Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5

5730:- The editors in favor of deletion are all people who frequently work on general category maintenance or who regularly comment on WP:CFD discussions. We have seen a lot of categories like this one. Occasionally, editors from a specific project do not realize that their categorization scheme goes against the convention used at Knowledge (XXG) or that their categories are poorly named. This then leads to debates like this one here at Knowledge (XXG). Does this explain the disagreement? (The nature of the debate here may be comparable to the "retired NASCAR drivers" category that was merged into its parent category a few months ago. Several people from a NASCAR WikiProject protested the idea, but other WP:CFD regulars indicated that the division of people into "retired" and "active" people was against convention for Knowledge (XXG) in general.) 5197:- After further discussion below, it appears that these people are not all intelligent design advocates, but the parent categories added to this "signatory" category certainly give that impression. I therefore am shifting back to my original recommendation that the category be deleted. Again, these people have probably signed many documents and will probably sign many more, so this particular document is not necessarily the most definitive one that states their positions. Again, a list would probably be appropriate, and it could even explain more details about people's motivations for signing the document. Also, making a list with 700 names is not too difficult, especially if broken up into subpages. 1824:- These types of "films about" categories do not work. The problem is that films discuss multiple subjects or that some subjects are only discussed peripherally. This leads to a problem where the category either includes any film that mentions the subject, in which case the category does not really identify the subject matter of the film very well or bring together related films, or it is used just for films where the subject is "important", in which case it suffers from subjective inclusion problems that render it useless for categorization. In this case, the category brings together any film that even peripherally mentions coal mining. (Even 2062:- These types of "films about" categories do not work. The problem is that films discuss multiple subjects or that some subjects are only discussed peripherally. This leads to a problem where the category either includes any film that mentions the subject, in which case the category does not really identify the subject matter of the film very well or bring together related films, or it is used just for films where the subject is "important", in which case it suffers from subjective inclusion problems that render it useless for categorization. This category therefore should be deleted. 5870:

quite possible for people to sign multiple petitions and advocate multiple political and scientific positions. Prolific or famous individuals in particular will have their name affiliated with potentially hundreds of causes, and if you were to create individual categories for every major petition they signed and event they took part in it would create a massive category clutter. Moreover signing a major petition is similar in many ways to being an active member of a voluntary organization, and in most cases we use list articles, not categories, to identify members of organizations.

4024:"disguise" is used in quotes. Another article is about a female pharaoh, who adapted the male term for "King", because there was no equivalent of "Queen" in ancient Egyptian. She still identified as female. Then there are two 20th century transgender individuals who are already categorized in related LGBT categories. So no one in this cat currently belongs there, the word "historical" is strange, and the proposal to just leave it "Women who lived as men" doesn't seem like a valid categorization. Are there individuals that currently aren't in this category that belong there? - 4602:- The term "historical" could mean many things in this context. It could be used to indicate that the railways are old, that they have received some type of "historic" designation from the German government for preservation purposes, or that the railroads are set up to take tourists on train rides in vintage (19th century) trains. In this case, "historic" is used to indicate that the railroads no longer exist as orgnaizations. I suggest using "defunct" instead of "historic", as the interpretation of "defunct" is much less ambiguous. 179:. Membership in this category would not be obvious in the article since most of the entries would not be Chicago politicians. Being a politician in some location is a trivial intersection with Chicago. If expanded and this person is a politician and an actor and a musician and a porn star we would also have to add 3 more categories for this person per city where they lived. Given the current problems with too many categories in many people articles, this seems like a bad direction to take. 5746:? (2) How is this category "against the convention used at Knowledge (XXG)"? (3) What efforts did these "people who frequently work on general category maintenance or who regularly comment on WP:CFD discussions" go to to familiarise themselves with the place of the SDFD in the ID movement, before opining that it was "not defining" or just one of "every proclamation that these people signed" (neither characterisation strikes me as accurate)? Your comparison to NASCAR drivers seems to be 5311:: Then what "guidelines" does this category violate? The actual list of signatories is 700+ long and increasing, but most of its membership aren't notable so don't have articles, so aren't included in the category, which therefore just includes the notable ones (notable generally for being notorious fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists and/or cranks). And no, it is not "one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people," it is one of the main 5774:. However, talk pages for specific articles are not always the best place to leave notifications about WP:CFD discussions. (WikiProjects and possibly individual editors' pages are better notification areas.) 2) Most people are not categorized as to whether they signed specific documents, petitions, etc., although people are categorized as advocates of specific issues. This category simply seems too specific. 3) I do not know about other people, but I did look at 5882:: Not all SDFD signatories are ID advocates (see my 2nd addendum above), nor are all ID advocates SDFD signatories (as many lack the qualifying PhD). Also, I suspect it is unlikely that signatories of it would be "affiliated with potentially hundreds of causes," but rather with a small number of fringe/pseudo-scientific and/or Religious Right causes often closely correlated with anti-evolutionism/creationism (e.g. HIV/AIDS-denial, Global Warming denial). 1163:, which each contain songwriter articles. These, IMO, could easily be put in the members category, but even if that's not considered appropriate, there is more than sufficient linkage between the articles. The White Zombie category, on the other hand, contains numerous articles about individuals who do not seem to also appear in the members subcategory, and I haven't investigated beyond that, so I simply offer no opinion on the category at this time. 3987:- Yes, but what do "historical" and "modern" mean? What is the dividing line between the two? 1950? WWII? 1900? 1980? Is "historical" for dead people and "modern" for living people? The term "historical" needs to be defined better. I know from experience that the term has a broad range of uses here on Knowledge (XXG). Just look at the other nominations of "historical" categories on this page. 3428:- The "A" category appears to separate "prestigious" film festivals from "other" film festivals. The problem with this approach is that it suffers from severe POV problems, as it requires editors to make subjective judgments about which festivals are the most prestigious. (Presumably, everything on Knowledge (XXG) is already notable anyway or else it would not be in Knowledge (XXG).) 4723:, it contains "programming languages which are of historical interest but are not used significantly in industry or academia". The categories inclusion criteria are too subjective, as it requires editors to assess which languages are of "historical interest" and which are not "used significantly". Because of these problems, the category should be merged into its parent category. 5331:- I did not realize that the list was so long. Still, categories are not needed to specify how people support intelligent design. How many other documents will these people sign to indicate their support for this viewpoint? At this point, I would just say that the people who sign the document are going to be intelligent design advocates anyway, so I would recommend merging into 5500:: No, I disagree. It is possible that some of the signatories are not notable for this reason, but not the category itself. However, since this is a very important component of the Discovery Institute campaigns and the most celebrated and longest of the half dozen or more creationist lists of its kind, this list is unique and special and I think deserves to be singled out.-- 5482:. Filll, isn't your last point actually an argument for deleting the category? If most people are only notable because they are signatories, would this justify a whole category? I think that Ornis' idea of making a list is better. More background info about the signatories can be added easily. Information that is not covered in the original 5181:- After some discussion below, it appears that this is a lengthy, growing list of people who cannot be listified easily. However, I really see no difference between these specific intelligent design advocates and intelligent design advocates who have not signed the document, so I just recommend merging everyone into 5798:"However, talk pages for specific articles are not always the best place to leave notifications about WP:CFD discussions. (WikiProjects and possibly individual editors' pages are better notification areas.)" As far as I can tell (from inspecting their contributions), the nominator did not notify this nomination 5978:- Since some of the people do not specifically support intelligent design, I suggest having a separate category for creationism advocates. This signatory category is still set up to give the impression that these people specifically support intelligent design (as the signatory category is a subcategory of 5578:

Addendum: Of the 23 signatories currently in this category, 18 have mention in their articles of Creationist and/or ID affiliation or of anti-evolutionary statements, and one further signatory has his signing explicitly mentioned in the text of his article. Of the four remaining signatories, two hold

4023:

I examined this category today, and it contains 4 articles and a subcat (I think the subcat is fine, and shouldn't be deleted, so I won't discuss it). One is about a woman who smoked a pipe and wore mens clothing before it was fashionable to do so. She clearly still identified as female, and the word

1102:

As has been clearly established by what must by now be deletions in the hundreds, having the subcategories does not warrant the category. Close to 100 categories for TV shows have been deleted despite having character and episode subcats. Dozens of musician categories have been deleted despite having

3973:

The reason I used the term "historical" is because modern "women" who live as men are called trans men and are considered men. But historically some women lived as male maybe only to get the rights and social privileges that only men had, and they were sort of radical feminists of the time. Or maybe

4974:

Conceivably this is a American/British difference, but I find the use of "defunct", especially as a leading ardjective, for things that were not living organisms, odd and (lets say) grating, though I agree there is a shortage of terms here. Closer please note this category should be consistent with

3440:

POV. There is always merit in being able to identify the leading items in Knowledge (XXG)'s vast range of articles, and frankly the means for doing so need to be improved a lot (eg by making it possible to browse the articles in a category by number of hits or edits), but this is not an acceptable

1135:

As above most bands simply don't need their own eponymous category. The main article for the band serves sufficiently as a navigational hub for all the subcategories and articles. Delete all these unless we're overlooking one that has something other than songs, albums, discographies, band members

5518:

indication of such advocacy. If you want details on an individual signatory, it is easy enough to follow the link to the signatory's article. Being in this category is also a good indication of the signatory being on the fringe of science, and is useful information on the signatory, which would be

5070:

delete. Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it. If people think the list clutters the article, that is not automatic grounds for making a category out of the clutter. A list article would arguably be better, as it could e.g. include relevant degrees held by

3962:

with no decision as to whether to keep or delete it. Several people commented that the category needs to be renamed if kept, but no consensus was reached on this. I suggest removing the term "historical", as this term has multiple meanings (such as "retired", or some arbitrary age, or living so

2294:

this is about the worst film cat yet: I was expecting films about an occupation (in the sense of France early 1940s), but nooooo; this is about any film where a character has a job! Brilliant, unless the movie has characters limited to the unemployed, retired, or idle rich, it fits here somehow.

5869:

I agree with Doc's reasoning above. Presumably anybody or almost anybody who signed this document is also an active Intelligent design advocate, so merging into that category makes sense. The actual literal signatories themselves should be done as a list, though, not as a category because it's

4273:

has proposed some radical government changes that I am not aware of). So, "historic" in this case is not a synonym for "defunct". My best guess is that it is being used as a synonym for "old". Still, the term "historic" could cause confusion. Also, I cannot conceive of a situation where more

3105:

the compound is widely used without a hyphen. In this case, I think there is no possibility of confusion ("live film" is a bit of an oxymoron, so there's no danger of reading this as "live action-films"), so that only leaves the question of whether "live action" (no hyphen) is widely used as an

5596:

signatories), Creationists affiliated to groups (e.g. ICR) unaffiliated to the ID movement, anti-evolutionists unaffiliated to any specific Creationist movement, and fringe/pseudo-scientists attached to a number of fringe/pseudo-scientific ideas. A list would be superfluous, such a list already

5379:

the people who signed the document actually support intelligent design or creationism. Some of them didn't know what the discovery institute was when they signed. Mainly the category was created to solve disputes over whether or not the article should go into detail about what qualifications or

5461:

When the list is complete, it will have many more than 30 entries. This is being done gradually because of the effort involved. For most of these people, signing this list is one of the main things that makes them notable, because it identifies them as being a leader or prominent member of the

5591:

Addendum: On further reflection, SDFD would be a subcategory of Anti-Evolutionists (should such a category be brought into existence) and, arguably of Pseudoscientists. It will contain (some, but never all) ID advocates (which, given that it is promoted by the DI, will be the largest group of

1852:. If this is deleted, are the films supposed to be added back to the latter? If they are, and the number grows (as it could), it will need to be tidied up by creating a category for... films about coal mining. So all that should be done is that any inappropriate articles should be removed. 5671:: Any "generally named category" is likely to cause considerable ongoing controversy (as does anything not entirely cut-and-dry in the field of Creationism). The most likely candidate would be 'Intelligent design advocate,' but I have run into considerable disagreement in the past calling 5655:

there are better ways of putting people in a category than simply whether or not they have signed a particular letter. this is enshrining the importance of the letter.It would be better to have a more generally named category, specifying the letter as one of the criteria for inclusion.

1861:

Are these films about coal mining or does the plot involve coal mining? I think the latter is the case for most of the entries in the category. So their relationship to coal mining is tenuous at best. I suggest that we consider this to be films actually about the subject. Maybe as

6026:), but sharing an opposition to Evolution (which is why some of them, as well as anti-evolutionists with no known Creationist ties, are willing to sign the SDFD). While the DI is not the only Creationist organisation active, it has by far the highest recent profile, being involved in 5613:

is to have the category-tag on the signatory's articles, indicating that they are likely to have an idiosyncratic understanding of science, and that their opinions may be unreliable (and, as far as I know, this is the only PhD-only anti-Evolution petition, and undoubtedly the most

165:- The reason I would like to make it broader, is rather lumping everyone into a huge Category like People from Chicago, it would be better to seperate them, especially politicians. Right now you have to go through page after page of people to find who/what you are looking for.-- 188:

As a side note, if kept, someone will need to cleanup all of the articles added here that are not politicians in Chicago. I suspect this is not something that a bot can handle. Don't know how many right now, but I know that some were changed. They need to be changed back to

5212:. There is also the question of the copyright status of reproducing it in its entirety. A category that contains the articles on signatories that are notable enough for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) on the other hand is useful, and has no potential copyright problems. 4957:- The 1st through 109th Congresses of the United States are "former" legislative bodies but they are not "defunct." "Former" is ambiguous. "Defunct" is not. I am mystified as to why this prejudice against the word "defunct" exists. It's a perfectly cromulent word. 4483:- The 1st through 109th Congresses of the United States are "former" legislative bodies but they are not "defunct." "Former" is ambiguous. "Defunct" is not. I am mystified as to why this prejudice against the word "defunct" exists. It's a perfectly cromulent word. 1103:

album and song subcats. The subcategories are properly categorized in album by artist, song by artist and member by band category structures and the material within them is reachable through the artist's article. Simplisticly counting subcats in no way addresses

4898:- This category is for lower (governmental) houses that no longer exist. The term "defunct" communicates this much more clearly than "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "old" and "notable". The category should therefore be renamed. 4403:- This category is for upper (governmental) houses that no longer exist. The term "defunct" communicates this much more clearly than "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "old" and "notable". The category should therefore be renamed. 1155:, which needs further study. All of the rest, except two, contain no more than two articles (artist and discography) and the three standard subcategories (members, albums and songs), none of which calls for an eponymous category. The two exceptions are 2674:- unnecessary and unwieldy (what's the definition of "major"?). All of these articles are already properly categorized as "Doctor Who races", except for the Master, who's already properly categorized under a subcategory of "Doctor Who characters". -- 5642:

an important piece of information about the signatories - it puts them in a small group far outside of the scientific mainstream. Signing this petition is a very strong political statement and is highly informative about the signatories.

5157:- If categories were added for every proclamation that these people signed or every document that they supported, the list of categories at the bottom of each article would be very cluttered and very difficult to use for navigation. 359:

for as long as there are at least two lists of journalists that have not been deleted. And three of the ones currently in the category (which are not necessarily the only ones that exist) have not even been nominated for deletion.

5786:, for example). I would also nominate for deletion a similar category for anti-creationists who signed any specific document. This category is just too much detail on how these people are intelligent design advocates. 5297:. Given that this signatories list is a short, finite list and that this may be one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people, then creating a list just seems more appropriate. 3614:

per nom. Looking through the list, most of the films are not even about gay issues. It's like creating a category on films that at some point make a "Polock" joke or a "blond" joke. Not a defining characteristic by any

5418:

per the Dr. Categories are for the most notable aspects of a person's life/career. Signing onto this document isn't notable enough for categorization, however retaining this information in an independent list could be

5579:

otherwise idiosyncratic views on science (argued that living creatures do not obey the second law of thermodynamics, author of an anti-global warming petition). I think this is a good indication that the petition is

4107:

per Andrew's rationale, plus the fact that the category content appears to be disputed and/or ill-defined, as judged by its instability. An annotated list is better for explaining the circumstances for these people.

2278:- The name is ambiguous. Could refer to films about various occupations (which I gather it does), films about military or other occupations, films made while the filmmaker is under such an occupation, and so on. 5446: 1898:

in the first place. I would support a category limited to documentaries about coal mining, but I would recommend deleting the "films" category and starting over rather than renaming this "films" category.

1075:, these categories consist of nothing but subcategories for albums and songs, in some cases members, and the article for the band and rarely a discography or similar article. Categories are not needed. 3132:- This category describes a defining characteristic of many films, and it can be objectively defined. It should be kept, but the name should be edited to comply with Knowledge (XXG) style standards. 3974:

some of them were indeed transgender males. But we'll never know today, because it was a different context back then, hence the need for this special category for historical women who lived as male.--

1913:

per nom & because of the inherent problems with "films about": how "about" the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources have to tell us that that is what the film is really "about"?

4793:- "No longer extensively used" is still a subjective criterion. How much use must be made of the language before it crosses the threshold between "extensively used" and "not extensively used"? 207:

Foo politicians should be politicians working in Foo (serving, trying to get elected, what have you) not those merely born, raised, or schooled there or otherwise not in the Foo political scene.

1866:

suggests, rename and limit this category and all similar ones to documentaries and rename as required. Right now I'm leaning delete but open to a rename with some specificity from a new name.

3849: 151:

This should not be changed in isolation. It goes against the whole way that politicians are organised at the local level, which is by where they served/represented, not by place of origin.

5778:

briefly. I really do not see the difference between that document and any other document that anyone else signs in favor of anything else (with the exceptions of a few documents (the

1517: 4773:

It shouldn't be hard to make an objective criterion, like the presence of reliable sources saying that the language is no longer extensively used. It shouldn't be hard to source that

4064: 3959: 1072: 5902:, and having all the signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" who have Knowledge (XXG) articles in one category is very handy; remember, information wants to be useful. 1468: 42: 37: 5922:. However, givfen that the signatory category is a subcategory of the intelligent design category, I am forced to conclude that these people are intelligent design advocates. 1520:

and was subsequently kept. I'll repeat here what I said then, eidetic memory is often an important and defining characteristic for many characters currently in the category. --

3182:

Is there a "movies based on books" category? "Movies based on video games" "Movies based on wallpaper" "Movies based on urban legends"? Do movies get cats for every source?

137:

by sorting them. I think this current category name is too narrow, and should be changed to encompass all politicians who are from Chicago no matter where they live now.

5842:

the relevant articles, with explanations for those who have subsequently said they thought it was something other than it is. The list is potentially much more useful.

5235: 3860:- People are generally not sorted according to status ("alive", "dead", "retired", "active", etc.). Therefore, this category should be merged into its parent category. 1459: 5999: 5360: 5312: 3066:: seems like a reasonably defining characteristic for these films, and, unlike many bad film categories, this one doesn't seem at all ambiguous, vague or subjective. 2823: 5675:

such, in spite of the fact that not only is he a signatory, but he is also a member of the ISCID & has presented at RAPID. A category with a simple, unambiguous,

4047:

and others. I agree the sub-cat is essentially ok, although the name is odd, and might perhaps usefully divided between the career and the emergency cross-dressers.

1107:

and, had you reviewed the links in the nomination, you would have seen that having the subcats has been raised and was not deemed reason enough for the categories.

5406:

Not category material. The list isn't that long, and if you list the names left to right, rather than one per line, it will only take up about five or six lines.

4471:. "Defunct" is unnecessarily colourful, it sound almost as if wikipedia is celebrating seeing the back of them. that it not quite neutral in a political context. 5118: 5110: 4591: 4067:

discussion stated that the category was well defined. If that is so, then why is the category so unstable? Maybe a more stringent category name is needed.

5258: 5915: 5234:

article itself was that the article would get cluttered (maybe there are 30+ notable persons who signed the proclamation). There are also categories about

5101: 3845: 345:

Lightly-populated category of cruft, and each of the individual entries should be prod'd or translated into their own categories instead of as list pages.

5257:- It is not always necessary to create a category as a solution to removing a lengthy list from an article. Adding these names to a new article entitled 21: 5779: 4274:

articles would be added to this category. I recommend just deleting it, as it looks unnecessary and as the term "historic" could cause confusion.

1532:- How does this category/grouping differentiate between characters whose eidetic memory is a defining characteristic and those for whom it is not? -- 6027: 5771: 5743: 4230: 5804:

This leads to the implication that CFD runs as a 'closed shop,' with little consultation of the users of the categories that they are 'discussing.'

4499:. The 1st through 109th Congresses of the United States are not former legislative bodies, they are past sessions of a current legislative body. 4222: 6003: 5348: 5316: 2698:

In fiction whether or not you team up with the heroes occasionally you're either a villain or you're not. It's not hard to define. I think the

1476: 17: 5865: 5332: 5238: 5182: 5176: 511: 4262: 4213: 2266:

but only use as a holdall for suitable subcategories. Remove articles and add a notice that the category should only contain subcategories.

1632: 1566:

as defining. Inclusion criterion can be simple: Characters explicitly identified in their source material as having eidetic memory. Period.

2074:

See comments on the previous listing. Also, there is no reason why films should not be included in several such categories if appropriate.

6006:). That does not mean that all signatories are ID advocates, or even explicit Creationists (only two of the six I listed above are). ID 5775: 5707: 5231: 5160: 1260: 5750:

off point (beyond a somewhat patronising "we know best" implication; though I notice that there likewise, you fail to clearly identify

4089:

with a strange non-sequitur edit summary. I don't think she belonged here, but disapprove of depopulating categories under discussion.

2978: 2970: 4587: 1089:

all those with at least two subcategories, as those subcategories should be readily accessible in one place to facilitate navigation.

314: 3106:

adjective. A quick google survey suggests the answer is yes, even by reliable sources, although with-a-hyphen is also widely used.

2835: 6022:

agree with that strategy and have joined ID's 'big tent,' others disagree and remain in organisations outside the 'tent' (e.g. ICR,

5514:: Their anti-evolutionary/Creationist advocacy is generally what makes them notable. Membership in this category is the most easily 3686:

per Otto, Andrew and Ibaranoff. To expand on Ibaranoff's example, Dune seems to be here because one of the villains is a pedophile.

1636: 122: 3128: 2999: 2961: 2903: 3943: 2044:

are about cooking, we have a seriously problem. And aside from that, categorizing films by what they are loosely about is simply

1363: 502: 6178: 5347::"How many other documents will these people sign to indicate their support for this viewpoint?" How many documents that are in 5273:: A list was one of the options contemplated when the formation of a category was originally discussed. Is there some rule that 3362: 2819: 5939: 4720: 4704: 2831: 2404: 931: 6186:

I would nominate this for speedy renaming due to its capitalization, but I think the word "talk" should be added for clarity.

4942: 4911: 4496: 4468: 4433: 4416: 966: 4708: 2627: 2573: 2544: 2412: 939: 6174: 5210: 3353: 3295: 1775: 974: 4887: 4392: 2552: 2395: 2337: 1001: 922: 305: 957: 2535: 2477: 190: 134: 6255: 6130: 6106: 5058: 5034: 4839: 4815: 4660: 4636: 4543: 4519: 4344: 4320: 4171: 4147: 3918: 3894: 3801: 3777: 3509: 3490: 3311: 3285: 2919: 2893: 2775: 2746: 2493: 2467: 2353: 2327: 2146: 2122: 2008: 1957: 1933: 1783: 1724: 1700: 1607: 1583: 1434: 1410: 1315: 1291: 1212: 1188: 581: 519: 416: 392: 372:

per Nathanian. You will find that the general feeling here is to turn categories into lists, not the other way around.

263: 239: 74: 5979: 5919: 5542: 5463: 4883: 4388: 4258: 4254: 3370: 2646:- Characters are not divided into "villain" and "hero" subdivisions, as characters may change allegiances over time. 1766: 1036: 756: 546: 3947: 3171:

Even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn, and a repeatedly banned user can occasionally create a decent category.

4063:- Why do the contents of this category seem to change every time that I look at it? People voting to "keep" in the 3545: 2228:(though not the three subcategories). Hopelessly vague inclusion criteria; I'm all ears if someone can tell me what 2197: 5934:: Submillimeter is incorrect. Over one quarter of the current members of this category are not known ID advocates: 5783: 322: 6239: 6221: 6206: 6192: 6166: 6090: 6078: 6066: 6042: 5990: 5970: 5926: 5906: 5886: 5874: 5858: 5846: 5830: 5810: 5790: 5762: 5734: 5722: 5698: 5683: 5662: 5647: 5622: 5586: 5565: 5523: 5504: 5490: 5470: 5453: 5437: 5425: 5410: 5384: 5367: 5339: 5323: 5301: 5281: 5265: 5249: 5216: 5201: 5189: 5168: 5145: 5095: 5008: 4995: 4979: 4961: 4949: 4931: 4919: 4902: 4875: 4797: 4785: 4765: 4753: 4741: 4727: 4696: 4620: 4606: 4579: 4503: 4487: 4475: 4459: 4445: 4424: 4407: 4380: 4304: 4292: 4278: 4207: 4132: 4093: 4071: 4051: 4030: 4015: 4003: 3991: 3978: 3967: 3934: 3878: 3864: 3837: 3762: 3750: 3738: 3726: 3714: 3702: 3690: 3677: 3649: 3637: 3621: 3606: 3594: 3580: 3524: 3474: 3457: 3445: 3432: 3420: 3402: 3347: 3261: 3249: 3217: 3202: 3186: 3175: 3162: 3148: 3136: 3119: 3088: 3075: 3058: 3042: 3025: 3014: 2955: 2877: 2863: 2850: 2811: 2730: 2712: 2690: 2678: 2666: 2650: 2634: 2618: 2606: 2592: 2581: 2529: 2451: 2437: 2389: 2311: 2299: 2286: 2270: 2258: 2244: 2182: 2106: 2090: 2078: 2066: 2052: 2016: 1999: 1993: 1917: 1903: 1870: 1856: 1836: 1814: 1760: 1685: 1651: 1623: 1570: 1558: 1536: 1524: 1508: 1452: 1394: 1378: 1351: 1275: 1248: 1172: 1144: 1127: 1111: 1093: 1079: 589: 572: 376: 364: 349: 299: 223: 211: 197: 183: 169: 155: 141: 118: 110: 6031: 5742:: "Does this explain the disagreement?" No it does not. (1) Why was this nomination-for-deletion not notified on 5550: 5245:

is deleted, what about those? If "delete" is the consensus, then we would at least need to make a separate page.

1256: 896: 747: 686: 476: 6254: