text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 25

Category:Williams Street Studios cartoons and characters

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 12:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Cfr notice was added on July 16 by User:Who. Request to rename to Category:Williams Street Studios series and characters as per Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios Cfd's. --Kbdank71 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, as I presume Who know's what he's talking about in this area. -Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I have horrible memory, but I'm sitting here thinking.. "Did i do that?". Nope :) 24.30.157.246 did on 22:45, 11 July 2005. But that's ok ;).  I agree. Rename.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  23:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought it odd that you'd not completed a nomination. Teach me about trusting an admin, won't it? :) Splash 02:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought it was odd too. Sorry about that.  --Kbdank71 12:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Olympic Curling

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 12:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Cfd notice was added by an anon on July 21. Apparently duplicate of Category:Curling at the Olympics. Merge into that category. --Kbdank71 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, but shouldn't all these cats really be called Category:Foo at the Olympic Games? -Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, because that's longer without being clearer. Long subcategory names spoil the appearance of a category page.Osomec 02:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge.. Another tag I didn't know about cfmf (created by an anon and not Tfd'd wow.) ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Legal organizations

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty, cfd notice was added on July 23 by User:PullUpYourSocks but not listed here. --Kbdank71 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, evidently redundant. -Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Birth

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty, cfd notice was added on July 23 by User:DavidLevinson but not listed here. --Kbdank71 17:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, since it is evidently redundant, though I can imagine it could be useful. It can always be recreated if someone sees a need. -Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Autodidacts Wikipedians

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty, cfd notice was added on July 22 by User:Renata3 but not listed here. --Kbdank71 17:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would think we are all autodidacts in some form to be contributing here. David | Talk 14:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopeless category. Punkmorten 12:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasons. --BaronLarf 13:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm obviously biased, I created the category. But it is a notable category, like e.g. Category:Consequentialist Wikipedians --ThomasK 10:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I gather you just created it and did not add yourself. If there were at least 1 user, I would say keep, as I am for most of the Wikipedian categories.  Most users do not know about them, its not as easy to populate a Wikipedian cat as it is for articles.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  11:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I added myself, however User:Renata3 removed my name from the category. I added myself now back. --ThomasK 11:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Film by country

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was reverse changes --Kbdank71 12:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty category, just got recreated and populated. Although it was kept There was no consensus to rename in this Cfr, it seems it got deleted at a later time and depopulated. Now that its unused, see no point in keeping, as Category:Film by country exists. Category:Cinema by country should have been kept. Revert changes ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  12:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC) addendum  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  22:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If there was no consensus to delete it then it should be kept and the content reinstated. Especially as the title doesn't match the content anymore. There's no point in listing categories for deletion and us debating it if someone is then just going to ignore the consensus and delete it anyway. If we let people do that it makes a mockery of this whole process. JW 12:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but just in case there was another Cfd that I missed, I figured it's better to bring it back to Cfd then to let it remain empty and unused. Actually I should have looked at the contents of Film by country, as you are right they are all "Cinema". I did a quick check to see if it was there, only because I semi-remembered a Cfd. I do not want to be the one to do the revert though, as an admin had to delete it. Either it gets reverted, or we list them again together.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  13:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Revert changes. Looks like the unauthorized changes were made by the same anon who was upset about the first cfd.  --Kbdank71 15:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Revert changes and warn the user that made them. -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep 12.73.195.106. Should we just close this discussion then?  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  21:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Warn him? Against what?  Anyone can edit, remember.  Your frustrated biases showing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.131 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 26 July 2005 UTC   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil Against going against the consensus and creating the category that was decided NOT to be created and preceding to populate it. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But there was *no* concensus. How can you warn someone "against going against" something that did not exist.  Absence of concensus does not - cannot - mean that there was a concensus to keep, but rather that there were not enough participants to make a reasonable, clear determination.  Your reply does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.195.132 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 July 2005

 * Keep as Category:Film by country and rename subcategories, articles for terminological consistency = film. Prior discussion of keeping this misnomered as Category:Cinema by country was closed early in mid-discussion before concensus achieved, by "Cinema-POV" admin.  See definitions of Film, Cinema for further justification for current name.  12.73.196.131 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC) assumed sock puppet of  who had category deleted against previous Cfd decision.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Was opened, by me, on 5 July 2005 06:25 (UTC), and closed 13:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC). So that looks like it went 7hours and 18mins over the time, definately not closed too soon. Result, No consensus.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  22:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And this discussion was opened on 25 July, so don't talk about "just closing" it today, then. Also note, the new category was created and filled on 22 July, and nobody's complained for 3 days, and the only ones complaining now are you, kdbank71, and Splash - after  the emptied, misnomered category was noted in passing sitting in the to-delete storage category, where it was placed administratively.  You admins are not only arguing against good encyclopedic standards (in use of common terminology) but also the process of making and unmaking categories at Wikipedia.  You should resign... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.131 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 July 2005 UTC
 * Yes, sometimes things don't get noticed right away, there is no magic ball. Discussion didn't have to be started, it could have been speedied based on prior discussion, hence this one could be closed.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  22:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So, once something's been "discussed" once (even if the discussion has been cut off in mid-interchange, and only a half dozen users were involved), it can never be revived for discussion? Or are you just playing "Queen of Hearts" to this category-maker's "Alice" because you don't like the change he made & the fact that it went over fine with the silent majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.131 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 July 2005
 * Comment Let's assume good faith by all concerned. Yes, the rules were followed and there was no consensus, so technically things should have been kept.  But since there was not consensus, this seems like a good opportunity to keep the discussion going and perhaps come up with a solution that WILL reach a consensus.   The current Category:Film by country could be a workable name for this category.  One problem is that it is very close to Category:Films by country so the meaning of it might be confused.  A bigger problem is what to name the subcategories.  So I'll hold off on voting with the hope that constructive discussion can continue, and perhaps come up with a set of category names that can be acceptable to all.  In the previous discussion, I suggested Category:Filmmaking by country.  There were objections to this, but perhaps there is some other terminology using "film" that would better convey what is meant by the category.  If not, we can stick with "cinema". --Samuel Wantman 07:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I would always agree to a re-nom of a category, based on "good faith" the problem here is, this particular anom ignored the consensus, created the category and populated it. I brought the wrong cat back to Cfd, based on good faith, to reach a consensus. When I realized I brought the wrong cat back, the nom was changed for me. Either way, this cat should have NOT been created, and on "good faith" it was kept as a Cfd rather than a speedy. Even after explaining this, the anon decided to vandalise this page. I am all for the Cfd discussion.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  02:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect, and move all content back into Category:Cinema by country where it belongs. Sheesh.  -- Visviva 03:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Makes more sense.  12.73.201.81 13:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC) assumed sock puppet of  who had category deleted against previous Cfd decision.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can vote more than once, friend. -- Visviva 15:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bahamian Football

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty duplicate of Category:Bahamian football, with wrong capitalisation. sjorford →•← 10:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy per nominator. I didn't move this since it is also a request for deletion. -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Plant farming

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty category, name makes no sense. Covered by Category:Crops and Category:Horticulture. --nixie 08:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant and oddly named. -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have asked at Talk:Agriculture what would be a better name. Maurreen 17:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Thanks for the link to the talk page, but it was a bit confusing. Seems there was some decision, as it is now empty.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Composting

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was reverse merge --Kbdank71 12:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty category, redundant with Category:Compost--nixie 08:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator as long as we're sure that the process certainly doesn't need a seperate category. -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I creatd "Composting" before I realized that "Compost" already existed. I agree that we probably don't need both. But it seems like "Composting" would be more general and that "Compost" would only refer to different types of composts and if kept should at least be made plural. Maurreen 16:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverse Merge Category:Compost to Category:Composting. Look at the articles in the former now, many of them are "Foo Composting". DES 22:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:AIDS victims

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This category's name is absolutely unacceptable. Even its existence is fairly problematic. Either get rid of it, or speedy-rename it to Category:People who have died of AIDS or some similarly neutral phrasing. (I really don't care which, as long as this doesn't stay as is.) I also should point out that while the category description explicitly spells out that it's meant for people who've died, I've already had to remove a still-living person from it. Bearcat 08:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The name seems OK to me. David | Talk 09:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "AIDS victims" is under no circumstances ever acceptable terminology for a person with AIDS. Bearcat 09:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested. I see no reason presented to delete. -- Samuel Wantman 09:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename (Preserving talk page) Suggest "People with HIV" See comments on talk page - … G u y M … (soapbox) 10:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC) ( Updated 10:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC) )
 * Delete. I in no way want to minimize the impact or severity of AIDS. However, I think that having died of AIDS is not in and of itself encyclopedic; consider the argument that would arise if someone appeared with a list of 1,000 otherwise non-encyclopedic persons (that notion alone has opponents, that any single person is non-encyclopedic) who were AIDS victims and insisted that each should have an article on the basis of their noteworthy demise.  I think it would be more useful for those persons whose affliction has had a significant impact on the treatment, awareness, or understanding of the disease be retained in Category:Famous patients, or a custom sub-category for AIDS, though I don't particularly like the title "Famous patients" as it stands.  Thanks for considering this. Courtland 13:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC) I've taken the initiative to add this nominated category to Category:Famous patients, which I hope is generally acceptable. User:Ceyockey
 * Keep. I don't understand the controversy. We have other victims-type categories & articles already: List of tuberculosis victims, Category:Holocaust victims, Category:Crime victims  --Hooperbloob 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Frankly, "victims" is always problematic, but it's particularly unacceptable in the context of a health condition. Many people have written about the problems with the phrases "AIDS victim", "cancer victim", etc., over the past 20+ years far more eloquently than I ever could, but the basic thrust is that the difference between "person with AIDS" and "AIDS victim" comes down to whether they're being viewed as a person or a Walking Specimen of Disease. That it's been done elsewhere doesn't justify it here; in actual fact, some of those other titles need to be renamed as well. Bearcat 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The other categories that you (User:Hooperbloob) mention are not up for deletion at present (I think). The nature of this voting process is that it allows individual consideration of each case rather than a blanket "they should all be kept / deleted" decision that really seldom helps anyone in my opinion. Courtland 16:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think he thought they were; he was raising them as examples of his position. Bearcat 16:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * making myself clearer... sorry for the confusion; what I meant was "if" these others were up for deletion then it would be desirable and expected to consider each on its own merits; apologies for using an indirect way of saying that which implied more than it should have. Courtland 17:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with points put forward by Bearcat and Courtland.  --Kbdank71 16:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to nominator's suggestion. The language, whilst not particularly POV (we talk about victims of disease all the time) is not in keeping with the general style for cat naming. -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes...and the people with the diseases object to it all the time. It is not a neutral POV to talk about an "AIDS victim" rather than a "person with AIDS". Bearcat 16:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not rename. Comment: "Victims" is concise. I have no opinion on the existence of the category. Maurreen 16:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC) I see no need to be wordy, but a possible compromise would be "AIDS patients". Maurreen 02:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether it's concise isn't really relevant; there's been 20+ years of literature which has been very clear on why "AIDS victims" is unacceptable terminology. The bottom line is that a significant portion of Wikipedia's readership will be offended and alienated by "AIDS victims"; none of Wikipedia's readership would be alienated by an alternate phrasing. This is also a case where it's valid to consider whether this would be better served by a category or a list (which already exists at List of HIV-positive people.) The thing is, as a gay man (particularly as one who just lost a very close friend to AIDS a few months ago) I absolutely cannot let this stand as is. It has to be renamed if it's kept; I will not debate this point any more than I'd debate it if someone implemented Category:Fucking faggots. My only question is whether people want it renamed or deleted. Bearcat 16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Trim and reduce this category to people whose /death by AIDS/ was notable event (being otherwise notable notable person should not be qualification, the death circumstances should). Including everyone who died by AIDS brings no useful information. Pavel Vozenilek 21:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - rename if you want. As the original author, I believe that this category serves a useful purpose.  I note that some people find the name offensive, and I apologise to them.  If anyone knows of a better title, please re-name.  I can't agree with the previous comment, though - it should include everyone. RachelBrown 21:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If it includes "everyone", what good it is for? Pavel Vozenilek 16:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this category containing every single person who has died of AIDS. Despite my sympathy for those who have survived the deaths of others, to die of AIDS is not in and of itself encyclopedic.  A list, however, that is another matter altogether and I'd not oppose a list of all persons who have ever died of AIDS.  It is the category concept, the notion that each person has had an encyclopedic life, that does not sit well with me. Courtland 23:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody's suggested that Wikipedia include every last individual on the planet who ever died of AIDS even if they met no other criterion of notability. The question Pavel and Rachel are debating here is whether we would subdivide PWAs who do have Wikipedia articles, still subject to the same criteria for Wikipedia inclusion as before, into "died of AIDS and can be in the category" and "died of AIDS but can't be in the category" on the basis of a secondary criterion beyond being a notable person who died of AIDS. Bearcat 15:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested. -Seth Mahoney 14:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to figure this out before I vote. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life. I hear terms like "cancer victim" and "gunshot victim" frequently and they don't strike me as disparaging, nor do I think they are intended so. I don't understand what is offensive about "AIDS victims". One definition of victim is "One who is harmed by a circumstance or condition", that doesn't strike me as offensive. Again, I'm not trying to debate; just trying to understand. --Pagrashtak 02:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A lot of people with particular health conditions -- not just PWAs, but people with cancer, people with diabetes, etc. -- have stated over the years that they object to being labelled "disease victims" rather than "people who have a disease", because they perceive "disease victim" as asserting that they're no longer a person, but a Walking Manifestation of Dreaded Illness. Ultimately, the bottom line is that the term "victims" is offensive to people with AIDS (and people with cancer, etc.), and thus can't be used in the category name whether you understand why it's offensive or not. Wikipedia categories which group people can never use terms which exist in common language but which are offensive to the specific people the category is being applied to. Bearcat 15:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading through this discussion it strikes me as being similar to several other discussions about what to call groups of people. The consensus was that groups of people should if possible, be given the name they choose for themselves and never a name which they find offensive.  I don't know if this has been formalized anywhere, but perhaps it should.  It is offensive to many people living with AIDS to be called "AIDS victims".  With that in mind, I think there should be two categories:  Category:People living with AIDS and Category:People who have died of AIDS. --Samuel Wantman 08:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you need a third category for persons who had AIDS but died from another cause? --Pagrashtak 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are notable people who don't fit on either list, we can discuss what to call them. People who have had AIDS?. -- Samuel Wantman 23:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Exploding Boy 23:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and don't rename. "Cancer victims" (a common term) is ok and not "AIDS victims"? The category says about people whose lives have been lost and AIDS was a present factor, not necessarily who "died of AIDS". --Vizcarra 19:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, "cancer victims" isn't okay; the fact that most people don't listen when people with cancer point that out is a different matter entirely. Bearcat 20:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename for reasons given above. Jonathunder 03:49, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
 * Comment sorry, but what are you getting at here Bearcat? You seem quite indignant at the use of the word 'victim', but personally I don't interpret it in the way you presumably are. What exactly do you think it connotates? I don't see any problem with the naming of the category unless educated otherwise, and certainly none with its existence, or at least a List of... in the same vein. --zippedmartin 21:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User groups

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Take care of by Category:Wikipedia community forums, etc. -- Beland 06:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Tekken characters

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 12:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

All the articles in this category are up on VfD. There is no good reason for sepeerate articles on individual characters in a computer game, and it follows that there is no reason for this category to exist. DES 06:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See the Vfd here. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  13:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Jack Carrington: These characters have extensive background information and complicated roles in the game. Without the separate articles, much of the story of the game is lost. Why is it a problem to explain the background information on these characters, whose stories contribute an enormous ammount to the game's plot, when characters from other franchises such as The Legend of Zelda etc. have their own articles?Jack Carrington
 * Strong keep: There is good reason for separate articles on individual characters in a video game to exist. Look at Jin Kazama: A lot of the information contained therein, especially the analysis of his character as a protagonist, if combined with other articles, would either have to be abbreviated or taken out entirely. jglc | t | c 13:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Iff the Vfd passes. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  13:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTE: See Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 18. This was nominated twice for CfD within less than a week.  The one from the 18th was a keep.  Should we just de-list this nomination?  --Kbdank71 16:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of that.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  21:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You should also note that there are still entries in the Votes for Deletion--not just Categories for Deletion--existing on both July 18 and July 25. This entire process has been very poorly executed, and to be quite frank, has not taken into account that many of the users here have been working on this process recently to fix it. To nominate for deletion when nothing's been finished or decided on in the discussion pages just seems like a blind crusade against pages falsely perceived as simple fancruft. I honestly think you should cancel out all of these Tekken-related deletions, just so they can go away, and if in three months or so, the situation hasn't gotten better, they can try again without overgeneralizing it as a categorical error and hopefully with better execution. I personally feel that all of these pages have potential, and I don't even really care that much about Tekken. People just need to do more research for the pages and they will eventually show their potential. --Shackleton 04:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (Edit: In case it wasn't immediately clear, that's a Strong Keep All. --Shackleton 04:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC))

 * Strong keep, wait for the VfD first; if they are all deleted this is a near-automatic delete, if they are kept it's a no-brainer keep. -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - see the Vfd for more. if the VfD fails and the pages stay, is there a way to make sure that another VfD doesn't occur...at least in the near future.  it seems annoying to go to ur favorite character's page and see this VfD tag sitting prominently on it...if there's controls for useless pages, there should also be controls for needless VfDs.  Bubbachuck 23:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Piano

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Should be in plural form.--Hooperbloob 04:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.Maurreen 07:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC) I think I meant to say rename. Maurreen 02:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to plural. --Kbdank71 16:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to plural; deletion woudl remove the cat from the articles altogether. -Splash 16:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Object If you look at the subcategories this is not just about the intruments themselves, so the proposed name would be misleading. CalJW 21:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This should be singular.  For example, "My friend went to Julliard to study Piano".  People do not study pianos.  Piano is the field, Pianos are many instruments.  Piano is the correct name for this category. -- Samuel Wantman 23:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samuel is correct. This is not a category for types of pianos, this is a category for piano-related articles. Compare Category:Pipe organ. --Pagrashtak 19:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is, everything is categorized here, except Pianists, which has its own cat.  Bösendorfer is a manufacturer, Piano wire is a piece (probably should be listifed as Anatomy of   a piano), and then there are "Piano styles". So it should probably be renamed Category:Pianos to hold all of the non-study related articles, and a new cat Category:Piano styles (flexible on this name) created to hold the relevant articles.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Violins

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 12:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I created this category but someone suggested that it be generalized to Category:Bowed string instruments instead. It sounds OK to me...or should we just leave it as is as a subcategory of Category:Bowed string instruments and move out the non-violins? Hooperbloob 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm the person who suggested renaming "Bowed string instruments." Some things to think about:  defined most strictly, "violins" would encompass the violin as well as related instruments (the electric violin, famous Stradivarius violins, etc.) but not much else; the cello isn't even technically a true violin because its proportions are different.  A "violins" category may be of such interest to violinists that it might merit a page of its own.  A "bowed string instruments" category would encompass non-Western bowed instruments like the erhu, kokyu, sarangi, etc. as well as non-lute-type bowed strings like the bowed psaltery, ajaing, or scheitholt (all zithers).  I don't think it would get too out of hand to list all of the above on one page, as technically they're all related by their playing technique.  It could get interesting!  :-)  Badagnani 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. "Violins" is fine, but the rest should be moved out. Maurreen 07:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I presume it would work as a subcat of Category:Bowed string instruments? -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Violins is already a subcat of "String instruments".  I don't think we need to distinguish between "String instruments" and "Bowed string instruments".  --Kbdank71 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Road accident victims

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this category gives any relevant information. Currently the people listed there are important but it has potential to grow without end. Representative list may be better. If someone wants to nominate this on CfD, please do, I don't have firm opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. It's a category for those people killed in road accidents, which isn't in any great degree different from other categories of people by cause of death. David | Talk 10:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I thought it was an interesting category when I accidentally found it. I learned a few things I didn't know.  Interesting and educational information is what Wikipedia is about, right?  I see no reason for deletion.  RivGuySC 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Only see a minor problem with the name, should it be Category:Automobile accident victims instead, as some of them were killed during a professional racing event, not on a road per say. Except for Ernest Chausson, who was killed in a bicycle accident, unspecified location.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  23:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is more than fair that I vote here considering my activity on the AIDS-related CFD above. As with a death from AIDS, a death from a vehicular accident is not in and of itself sufficient to create an article for a person.  However, those person's who's death as part of a road accident are notable for something other than the death itself, such as (maaaaybe) the death of Princess Diana and it's effect on the public perception of and perhaps practices of paparazzi, those persons might well warrant inclusion in such a category.  For other persons .. a list would be both sufficient and appropriate. (P.S. thank goodness Google does spell checking) Courtland 23:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Culture of Hungary
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was suspend until titles discussion is complete --Kbdank71 12:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian culture already exists and includes all relevant articles and subcategories. This latter form (i.e. "X-ian culture", rather than "culture of X") seems to be the usual form in Category:Culture by country, so the presently used name is probably correct. This seems to be the case despite the fact that almost all other categories are usually in inverted order (economy of X, politics of X, transportation of X, etc.). -- Adam78 23:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, redundant (though I would prefere culture of X). Pavel Vozenilek 00:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * IIRC, Wikipedia policy is that "subject of nation" is the expected format, and that categories in the "national subject" format are supposed to be replaced; if "national culture" happens to be the norm in Category:Culture by country, it's only because nobody's got around to changing those categories over yet. The rule isn't that whatever happens to be the current norm in that particular category tree wins out over stated policy. So you may as well delete Hungarian culture and keep Culture of Hungary; it makes one less category to change over at a later date. Vote changed to suspend debate as per comments below; I was of the mistaken impression that this was a much more settled policy than it actually appears to be. Bearcat 06:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Suspend pending discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category titles. Maurreen 07:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not rename, to achieve the suspension that Maurreen sensibly requests. These can be dealt with later. -Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mind to delete Hungarian Culture and leave Culture of Hungary, but Maurreen is correct, we should wait until the title discussion has concluded. --Kbdank71 16:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Burials at the United States Naval Academy Cemetary
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This was misspelled. I made a new category Category:Burials at the United States Naval Academy Cemetery and fixed all the typos that pointed to the misspelled version before I realized there was a CFR tag I could have used. Also, I'm not entirely certain that I've done the nominating procedure correctly (VFD instructions are much clearer). Sorry if I've left a mess in my wake. So anways, now this category is empty and nothing points to it, so I marked it a speedy CFD. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK 21:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, you actually followed the correct procedure for this; the CFR tag is for categories where the renaming is potentially a matter of debate. It's not for categories that need to be renamed to fix a spelling error; the proper procedure in those cases is to just make the change. Bearcat 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:A Child's Garden of Verses

I found info on Everything2.com. It says "Six poems had been previously printed in The Magazine of Art, (Mar-Sep 1884)." and that "His childhood at Heriot Row inspired the poetry."

It mentions "summers he spent at his grandfather's country estate in Scotland as a child".

I would add this info to the main article except that

LA RoeDoe 23:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't have copyrights etc figured out yet and
 * 2) I don't like stating as fact anything for which I have only one information source of unknown quality

The book aparently was made into a movie directed by Michael Sporn in 1992. A Thomas Meham is given writing credit along with RLS. Found this on IMBd. 69.231.83.223 01:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you write all the poems in the book into this article?

I entered a relevant pop culture reference but it was removed. As the article is a stub anyways, and I sourced the reference, I don't see why it should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelius Maxiums (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Penny Whistles ?
I've removed from the lead the statement that the collection was first published in 1885 under the title Penny Whistles. I can't find any reputable source that states that, and it doesn't seem at all likely given the existence of this 1885 first edition published in London under the usual name by Longmans, Green. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Britannica confirms that Penny Whistles was never the published title. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Adaptations
There is a half-hour animated version (I think? At least, it’s called by the same name- I do not know for certain that the same poems are used), part of a series, presently running on HBO Max, with some of the poems set to music by Charles Strouse. See IMDb. ELSchissel (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:A Child's Garden of Verses


text:
Years Gone By

Years Gone By is the third studio album by Albert King, released by Stax Records in 1969. In the same year, the album reached number 46 on Billboard R&B Albums chart and number 133 on Billboard 200.

Critical reception
In AllMusic, Cub Koda said: "King cranked out this solid, if typical, album for the Stax label after the success of Born Under a Bad Sign. With Booker T. & the M.G.'s drummer Al Jackson Jr. producing, the set includes such staples as "You Threw Your Love on Me Too Strong," "Wrapped up in Love Again," and a powerful version of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor." For fans of King's guitar work, the inclusion of the instrumental workouts on "You Don't Love Me" and "Drowning on Dry Land" are a special bonus. Not an essential Albert King album, but one of his good ones."

Track listing

 * 1) "Wrapped Up in Love Again" (Albert King) – 2:18
 * 2) "You Don't Love Me" (instrumental) (Willie Cobbs) – 3:28
 * 3) "Cockroach" (Bettye Crutcher, Deanie Parker) – 3:18
 * 4) "Killing Floor" (Chester Burnett) – 3:05
 * 5) "Lonely Man" (Milton Campbell, Bob Lyons) – 2:39
 * 6) "If the Washing Don't Get You, The Rinsing Will" (Homer Banks, James Cross, Allen Jones) – 2:12
 * 7) "Drownin' on Dry Land" (Mickey Gregory, Allen Jones) – 3:54
 * 8) "Drownin' on Dry Land" (instrumental) (Mickey Gregory, Allen Jones) – 2:38
 * 9) "Heart Fixing Business" (Homer Banks, Allen Jones) – 2:41
 * 10) "You Threw Your Love on Me Too Strong" (Albert King) – 3:14
 * 11) "Sky Is Crying" (Elmore James, Morgan Robinson) – 4:09

Personnel

 * Albert King – lead guitar, vocals
 * Booker T. Jones – keyboards, piano, organ
 * Steve Cropper – rhythm guitar
 * Donald Dunn – bass guitar
 * Al Jackson Jr. – drums, arrangements
 * Technical
 * Ron Capone - recording engineer
 * Honeya Thompson - art direction
 * Don Paulsen - cover photography

title: Years Gone By


text:
Talk:WWI

Looks odd
I created this page because IMO having World Wrestling Industry linked at the top of World War I looks odd. Please do no delete/redirect this page, so that people searching for World Wrestling Industry will come here instead of World War I. And vice versa. Grant65 (Talk) 23:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * There are 200+ articles pointing here, and I guess almost everyone mean World War I. It'd be a pain to do all the disambiguation work manually, this would be a good work for a bot. andy 20:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:WWI


text:
BeIN Sports (Middle East TV channel)

beIN Sports MENA (بي إن سبورتس العربية) is a subsidiary of beIN Sports. It is based in Doha, Qatar, serving the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. They are owned by beIN Media Group, a former subsidiary of Al Jazeera Media Network; the sports channels were spun off from Al Jazeera Media Network in December 2013. Following the spin-off, the channels' parent company was incorporated in January 2014 as their holding company. The channels primarily broadcast in Arabic, but it also offers feeds in English, French and Spanish.

Formerly known as Al Jazeera Sport, it was re-named beIN Sports in December 2013 to unify it with Al Jazeera's international group of sports networks in the lead-up to the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

In July 2013, the network acquired MENA rights to the Premier League. On 4 September 2017, the IOC announced a partnership with beIN Sports to launch a local linear version of Olympic Channel for MENA on 1 November 2017.

History
Al Jazeera Sport was founded on 1 November 2003 by Qatari channel Al Jazeera.

On 1 November 2005, the channel launched its new website.

The group of Al Jazeera Sport channels was spun off from Al Jazeera Media Network in December 2013 and subsequently renamed to "beIN Sports" in January 2014; at the same time, the channels' parent company was incorporated as "beIN Media Group".

Channels
The current Arabic-language sports channels in the beIN Sports group:
 * beIN Sports News HD (free-to-air) (focused on International sports news)
 * beIN Sports HD (free-to-air) (focused on Arabic football competitions)
 * beIN Sports 1 (focused on Analytical studio)
 * beIN Sports 2 (focused on English domestic football competitions)
 * beIN Sports 3 (focused on Spanish domestic football competitions)
 * beIN Sports 4 (focused on French domestic football competitions)
 * beIN Sports 5 (focused on German domestic football competitions)
 * beIN Sports 6 (focused on Continental football competitions)
 * beIN Sports 7 (focused on Tennis competitions)
 * beIN Sports 8 (focused on Different sport)
 * beIN Sports 9 (the Olympic channel)
 * BeIN Sports Xtra 1
 * BeIN Sports Xtra 2
 * BeIN Sports Xtra 3

English and French Language channels BeIN Sports events channels. AFC Channels
 * beIN Sports English 1
 * beIN Sports English 2
 * beIN Sports French 1
 * beIN Sports French 2
 * beIN Sports Max 1
 * beIN Sports Max 2
 * beIN Sports Max 3
 * beIN Sports Max 4
 * beIN Sports Max 5
 * beIN Sports Max 6
 * BeIN Sports AFC
 * BeIN Sports AFC 1
 * BeIN Sports AFC 2
 * BeIN Sports AFC 3
 * beIN Sports AFC 4
 * beIN Sports AFC 5
 * beIN Sports AFC 6

Other sports:
 * BeIN Sports NBA

Piracy in Saudi Arabia
In the wake of the ongoing diplomatic crisis between Qatar and other Arab nations, the beIN Sports channels were briefly banned in the United Arab Emirates in June 2017, and Saudi Arabia banned beIN from selling its subscriptions in the country. The channels have since become available in Saudi Arabia via an unofficial satellite service known as beoutQ, which repackages beIN Sports channels as their own by overlaying its own digital on-screen graphics on the feed. beIN has published evidence linking the service Arabsat, but its operators have consistently denied any involvement. The beoutQ service has been criticised by a number of sports sanctioning bodies and event organisers due to its commercial-scale copyright infringement.

On 2 October 2018, Qatar filed a case against Saudi Arabia with the World Trade Organization, citing violations of the TRIPS Agreement. The same day, beIN Media Group also initiated an investment arbitration lawsuit against Saudi Arabia seeking US$1 billion in damages, citing beoutQ and other measures decided to hinder its business in Saudi Arabia.

In February 2019, beIN's managing director stated that rightsholder stances on beoutQ's "industrial-scale theft" would be a consideration in future rights deals, and that it would also pay less because it can no longer guarantee that its rights would be protected. He went on to explain that "we have been warning of the very real commercial consequences of beoutQ's theft of world sport and entertainment for almost two years now – yet the piracy continues with impunity every day and represents an existential threat to the economic model of the sports and entertainment industry." In June 2019, beIN laid off 300 employees, citing the piracy issues as a factor. It also declined to renew its rights to Formula One, which were instead acquired by free-to-air satellite channel MBC Action.

Monopoly accusations
Free-to-air broadcasters in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia decided against sub-licensing domestic rights to the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations from beIN, considering the fees they were charging to be too exorbitant.

On 22 June 2018, minister Saud al-Qahtani stated that the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) had filed a complaint with FIFA against beIN Sports' monopolization of sports broadcast rights in the MENA region.

On 21 August 2018, beIN Sports was fined US$2.6 million by Saudi Arabia for violations of competition law, including forced bundling of its services with other unrelated channels. beIN responded to the fine by claiming it was politically-motivated, arguing that they were being "attacked by the Saudi authorities for doing exactly what sports and entertainment broadcasters around the world do, and indeed what other broadcasters active in the Saudi market also do", and that the actions were "another illegitimate attempt by Saudi Arabia to drive beIN's highly successful business from the country, putting politics ahead of the interests of Saudi consumers.", also factoring in the aforementioned beoutQ piracy operation. On 23 August 2018, beIN Sports' license to broadcast in Saudi Arabia was officially revoked.

On 12 March 2019, the SAFF announced that the Asian Football Confederation had stripped beIN Sports of its media rights in Saudi Arabia to "cancel" its monopoly on football, citing the "illegality of BeIN Sport [sic] to transmit in the Kingdom due to the grave violations of the laws and regulations BeIN Sport has committed", and "its inability to obtain the required licenses necessary for it to fulfil its commitments in transmitting AFC's competitions to the viewers and followers in the Kingdom". The AFC announced that it would "gradually" transition its media rights to an in-house digital platform, beginning with a Saudi Professional League match occurring that week. The AFC had previously condemned the aforementioned beoutQ for its illegal broadcasts of the 2019 AFC Asian Cup. beIN subsequently announced that it would pursue legal action, accusing the AFC of apparent collusion with the SAFF to breach its media rights agreements.

Satellite
On 1 March 2014, they launched SD switch-off on satellite. These channels will carry a text caption with SD shutdown information until 11 June 2014.

On 11 June 2014, BeIN Sports switch-off SD satellite transmissions.

Smartcards
On its launch in 2003, Subscribers could receive encrypted programs with an integrated CA on satellite receivers.

Since 1 March 2014, after switching to the Irdeto secure mode, subscribers must have a JSC/BeIN receiver to watch encrypted programs.

Timeline

 * 1 November 2003: Start of Al Jazeera Sports channels.
 * 1 January 2014: Rebranded beIN Sports.
 * 11 June 2014: SD switch-off on satellite.

title: BeIN Sports (Middle East TV channel)


text: User talk:70.33.157.247

title: User talk:70.33.157.247


text: User talk:80.119.245.240

title: User talk:80.119.245.240


text:
If I Had a Hammer

"If I Had a Hammer (The Hammer Song)" is a protest song written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays. It was written in 1949 in support of the Progressive movement, and was first recorded by the Weavers, a folk music quartet composed of Seeger, Hays, Ronnie Gilbert, and Fred Hellerman. It was a #10 hit for Peter, Paul and Mary in 1962 and then went to #3 a year later when recorded by Trini Lopez in 1963.

The Weavers released the song under the title "The Hammer Song" as a 78 rpm single in March 1950 on Hootenanny Records, 101-A, backed with "Banks of Marble".

Early versions
The song was first performed publicly by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays on June 3, 1949, at St. Nicholas Arena in New York City at a testimonial dinner for the leaders of the Communist Party of the United States, who were then on trial in federal court, charged with violating the Smith Act by advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. It was not particularly successful in commercial terms when it was first released. It was part of the three songs Seeger played as the warm-up act for Paul Robeson's September 4 concert near Peekskill, New York, which subsequently erupted into a notorious riot.

Hit versions
It fared notably better commercially when it was recorded by Peter, Paul and Mary 12 years later. Their version of the song, released in July 1962 from the group's debut album became a top 10 hit, and won the Grammy Awards for Best Folk Recording and Best Performance by a Vocal Group. It reached number 17 in Canada. Trini Lopez's 1963 single went to number three on the same Billboard chart and number five in Canada. It was included on his album Trini Lopez at PJ's (Reprise R/RS 6093). Rita Pavone's Italian-language adaptation "Datemi un martello", with lyrics by Sergio Bardotti, was a major hit in Italy and also charted in South America.

Other versions

 * The Limeliters titled their version The Hammer Song on the 1960 album The Limeliters.
 * Martha and the Vandellas performed it on their 1963 album Heat Wave.
 * Ross MacManus, father of Elvis Costello, sang the song with the Joe Loss Orchestra on the Royal Variety Show in 1963.
 * The Sam Cooke album Sam Cooke at the Copa (1964) contains a live version of the song.
 * Leonard Nimoy covered the song in 1968. It was republished in 1993 as part of the Highly Illogical compilation, and in 1997 as part of the Spaced Out compilation. Critics derided Nimoy's version, calling it "a real lowlight." Sado-masochistic performance artist Bob Flanagan pounded nails into his scrotum while playing Nimoy's version.
 * Chilean singer Victor Jara included a Spanish-language version of the song titled "El martillo" (The Hammer) on his 1969 album Pongo en tus manos abiertas. Promoting left-wing political ideas, Jara was making a connection between U.S. civil rights concerns and the same in Chile. Later, in 1971, he covered another U.S. song: the political satire of "Little Boxes".
 * Johnny Cash released the song in 1972 with his wife June Carter Cash singing harmony. The song hit number 29 on the US country chart in August 1972, and it was included on his album Any Old Wind That Blows (1973). Cash's version was more in the rock music vein, powered by two electric guitarists: Carl Perkins on lead and solo, and Bob Wootton handling rhythm.
 * Wanda Jackson released the song as a single in 1969. It was included on her album The Many Moods of Wanda Jackson. It reached number 41 on the US country chart in April 1969.
 * Bruce Springsteen recorded an unrehearsed version of the song with a star-studded group in 2004, but the track was left out of the resulting album We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions (2006) because Springsteen was concerned that the song's fame would upstage the lesser-known songs on the album. The album was successful, attracting more fans to Seeger's music. In 2018, Springsteen's Seeger Sessions version of "Hammer" was released in a compilation album titled Appleseed's 21st Anniversary – Roots And Branches.
 * Mexican girl-group Fandango, released a re-working of the song's melody titled "Dame Aquel Martillo" with completely different lyrics, as the lead single off their 1990 album Volver a Ser Feliz.
 * The Blind Boys Of Alabama released a Gospel version of the song on their 1995 album "I Brought Him With Me".

Legacy
The song "If I Had a Hammer" was a freedom song of the civil rights movement. It had a tremendous impact on the American youth in the 1960s who protested against the American culture. It helped to spark the hippie movement.

title: If I Had a Hammer


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopal Das

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gopal Das
Completing a nomination by 24.60.163.16, who called this article part of "a set of nonsense Eckankar-cruft." CanadianCaesar 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A religious figure is, in and of himself or herself, notable and Wikipedic.  Consider that Xenu became a featured article.  CanadianCaesar 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And, this is one of those articles where the Google test doesn't apply. The religion also has an article.  CanadianCaesar 23:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per CanadianCaesar. Flowerparty talk 01:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even remotely notable. Nandesuka 01:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep One of the major religious figures of the religion Eckankar.  A religion without it's major figures is worthless.  Think about Christianity without Jesus, or Judaism without Abraham. Werty8472 July, 24, 2005.
 * Keep, although that Eckankar opening paragraph's use of ext. links tests the border between citation and advertising.--DNicholls 04:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense Eckankar-cruft. Klonimus 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What if I called Jesus walking on water "nonsense"? What if I called the burning bush nonsense?  What if I VfD'd Xenu as nonsense?  It's a religion.  The word "nonsense" shouldn't be used and "cruft" can't be applied.  CanadianCaesar 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Save If you would take the time to notice, there is no advertisement on the ECK master pages. Just because the religion page itself has external links is no reason to VfD everything related to it.
 * Last vote by User:216.214.203.14 CanadianCaesar 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User:Betasam

= Sunil Beta Baskar =

You can get more information about me from My Website: Beta Sector 3.0. You may also take a look at my journal at Slashdot. You could also take a look at my Blog Unformatted.

Avoiding redundant content, I'm not repeating what I have already written on my website.

Contact information can be found on my website contact page.

= Pages Edited =

The list above is a lot more relevant to what I do. I also have the habit of landing randomly on a page and deciding to correct a typo from time to time. I am not a bot.

= Updates and Revisions = The Last edit: Betasam - Talk 06:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

= General Info =

title: User:Betasam


text:
Talk:Vonda N. McIntyre/Old history

Explanation
This page contains old edits that used to be at the title "Vonda N. McIntyre". Graham 87 11:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vonda N. McIntyre/Old history


text:
Österreichische Galerie Belvedere

The Österreichische Galerie Belvedere is a museum housed in the Belvedere palace, in Vienna, Austria.

The Belvedere palaces were the summer residence of Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663–1736). The ensemble was built in the early eighteenth century by the famous Baroque architect, Johann Lucas von Hildebrandt, and comprises the Upper and Lower Belvedere, with the Orangery and Palace Stables, as well as extensive gardens.

Today, the Belvedere houses the greatest collection of Austrian art dating from the Middle Ages to the present day, complemented by the works of international artists. At the Upper Belvedere, visitors not only encounter artworks drawn from over five hundred years of art history but can also experience the magnificent staterooms. In addition to the Lower and Upper Belvedere, the museum has further sites at Prince Eugene's town palace and the 21er Haus as well as the Gustinus Ambrosi Museum.

The Belvedere's art collection presents an almost complete overview of the development of art in Austria and, thus, an insight into the country's history. The world's largest collection of Gustav Klimt's paintings lies at the heart of the presentation of Art around 1900, on show at the Upper Belvedere. Its highlights are Klimt's paintings, The Kiss (1908) and Judith and the Head of Holofernes (1901), and masterpieces by Egon Schiele and Oskar Kokoschka. Key works of French Impressionism and the greatest collection of Viennese Biedermeier art are further attractions at the museum.

History
The two Belvedere palaces housed an array of artworks even when they were the summer residence of the art patron and collector, Prince Eugene. After the Prince's death, the Habsburgs acquired some of his collections together with the palaces. Various parts of the imperial art collection were subsequently placed on display at the Belvedere from 1781 onwards. In 1903, the state's "Moderne Galerie" was opened at the Lower Belvedere. After the fall of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the Upper Belvedere and the Orangery were converted into museums as well. The Österreichische Galerie (Austrian Gallery), as the museum was named in 1921, came to comprise the Baroque Museum in the Lower Belvedere (opened in 1923), the Gallery of 19th Century Art at the Upper Belvedere (from 1924), and the Modern Gallery at the Orangery (from 1929). The Belvedere's collection of medieval art was first exhibited at the Orangery next to the Lower Belvedere in 1953.

In 1955, after years of rebuilding and renovation, the Upper Belvedere was reopened to the public, showing works by Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, Oskar Kokoschka, and other major Austrian artists.

In the years after the Second World War, there were many acquisitions and the museum was expanded and modernized. The Österreichische Galerie Belvedere is today one of the Austrian Federal Museums (Bundesmuseen) and since 2000 has been a vollrechtsfähige "wissenschaftliche Anstalt" (a legally independent public research/scientific institution).

Agnes Husslein, formerly director of the Salzburg Rupertinum and the Museum der Moderne on the Mönchsberg, was director of the Belvedere between 2007 and 2016. She has positioned the Belvedere as a museum of Austrian art in an international context.

Following extensive adaptation and remodelling, the highlights of the collections of medieval and Baroque art (previously in the Lower Belvedere) have been placed on display at the Upper Belvedere since spring 2008. For the first time, the entire scope of the permanent collection, from the Middle Ages to the mid-twentieth century, can now be seen under one roof. The adapted rooms in the Lower Belvedere and Orangery now provide space for temporary exhibitions. Moreover, a study collection of the medieval holdings was set up in the former Palace Stables. The permanent collections were redisplayed in 2011.

Visitor numbers have been increasing steadily during the years of Husslein's directorship and, in 2012, they surpassed the one million mark for the first time (1,088,000 visitors).

Nazi-looted art controversies and restitutions

 * On August 26, 1959, Holocaust survivor Alice Morgenstern, the widow of Josef Morgenstern who was murdered in Auschwitz, filed a claim to the Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und das Burgenland (Provincial Tax Office for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) in which she stated, "the picture Four Trees by Egon Schiele, which used to be owned by us, is now hanging in the Upper Belvedere. We never sold the picture but gave it to a friend, Robert Röhrl, lawyer in Vienna, Gumpendorferstrasse, for safekeeping. He unfortunately died, and I do not know how the picture landed in the nineteenth-century [recte twentieth-century] collection in the Belvedere. " On March 20, 2020, the Austrian Advisory Commission recommended that the Schiele be restituted to Morgenstern's heirs.
 * In November 2006, after more than five decades of legal disputes, a panel ruled that Edvard Munch's "Summer Night at the Beach", on display at the Belvedere Gallery, was to be returned to Marina Fistoulari-Mahler, granddaughter and sole heir of Alma Mahler, wife of Austrian composer Gustav Mahler.
 * In 2006 Austria returned five paintings by Gustav Klimt from the Belvedere, to the heirs of Adele Bloch-Bauer.
 * In 2006 the Austrian arbitration panel decided that the portrait of "Amalie Zuckerkandl" by Gustav Klimt was not looted by the Nazis and did not need to be restituted. The decision caused much commentary, in part because Amalie Zuckerkandl perished with her daughter in Auschwitz and in part because, as MSNBC reported "Rather than return this obviously looted painting, an Austrian arbitration panel concluded that it should stay in the Belvedere."
 * In 2012 a documentary Portrait of Wally told how Egon Schiele's famous portrait, which had belonged to a Viennese art dealer named Lea Bondi until the Nazi Friedrich Welz confiscated it from her private collection in 1939, was restituted by mistake to the Belvedere Museum after World War II as part of another dealer's collection.
 * In 2014 the Belvedere was ordered to restitute "Farmer's Kitchen / Kitchen Interior" by Wilhelm Leibl to the heirs of Martha Liebermann – Max Liebermann's widow due to Nazi persecution.

title: Österreichische Galerie Belvedere