I understand, from above discussion, that this is ''intentional'', but it's still a bad idea. Since actually deleting this category is not an option, '''vote to leave it where it is'''. -[[User:155.42.20.241|155.42.20.241]] 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''', I guess. No good solutions, but Rename arguments are slightly better. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete'''. Just use a template instead, e.g. [[Template:Living people]], and monitor [[Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:Living people]]. [[User:Jhs|Jon]] [[User talk:Jhs|Harald]] [[:no:Bruker:Jhs|Søby]] 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Rename''' per nom. The purpose is for monitoring, not navigation. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Because you have had no involvement in the ongoing talk page we have no cause to believe you are sufficiently informed on this subject to have earned any ability to decide on it. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' renaming strongly. Not only are we proposing to subvert the main purpose of categories, but now we're trying to '''''hide''''' what we're doing by making the name of a category "*"?! Good grief. That's like trying to shove a round peg in a square hole and then painting it bright pink and drawing a smiley face on it in the hopes that nobody notices it ain't fittin' in the hole. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Do you believe this is the first administrative category? How does this 'subvert' cagegories? In anycase because you've had no involvement in the ongoing discussion I have stricken your comment.--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 
====[[:Category:Antisemitism (People)]]====
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_23"