Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16

Category:Classical writers of Egypt history

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 --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrammatical and hopelessly confused category. It needs at least to be renamed; but many of the contents are unsupported by their articles, and some are flat wrong. Apollonius of Tyana? For that matter, what does Apollonius of Rhodes, the epic poet, have to do with anybody's history? Better to scrap this and start over. Septentrionalis 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong delete nom vote. Septentrionalis 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming is welcome.--Connection 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join in editing inclusion criteria as you like, do not delete.--Connection 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Surely there were at some point notable writers in Egypt's history; is there some parent category (ie: writers by nationality) we'd rather upmerge to? If not, this is something we might keep and work on. Thanks, Luna Santin 10:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is on purpose of writing, regardless of nationality. It may be a child of a category by time frame. Regards.--Connection 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely the correct category would be Category:Historians of Ancient Egypt, but this is so far from having the appropriate contents that it would be better to delete it. Osomec 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...or Category:Classical historians of Ancient Egypt. David Kernow 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 history to Category:History of film

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 Tim! 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic. Category:History of film uses the correct category label, as seen in Category:History by topic Clubmarx 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:History of film, per nom. Luna Santin 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. David Kernow 14:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Athenaeum 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. FrankB 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Joke Wikipedian categories

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 all, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). (The one that does had no significant support and is empty.) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are either in jest, are overly-obscure pop culture references, or are completely opaque. None of them provide any useful information. - EurekaLott 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not wish to qualify for Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor. Septentrionalis 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE too much social club wikipedia 132.205.45.148 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not hurting anything, don't use them if you don't like them, if someone likes them then good, happy editors contribute more. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except Jntg4, delete that one, not useable by any editors not names Jntg4!. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all apart from Category:Jntg4 which actually looks like it's full of sockpuppets. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Jntg4 and keep the rest. These are harmless, except the one which can only include one user and his multiple personalities.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Category:User Likes Hotel Wikipedia, and Category:Users who wish you a happy Astronomy Day since these have multiple users in them. Delete the rest because they only have one or two (or in one case, no) users, or in the case of "What You Say?" an unexplained inside joke. Stev0 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. -- LGagnon 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all these categories are nonsensical. If categories like these are kept, users will continue to create ridiculous categories for their user pages. There is no limit to the number of possibilities, so there must be at least some restrictions and user page cats like these need to go. --Musicpvm 06:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we categorize by encyclopedic topics. What the hell is the point of these joke categories? --Cyde↔Weys 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Jntg4 in particular. These probably should be listed as individual deletes so that people can air their opinions on each one. -- Reinyday, 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete on even days, and Keep on Odd days, but only in the months of Octember when there are two full moons. FrankB 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Jntg4 does not have sock puppets. They are brothers.

Category:Jewish American spies

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, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), occupations are categorized by nationality, not ethnicity. --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seems to be an obvious Jew-baiting cat. Irresponsible. --TJive 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see any obvious reason to delete, but what is with Schmuck? --Coroebus 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, does anyone with more knowledge of the etymology of Schmuck want to go and clear out that article, which is part joke article, part anti-semitic, part god knows what. --Coroebus 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This includes none of the Jews that spied for the United States. Even if it did, this would be an extraordinarily specific cat. The nom's conclusion that this is bad faith is at least plausible; and we should avoid the appearance of evil. Septentrionalis 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider a merge with Category:Soviet spies (or for Moe Berg, Category:American spies; we seem to do this by employer's nationality); no further refinement is warranted. Septentrionalis 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this was not already the case. --TJive 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE:

This entire category seems to be a smear on Jewish Americans. Here's some reasons to delete:

1) First, the singling out of "Jewish American" spies fore a category. Is there a "Protestant American" spies category? The religious background is already mentioned in some spy articles (usually it's pointed out if someone is a Jew), but not in others. It's prejudicial to create this whole category when most of the spies were motivated by communism, not Judaism.

2) Spies are, rightly, identified by who they work for. So Americans who spied for the Soviets are called Soviet spies - NOT American spies (or "Jewish American" spies). British spies spy for Great Britain. Or, you could speak of Nazi spies, or communist spies. If the Americans have a Russian person spying on Russia, he's called an American spy, not a Russian spy. So the "Jewish American" spies in this article are not "American spies" at all. This alone should show why this biased category should be deleted.

I'd say that it shows that a complete system of spies by nationality is needed. Athenaeum 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) There are already categories that are more appropriate, which do, in fact include the spies listed here:

 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Soviet_spies
 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Cold_War_spies
 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Israeli_spies

If you look at the categories at the bottom of each spy article, you'll see that they are already sufficiently categorized.

4) Some of the "spies" listed in this article were never even indicted as a spy, such as Allen Rosenberg. That's why there is another more appropriate category:

 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Accused_Soviet_spies

5) The original article included the link to "Schmuck" which is a well known (at least to American Jews) derogatory term in Yiddish. It means penis, and is used like "dick". Ex. He's a schmuck (He's a dick.) That link to a non-existant spy named "Schmuck" was included by the author of the category. It is clear sign of *bad intentions* and meant as an insult. There's no other way it can be justified. The catagory was started with an anti-semitic intent, and should be deleted. 24.44.45.54 10:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Update-The creator of the category, Hmains, has said that someone else put the "Schmuck" entry on the page. So I withdraw objection #5. Still support Deleting based on the other objections. 24.44.45.54 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and good argument by IP address. BoojiBoy 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this category and I meant no harm. It seemed be not out of line, what with the 'Jewish gangsters' subcategory. In general, the collection of subcategories is very impressive and, by any measure, commendable. I do not know that this category is any more or any less specific than all the others here. I work on many categories throughout Wikipedia. There were just a number of bio articles in the Category:Jewish Americans which did not fit in any other of its subcategories and which had the common thread of 'spy'. Certainly, spies for the U.S. should also be included; I just changed the purpose of category to include this idea and I just I just added Burg to the category. Everyone who is interested: please add other articles; I expect the number will far outweigh those who spied for the USSR, showing the for-Soviet spying to have been a one-time aberration during a particular time in US-Soviet history. And I did not include 'Schmuck' in the category and would never have done so--it does not belong there and I just deleted it; look at the history of that article to see who added it. Also, you can see the by general nature of my edits that I am not involved in hate mongering--I delete such material whenever and wherever I see it. I hope you might consider discussing this category first, however, rather than having as a first reaction: delete it. Thanks Hmains 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi Mmains. I'm the one above (24.44.45.54) who listed objections. First off, I did give serious thought to your proposed category. Prior to commenting, I did look look at, and was impressed by, your extensive positive contributions to Wikipedia. I have not seen vandalism or hate-mongering by you. I will take you at your word that you meant no harm, but respectfully submit that perhaps you may have a blind spot on this issue. Here's another way to think of it: What if someone created catagories like "Black American Rapists" or "Roman Catholic American Murderers."? No doubt, there are Black Americans rapists, and Catholic American murderers, some of them famous. It may be possible to write many articles on such people. If a particular article mentions the ethnic background of an individual in a factual way, that's fine. And I also have no objection, per se, to articles written about criminals who are Jewish – As "Athenaeum" says "Some Jews do bad things because Jews are people." But creating categories can sometime create unfair and slanderous groupings. Of course, if ethnicity was the primary motivating factor in a crime, then it could be valid, but that's not the case here. I do not think your addition of "regardless of country..." will make it much less offensive (intentional, or not) to many people. As for the "schmuck" entry... I will also take your word on this. I had checked the edit history several times prior to posting, and it clearly seemed as if it was in the original category you created. But I think this due to the way Wikipedia works with Catagories, as far as I can tell. It seems that only current articles are shown in the entire edit history. Or perhaps its also due to my status (without a username yet), but I can't even seem to find *any* remaining reference to the "Schmuck" article in the edit history, so it seems impossible to "look at the history of that article to see who added it" as you suggest. Anyway, thanks for the response, but I still think this is a unnecessary and provocative category. 24.44.45.54 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are Jewish American categories some of them will be for bad things. Some Jews do bad things because Jews are people. Please relax and live with it. Athenaeum 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spies should not be broken down into ethnic and religious demographics. There exist nationality categories to describe for whom they were spying. This is unnecessary. --TJive 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and 24.44.45.54. Road Wizard 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although apparently created in good faith, seems unnecessarily anti-semitic. Dev920 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not anti-semitic. I don't get the idea that uniquely among occupations spies should not be categorized by nationality. Just because they can be categorized in another way as well, that doesn't mean the usual approach is not useful. Sumahoy 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify something for me please? Since when has "Jew" been a nationality? I think the point raised above is that they are already categorised by nationality (Russian, American, Israeli, etc.) and that categorisation by religion serves no purpose. Road Wizard 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nation is a cultural entity: it is not synonymous with a country (a geographical entity) nor a state (a political entity). Judaism is both a faith and a cultural group. You are treading on very dangerous territory if you are trying to say that the Jews are not a nation but purely a faith: that line of argument is commonly deployed by anti-semitists. It does Wikipedia no favours at all that it repeatedly confuses nation, country and state.--Mais oui! 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. However, I resent the implication that I asked the question as an anti-semitic attack. Though you didn't aim that comment at me directly, I would ask you to be careful about who you tar with that brush even in an indirect manner. Thank you. Road Wizard 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One argument for deletion is a slur and the other is based on an insistence that there should only be a single category structure for spies that doesn't make much sense. Osomec 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly antisemitic. —Babelfisch 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only started to single out Jews. Pecher ^Talk 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How about just Americans convicted of espionage? I don't see what 'Jewish' has to do with anything. It's not as if they were spying on the Knights of Columbus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am actually fairly disgusted by whoever started this category, and will not be exactly pained if it is deleted. However, it is no less and no more legitimate than all the other categories in which a non-religious, quasi-racial "Jewishness" is paired with some other trait. I am not denying the right of people to apply labels to themselves, but applying them to others is a different thing entirely - and to presume that a label has any legitimacy as an explanatory category of thought simply by the fact that some people use it is entirely ridiculous. This category should be discussed together with all other such categories - "Jewish veterinarian", "Aryan painter" and "Gentile pirates" included. 132.204.53.57 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Number-one categories

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 per amended nominations Tim! 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to be consistent with all the articles in the categories and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which states "Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words." Also, the capitalization in the third category is incorrect. --Musicpvm 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename numbers two and three without hyphens. The first one could be renamed Category:Lists of number one songs, and the fourth does not need to be changed. - EurekaLott 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per revised nom. - EurekaLott 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. "chart-topping" makes for less clumsy looking names: Category:Chart-topping hits in the United States etc. also it make it less likely that someone will make "Number two hits", "Number three hits" +c BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as all these categories contain aritcles that are lists of number-one songs by year rather than articles about the actual songs (which are at Category:Number one singles and its subcats), I'm changing the proposed names and nominating a fifth category for renaming so they will all be consistent. Also, i think "hits" should be changed to "songs" and I guess the hyphen in "number-one" is unnecessary. --Musicpvm 06:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Masons to Category:Freemasons

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former only has one article and the primary meaning of "mason" is something totally different from what is intended. Merge. Chicheley 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

RENAME category:masons to Category:Stonemasons and cleanup whatever necessary. 132.205.45.148 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the single entry has absolutely no verifiable information that he was a freemason or a stonemason, and the category is now empty. --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty and ambiguous. Osomec 16:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Designated terrorist 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 No consensus --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted on 21st June - see [1] AndrewRT 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless.Count Iblis 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothign about the title is anything but factual - this is a list of organizations that have been included (="designated") on list s of terrorist organizations. It does not mean they actually are terrorist, only that they have designated as such.Isarig 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the same can be said about "legitimate militant organizations". Both are opinions of certain countries and in both cases the title doesn't tell you which countries support that opinion. Iran and most of the Arab world support Hezbollah and the US, Israel and EU countries have placed Hezbollah on a terror list. Count Iblis 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wnat to change the title to "Organizations designated as "terrorist" by the EU & US, I wont object to that. Isarig 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. Count Iblis 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'd also refer Count Iblis to WP:POINT. This should have been your response to this category rather than to create an in-kind cat. Very bad faith nomination, but one that I support, despite his in-kind rejection of the below nomination. --TJive 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of interpretation. I changed my mind a few times. At first I was against the addition of groups like Hezbollah to this category. Then, when my deletion was reverted, I went to the talk page of the category and diuscussed the issue a bit. I could more or less agree with the arguments given there. If you take "designated" to mean that a major power like the US considers the group as a terrorist organization, then that inevitably has a major impact and, whether you agree or not, it should be mentioned in some way, e.g. by including it in a suitable category. I was still unhappy with the name "designated", i.m.o. too general, but that could be dealt with later.

But then, as I explained on the talk page, you need also a category to list organizations like Hezbollah that have some support from countries. Just like the fact that it is designated by the US as a terror organization has a big impact, so does the fact that it is considered to be a legitimate militant group by Iran. If one supports the category "Designated terrorist organizations" for the right reasons (and I could bring myself to do that), then one should also agree that there should be a category "legitimate militant organzations", where "legitimate" means "legitimate" according to some countries, just like "Designated" means "Designated" by certain countries.

There would have been no problem if people were willing to interpret the words in the correct way. However, it soon became clear that this wasn't going to work. The additions to the category "legitimate militant organzations" were being reverted (I agree that the name "legitimate" was perhaps not well chosen). Then the category was put on cfd. I did wrote something in defense, but then I just gave up and decided to also put this page on cfd.

So, in summary, this was not just tit for tat. There is a case for adding both categories. But if we can't have a category for organizations that are regarded by certain countries as legitimate militant organizations, even if that has a large impact (Iran's support for Hezbollah does have a big impact and that's why the US and Israel make such a fuss about it), then the argument that we should include the organization in this category is a bogus argument, the real reason was then all along to give the opinion of the US an undue weight. That then violates NPOV. Count Iblis 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, makes sense as a category, maybe not the best title, a category of groups not designated as terrorist by some countries makes less sense, many countries don't bother to outlaw organisations without necessarily endorsing them. --Coroebus 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Nothing POV about this category, just slightly different from Category:Terrorist organizations, which probably won't survive a deletion effort, but is nonetheless a fine category. Stop terrorizing wikipedia with these nonsense cfds. Intangible 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is POV is the that the name "designated" is ambigious. What if Iran "designates" the US as a terrorist country? :) And as I explained above, trying to interpret this in "good faith" didn't work. Count Iblis 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense, one law monopolist calling another law monopolist a terrorist. Designation in this case means by law monopolists, like the UN, EU, India, etc. Just one designator should be enough to include an organization in the list.Intangible 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Rename I think that there could be value in these types of categories if they specified who was the accuser. Such as "US State Department Designated Terrorist Organizations" or such. But then again it is a problematic area. --Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that renaming would solve most of the problems. Count Iblis 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Check the sister page for comment [2]. -- max rspct leave a message 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this cat as an attempt to improve the cats Category:Terrorist organizations etc (see discussion at [3]. The hope is to move beyond NPOV into a more factually based categorization. "Designated" is not intended in a vague way but rather in the technical use of the term as used by legislators See, for example [4], [5] Specific cats for "US Designated Terrorist Orgs", "EU Designated Terrorist Orgs", "Australian Designated TOs" etc. wouldn't work as article pages would be cluttered up with multiple cats. In practice most items on most lists are common. Besides there are already articles on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and, for the UK, Terrorism_Act_2000#List_of_proscribed_groups and I suggest these are better in as articles rather than cats. Incidentally I don't know the technical hows and whys but could this cfd be merged with the older one? AndrewRT 23:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name "designated" is then very US POV and that should thus be indicated in the name. In practice, almost all of the terror organizations appear on the US list anyway. Also, as discussed on the talk page and mentioned on the category page itself, the intention is to focus on the UNSC, the US and the EU. The reply I received about the hypothetical case of Uganda placing some org. on a terror list indicated that the idea was to only focus on the major powers.

Count Iblis 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it was a good idea, but I just personally prefer Category:Organizations accused of terrorism, sorry. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but more needs to be done in terms of establishing what authority has designated the groups as terrorist organisations. For instance, the UN has a list of organisations and individuals associated with Al-Qaeda, which have been identified by its 1267 Committee [6]. But these do not include some of the groups designated as terrorist organisations by the US and EU. Also, states other than the US and EU may also identify certain groups as terrorists which are not listed here. I don't see why they should be excluded, so long as it is made clear who is designating who as "terrorist". It is a content problem, rather than an issue of the naming of the category.--الأهواز 09:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To tell the truth, I'm not happy with Category:Terrorist organizations (serious POV risk) or Category:Designated terrorist organizations (designated by who?). I can respect the categories themselves, and the motivations of the editors behind them, I just want a better name. It would be just fine and dandy if somebody could please come up with a shorter way of saying, "Organizations accused by (UN/US/whathaveyou) of terrorism," and then we could all go home. Luna Santin 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- New idea. "US list of terrorist organizations." Or perhaps, "State-designated terrorist organizations." What do we think of those? Luna Santin 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - State designated? What about those orgs des by the UNSC or EU? AndrewRT 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Criticisms are welcome, I'm still just brainstorming. I've recently developed an understanding that the UNSC actually keeps no list of terrorist organizations ([7] in particular), but if I'm mistaken there, feel free to correct me. Would the EU not qualify as a nation-state (for this purpose, anyway)? I can see your point there, open to any ideas. What about "government-designated"? Luna Santin 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't mean to sound curt - I'm still feeling my way through too. The EU is not a state but a collection of states, like NAFTA although more developed. After a bit of research I discovered the UNSC Counter-Terrorism Cmte doesn't have the power to designate as you mentioned. However the UNSC does. At the moment the only DTO is Al-Qaeda although they plan to add more to the list and have formed a subcommittee to draw up a list - see UN Security Council Resolution 1566. AndrewRT 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, hrm. I'm starting to think it may be best to listify all of this, and then put all the lists into a category. Say, one article could be "United States list of terrorist organizations," and another could be, "United Nations list of terrorist organizations," and then toss in whatever other countries/international organizations we deem as having notable lists. Naturally, the lists would be interlinked (both to and from) the articles for the TOs themselves. Does that sound like a good idea? And if so, what would be an appropriate category name? Luna Santin 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete or split into "Organizations designated terrorist by X" and fill in the blank. That way each case (and each category) can be judged/debated more clearly on its own merits. Luna's list suggestion above is also workable. The category as it stands is just asking for trouble. heqs 08:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just b/c we don't agree with the government that defined the category doesn't mean that the category doesn't exist.--M @r ē ino 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV would then require to add Falun Gong to the list if China declares it a terrorist organization. You then cannot keep it out of the list by arguing that China uses bogus arguments to put it on their terror list. Count Iblis 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't faze me in the least, Count Iblis. China could name Jesus himself a terrorist, and He would have to join this category, because he would have been designated by a legitmiate government. Wiki stays NPOV even when the outside world isn't.--M @r ē ino 03:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per heqs. 132.204.53.60 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Designated by whom? Why should the US government's definitions be privileged over those of, say, the Iranian government or the Burkina Faso government, as the note on this category currently suggests? "Organizations designated as terrotist by the US government" might be an acceptable alternative, but then who would decide which governments or supranational bodies should have such categories associated with them? I can see the reason for having the category, but ultimately it does more harm than good. Palmiro | Talk 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Legitimate militant 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 --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless. --TJive 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was immediately used to promote Hamas and Hezbollah as "legitimate militant organizations". --TJive 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, who determines whether an organisation is 'legitimate' or not? --Coroebus 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. You can't on the one hand have a category like this:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations and on the other hand not allow listing organizations in categories indicating that they do have support and are not regarded as terrorist. Also, the category page makes clear the criteria for listing (one or more counries regard the org. as legitimate and you don0t have a UNSC council resolution outlawing it). Count Iblis 19:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider categories of militant groups supported by america, militant groups supported by iran etc. rather than a catch-all category. --Coroebus 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how this category was supposed to be interpreted. I agree that the name may suggest otherwise (it is explained on the cat. page). Thing is that in case of "designated terrorist organizations" above, we are asked to be flexible and to interpret the name as explained on cat. page and not by the broadest interpretation the name suggests, leading to POV problems. Count Iblis 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates Wp:NPOV and was created in violation of WP:POINT Isarig 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-strong delete. There is no way to determine legitimacy without violating NPOV. BoojiBoy 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chicheley 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category does not make sense. Intangible 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can make sense when correctly interpreted as explained on the cat. page, just as "designated terror organizations" can make sense. However if it is required that the title should always be interpreted in the broadest possible sense and we should have no tolerance to apparent POV violations even if it is not intended, then the same is true for "designated terror organizations". Count Iblis 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Legitimate" as is "Designated" (in the above case of "Designated terrorist organizations") is a POV call because just by their nature, militant organizations have supporters (who probably view it as legitimate) and something that they are in strong opposition to (who probably returns the negative sentiment.)
Strong Delete Category has no value. All orgs consider themselves legitimate so it does nothing but state the obvious. The fact that Hezbollah is considered legit by Iran should be discussed in an article about Hezbollah and/or Iran. Appears that cat was created to make a point related to the cfd of cat DTO above in violation of WP:POINT AndrewRT 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was created in violation of WP:POINT in response to the category itself, though the CFD was replaced on the DTO cat precisely because of this CFD, with the same language copied in support of it (I support the deletion of both, however). --TJive 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT was not violated, because I was serious about the new category. I explained it on the talkpage of the other category yesterday. A category of this type (with a different name) is still necessary. And instead of "designated" we need a name that unambiguously specifies that the US/EU have placed it on the terror list. Count Iblis 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, copying your argument here and pasting it m.m. above was a joke, but it is a valid point. In both cases the Cat. page explains how we should interpret the cat name. If that's not good enough in this case, it isn't for the other Cat. Count Iblis 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Athenaeum 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is not a valid counterpart to Designated terrorist organizations b/c no one legitimate is designating the movements as "legitimate".--M @r ē ino 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact not true. Iran regards Hezbollah as a legitimate militant organization. Their POV that it is legitimate is just as POV as the US position that it is a terrorist organization. The only problem with this category, like the "designated terror org." category is that the name of the category looks POV. In both cases the definition as explained on the category page is clear. Count Iblis 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The accused category is the one to keep. -- max rspct leave a message 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest delete possible Legitimate from whose point of view? This is the POVest category possible. Pecher ^Talk 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:The Legend of Zelda BS-X games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

Category:The Legend of Zelda CD-i games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

Category:Cancelled The Legend of Zelda games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

Category:The Legend of Zelda series games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

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 discussion continued as User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion. Conscious 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. Overcategorization, especially for a video game. I'd include Category:The Legend of Zelda Nintendo 64 games in this merge, but it is still under vote for a different merge. I don't understand how the last category of the group is different from the main category. --Vossanova ^o< 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:The Legend of Zelda games, per nom. Luna Santin 11:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that there are currently several proposals open for "Legend of Zelda" to "The Legend of Zelda" category merges. I want to wait for those to be closed before handling them in the same manner as these. --Vossanova ^o< 14:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:The Legend of Zelda NES/Famicom games

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd suggest a merge, but the category is empty anyway. Vossanova ^o< 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Novel sequences to Category:Series of books

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. Conscious 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revised proposal: Category:Novel sequences to Category:Novel series~~ Revised proposal, part deux. Withdraw proposal to upmerge Category:Novel sequences; instead create a separate sub-cat of Category:Series of books : Category:Novel series or Category:Series of novels. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original comment: Redundant; defining the sequence in which books should be read would work better in list format. Plus, sorters cannot seem to agree on what should go in this category. Some discussion on the talk page, but no consensus. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename to an all-inclusive category for all connected novels like Category:Novel series. MakeRocketGoNow 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No, please this is just continuing the problem. This SHOULD only be for articles about SERIES or SEQUENCES, not the novel or book articles themselves. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied from talk page: "Have we misunderstood the category here (regardless of current description), this would be for articles on the sequences. So the articles are likely to contain the list of what makes up the series / sequence. Also the sequence should not make too much of the intention, just that they can be treated as a sequence. Also I don't think there is much on common parlance to distinguish sequence / series. No individual novel articles should appear here in this catagory. No I don't think the catgeory should be merged. I might support a rename to "Novel series" or "Series of Novels" if others thought this necessary. If we merge it we will have the series of books that make up "The History of the English Speaking Peoples" by Winston Churchill in this the "Dune" sequence, series by Frank Herbert in one enormous :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the category is full of individual novel articles. If it should be full of lists, or articles about novel series, then would someone please revise the description for it? (Kevin?) I'll be happy to help move the articles once it's clear what the category's for. Also, how about renaming it Category:Series of novels to parallel Category:Series of books? ~~Or the term used a lot in library science, Category:Novels in series?~~ Thanks. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Category:Novels in series I know that is a common term in Libraries but that surely is putting focus back on the individual book. The emphasis should be on the "series". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a category for novel series like Category:Novel series. Not per MakeRocketGoNow's suggestion above. Sorry but there it is! The books have a number of categories for them, what we need is this category (or one like it) for the "group" article, what ever we call them. Personally I prefer "series" as that is a more widely used, less loaded term. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changing vote Keep to Rename as above now we are talking about Category:Novel series. Nice one Pegship! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that articles for individual novels should NOT go under Category:Novel series; the category should be reserved for articles on the series/sequence as a whole. MakeRocketGoNow 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See revised proposal above, now that the distinction has been clarified. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought this was dealt with 'way back'--see the summation about the 'technical nature of the term' Category talk:Novel sequences#Thankyou_Mr._Darcy; especially the technical link leading to Brittanica. OTOH, Google has only mirror hits and ourselves in pertinent hits, everything else seems to be genetics oriented. Hence I must conclude Mr Darcy was off in some manner, or the technical term is so obscure as to be unknown save to savants and gurus in literature, if unknown to a librarian of renown and puissance like Her Pegship. You see, I'd flagged the fact that the article Novel sequences seemed to disagree with the category definition to Her Pegship's attention[8] back on the 12th for that self-same collision of definitions, assuming one or the other to be wrong. (Kudos to MakeRocketGoNow for catching and noting that back on the category talk just above the Thankyou Mr. Darcy sub-heading. I missed that somehow.)

She apparently decided this category action was a 'smooth move' after looking it over. The original terse category definition read: Groups of novels by the same author intended to be read sequentially. For groups of novels where the order does not matter, see Category:Series of books. (I tried to clarify it back on March 25th, and insofar as I can see, that's what we're looking at now... until Peg changed things on the 19th. Like some others here, I've been remiss in returning to clean out (re-categorize) many of the entries currently there— too many irons in the fire. In any event, I'm concerned whether the contents are in error were the definitions properly reconciled; it looks to me that the whole list needs re-catted, even with respect to Her Pegships redraft of the 'purpose' statements on the 19th. Worse (for me!) the revised proposal is one that obliterates the 1632 series, which is about half-short fiction collections, though I guess not the series article itself. In sum, I'd like to echo two things on the talk: "I'm so confused", and why not delete it (merge with Book series) per the original nom.

Lastly, the understanding I had way back was the technical difference was that a 'sequel novel' in a novel sequence did little if anything at all to re-introduce the 'how we got to here', 'what are we doing', 'what's happening in our milieu', and 'who are we' types of background information which a typical series book adds in 'under the radar' as a matter of course to be somewhat 'stand alone'. Books in a novel sequence DO NOT do this, much if at all—they just take off on page one as if it were page 459 following the last chapter of the previous book— the author-publisher expects you to read the works in the order published. End point, but it seems a large one. Lord of the Rings is like that, and note the intro to our article discribing it as a single book, not a series of three (or six if you go with Tolkien's sub-divisions). The prefactory materials in the second two books in the trilogy is sketchy at best... a novel sequence per Mr Darcy. If Pegship is satified that that distiction is satisfied or irrelevant (as in or if WP:NOR by Mr Darcy, who has gone inactive), she has my proxy, my vote is hers to cast. The better proposal was the 'original', imho, if this technical distinction is covered. If it is not, then the category and main article definitions need aligned. I'll be glad to help re-categorize. I already forgot that chore once, so I owe penance! Best regards, // FrankB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Comment - on Frank's rather rambling contribution. It took me a long time to work my way through this to and fro to the various references and back. At core I think this is based a on genuine logical distinction between two types of Novel "sets" - one that sensibly can be read seperately and those that cannot. This can be regardless of authorial intention. Also I think that the different semantics of "series" and "sequence" are not clear and the arguement is based on a precieved but not consistant usage between the two terms. IF we made this distinction it would 'never' be clear to everyone. If we needed to keep "Novel sequences" defined this way we should consider "Novel series" as well. In my view of course. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Suggest: Keep Original Name, but Her Pegship still has my proxy. Just found several more examples using the technical term on two entirely different and respected 'vetted' encyclopedia's using the term "Novel sequence" ... re talk page: do consider 1, and 2 as well as Mr Darcy's 0. This becomes in that light, a matter of definitions and purpose statements, plus moving things from the category that don't fit. Cheers! // FrankB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, verily, I'm not particular about the name of the category. All I want is a clear definition of what it is and what it contains. LOTR fits the narrow description of a novel sequence -- a single story contained in several publications. As for the distinction of other types of novels in a series, (for example), the Amelia Peabody or Brother Cadfael mysteries may be read separately, but they do follow a chronological sequence and provide better understanding of the milieu when read in order. I think there are too few of the LOTR-type works -- the only other one I can think of is Remembrance of Things Past -- to create an antire category for them. The bottom line (yeah, I'm a bottom line kinda gal) is: how is this category (however named) different from Category:Series of books, and can we nail down a definition clearly enough to allow people to categorize with it? Off to work (to do some cataloging!)...♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I implied above but didn't get as far as spelling out; the other factor which could bring confussion to the definition is that one is for novels and the other for all types of books. If we stick with a version of the "sequence" idea that is being touted then we would ideally need a companion "Novel series" category. both would need clear definition. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. "Novel sequence" is an accepted literary term, serving as the standard English translation of the French term roman-fleuve. The fact that some Wikipedians aren't familiar with it is not cause for deletion or for moving it to an inaccurate name ("Novel series" wouldn't cover La Recherche du Temps Perdu or La Comedie Humaine, both of which are novel sequences). As for using technical terms, using technical terminology is totally appropriate in Wikipedia; we don't dumb down chemical or math terms for readers, so why are we trying to dumb down a literary term? What's needed here is a category cleanup or a split into Novel sequences and Novel series, because they're two different things. LotR isn't a novel sequence; it's a series. Proust's works are not a series, but constitute a sequence. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted by those who accept it - not by everyone. Also you may need to be "very" clear on the distinction as LotR is a series in that it is meaningless read separately, was never meant to be published in seperate volumes and is rarely considered one novel in isolation, but is still a sequence semantically. We need to offer up a clear, unambiguous definition that everyone can understand and work with for this to work. By the way there should be no objection to using technical terms, but only if that is what they really are and there is no dispute over their meaning. If there is such a dispute they actually become unhelpful at best. As people clearly have become confused here (including me at times) should provide some evidence that this is not as easily followed as one might hope. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, a newer definition for the proposed two categories would be

for Category:Novel sequences Note: This is for articles on

novel sequences - which are a set or series of novels which have their own title and free-standing storyline, and can thus be read independently or out of sequence or in sequence.

for Category:Novel series Note: This is for articles on

novel series - which are a set or series of novels that should be read in order as is often the case in speculative fiction and all its sub-genres. Can be thought of a one over-riding storyline, and often without plot re-introduction, reiteration or reminder.

How does that work. Should fit Pegship's revised proposal although with different definitions. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, create category:Novel series as a separate, new category; and keep category:Novel sequences, if User:MrDarcy agrees to police it. MakeRocketGoNow 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, o Gordian knot cutter. I am revising the proposal AGAIN. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay-and not rambling (yet again-sorry Kevinalewis and all! The years wear, esp. when it's late.). What She says (again! <g>). Just out of clarification, to see if I understand -- That puts Harry Potter books into new proposed cat 'Novel Series', or am I at sea again? MakeRocketGoNow, don't think it's fair to attempt to elicit a promise someone may not have time to keep. The key is whether something is logical, consistant, 'professional' and maintainable—that devolves on a clear 'mission statement' on the category page as well as the same on possible alternatives with a good see also link or three, not one particular editor's involvement. We all change jobs, life circumstances, and interests as time passes—the salary and perks here aren't all that great so as to expect one to be wedded to the job! <g>

I do strongly believe after all this, someone needs to make a clear case on each category and on the top of each category talk (less terse, more examples and perhaps links to such examples as Proust, et. al. like I found) so that this work we did here need not be created (or unnecessarily re-debated) later! // FrankB 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree on ALL points you raise - happy to help out with the work once we have goahead. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Vertabase

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 --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company with one product in wikipedia, for which the notability isn't that clear either. S.K. 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Undecided on the article, but the category I'm thinking no; I suppose it'd make sense to have a category for, say, Microsoft products (we probably do, somewhere), but I've never heard of Vertabase, and I don't think they have quite that many notable products. Just link from their main article, if they do. Luna Santin 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Programmers by nationality to Category:Computer programmers by nationality

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 Tim! 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programmers to Category:Computer programmers

All 14 national subcatgories already include the word "computer", which provides more clarity. Chicheley 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename both as nom. Chicheley 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. Athenaeum 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. David Kernow 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mexican-American War people to Category:People of the Mexican-American War

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 Tim! 08:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per here. David Kernow 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People involved in the Mexican-American War per the various extensive discussions here. Using "of" for the name causes inconsistency with natural sub-category names; "Sailors of the United States Navy of the Mexican-American War", for example, parses much less cleanly than "Sailors of the United States Navy involved in the Mexican-American War". Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my instinct would be to use "U.S. Navy sailors involved in the Mexican-American War", although I grant that the "Country Armed_force Combatant_type" format of "U.S. Navy sailors" is probably not generally applicable (as I note is discussed on the WikiProject Military history page Kirill links above). However, does anyone else favor "...involved in..." over "...of..." for these categories? It seems a more active than passive description. Meanwhile, I don't understand Osomec's comment below. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's not a major issue; we can probably deal with "of Foo War" as a standard as well. (We're probably going to be nominating all of the by-country categories to take the form "...of Foo" in the near future; once that's done, we can figure out what the best way to name the intersecting sub-categories is.) Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks for your input, David 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Kirill Lokshin that subcategories much echo the form of the parent is false. Osomec 16:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Dakota ~ 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -Medtopic 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dance artists by country to Category:Dance musicians 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 relist Tim! 09:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although an empty Category:Dance/Club music artists has recently been created (musicians is better than music artists). There are also a number of sub-categories that will require renaming. There is potential for confusion with dancing related performers. Paul foord 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the idea that it should be Renamed. Robert Moore 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, it should become a subcategory of Category:Dance/Club music artists which should be renamed to Category:Dance musicians. --Musicpvm 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Dance musicians by nationality for consistency. (See Category:Pop musicians by nationality, Category:R&B musicians by nationality, Category:Rock musicians by nationality, etc) And rename subcategories to be consistent with other genre subcategories (See Category:American rock musicians, Category:British rock musicians, Category:Australian pop musicians, etc)

--Musicpvm 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Caerphilly geography stubs to Category:Caerphilly county borough geography stubs

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 Wrong discussion page --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to WP:SFD where it belongs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Category:Caerphilly county borough geography stubs one (that's the standard convention used for Wales)

Delete the Category:Caerphilly geography stubs one

NOTE: these comments will be ignored unless they are made at SFD. Stub catagories arent debated here. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:United Kingdom planning law to Category:Town and country planning in the United Kingdom

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 Tim! 08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to recategorise all of the articles in the current category-some of them do not pertain exclusively to planning law. Planning law in the United Kindom will then be a sub category of the main category. There has been a small discussion regarding this change on the categories talk page Category talk:United Kingdom planning law--Mcginnly 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RPG Maker categories

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 Mostly Deleted (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RPG Maker, Kept, not empty, not tagged
Category:RPG Maker games,
Category:RPG Maker sites,
Category:RPG Maker users

Those categories will only encourage people to think they're notable enough to be added to Wikipedia. Delete. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as long as the unfortunately very notable Super Columbine Massacre RPG! finds a home somewhere.--Mike Selinker 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:RPG Maker, Delete the rest. _dk 07:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad

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 to People killed by order of Muhammad (no consensus to completely delete) Tim! 09:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This categories NPOV is questionable, and claiming that Muhammed asked someone to kill these people or someone killed them on behalf of Muhammed is Original Research and it is against wikipedia policies and guidelines «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is my unerstanding that Mohamed never killed any person during wars, but only defined strategy and tactic plans.--Amesoliman 00:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this category in my opinion isn't neutral and is sooner demonizing Muhammad. It is unecessarily polemical due to this reasoning. Even it's creator User:Briangotts was fully conscious of that fact. Netscott 09:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, the diff to which you link doesn't support your characterization. Rather, it seems Brian had assumed - correctly, it appears - that certain religiously and politically minded editors would motion to delete for reasons unrelated to the validity of the category. He was right.Timothy Usher 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also delete the several other categories which list people executed by governments or leaders for various reasons? Your reasoning makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 15:30

Brian, what are these categories you speak of? I found Category:People killed by the Third Reich, but that was it. What are the others you had in mind? joturn e r 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher. Guy Montag 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad. The category is purely factual; that all these people were indeed killed in fulfillment of Muhammad's will is supported by reliable sources used in the respective articles. Therefore, the charge that the category isn't neutral is entirely spurious. The fears of "deminizing Muhammad" are an example of unwikipedic reasoning. Contrary to Netscott's misrepresentation of Briangotts' comments, the creator of this category simply expressed a (correct) expectation that it may be put up for deletion someday, as any editor can ascertain by clicking the link above. Pecher ^Talk 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the reason for renaming is that none of the people included in that category was killed by Muhammad with his own hands; therefore, "by" is not appropriate here. Pecher ^Talk 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If kept, definitely rename. Luna Santin 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~, or, in the alternative, rename per Pecher. Muhammad is regarded as a prophet by on the order of a billion people. It is certainly notable that these individuals were killed on his orders. It is shocking to me that this category is proposed for deletion for the stated reason that he should not be "demonized". First of all, asserting that he ordered so and so killed can hardly be demonization when (a) it is factually true, as reported in primary and secondary sources (the accusation of original research boggles my mind) and (b) the articles make no moral judgments on the killings but report them in a factually accurate, NPOV manner (and if it is felt that the articles themselves are POV, the place to address that concern would be the respective article page.) Netscott's citation of my communication to another user is out of line and entirely beside the point. I predicted in that post that someone would tag this category for deletion for blatantly POV reasons and behold, it has come to pass.... --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

I am changing my vote to rename per Pecher, since it appears that none of these people were actually killed by Muhammad himself; he acted by proxy in each instance. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Muhammad was both a political and military figure of the 6th century and this is a reasonable way to collect articles about his various slain enemies and rivals. User:Dimadick

Weak Keep, pointless category, not at all sure about the strength of the sources (i.e. I'm not sure a category of 'people brought back to life by jesus' would be any less spurious), but doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and maybe someone finds the grouping useful since they bothered to compile it (although it does seem tolargely consist of a particular tribe, plus named individuals of that tribe, which is a bit redundant). --Coroebus 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Actually only one of the individuals listed (Ka'b ibn Asad) was a member of that tribe. The others came from a number of different tribes. Briangotts (Talk)

(Contrib) 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well others are from the Banu Nadir, but it doesn't really matter. --Coroebus 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some are, some aren't. You are right that it doesn't matter, so why keep bringing it up? There are people in the category who were from the Quraysh, and from other tribes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad as per Pecher.Timothy Usher 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete Inflammatory. His Excellency... 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:User:His excellency is the new username of User:Amibidhrohi; see block log.Timothy Usher 14:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad. We have several other categories for people executed by various countries or leaders for various reasons. People who think this is offensive need to enter reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 15:27

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad as per Pecher. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who would claim, that the crusaders killed on behalf of Jesus Christ? Raphael1 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is absurd. The Crusades took place a thousand years after Jesus died. We are talking about events that took place, according to Islamic sources, not only during Muhammad's lifetime, but in all cases at his specific instruction, and in a few in his physical presence. Your question has no relation to the noteworthiness of this category Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though your objection to my question is correct, I still object for the reasons User:Inahet stated below. Raphael1 19:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad per Pechers comments -- Karl Meier 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad as per Pecher. -- Avenue 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I looked at it yesterday, and I recall that some in the category mysteriously disappeared - leaving it open for them to have been killed by Muhammad himself. Additionally, given Muhammad fought in the Battles of Uhud and Badr, he must have killed SOME people (or he's a pisspoor leader); these people should be found and added to the category, rather than renaming it.Dev920 16:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher's reasoning. Nobody is trying to demonize Muhammad, but he was an important historical figure and military leader. - Merzbow 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We dont need any other justification to keep such a category as it clearly violates wikipedia policies "People killed on Muhammads Order or On behalf of Muhammad" is Original Research, if anyone can give a good peer reviewed scholarly source then we could keep this category. otherwise no matter how many justification you give, this should be deleted. If it is still kept I dont see any point in having an Original Research policy.

And just to remind you, people still continue to kill on behalf of Jesus, Muhammed, Governments, Terrorists, so on and so forth could we create categories for all this? this is very meaningless. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to Raphael, above. You are comparing apples and oranges. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a single source that says Mohammed (pbuh) ordered someone to kill (assasinate) another? Or a source that he used a proxy to do so? And one source that says so and so killed because prophet asked them to do so and not out of their own will? If you cannot its your own assumption and conclusion that makes it Original Research. Wikipedia is a place to share scholarly facts and you cannot put your derived conclusion as a category after your own unscientific research. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 20:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this category is "original research", then I am apparently al-Tabari, Bukhari, Stillman and a host of other primary and secondary source authors rolled into one. To say that Muhammad never ordered anyone killed is to ignore all these sources. If you want to justify these actions, go ahead, but they are reported in dozens of sources. Pretending they didn't happen seems a rather dead end route to take. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to create a category entitled "People killed at the orders of Baldwin I of Jerusalem", for example, that would be an apt comparison, since we are talking about things that happened around and in front of the actual person of Muhammad, not stuff that happened 1000 years later. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher.—Perceval 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher, and make sure it is based on encyclopedic WP:RS and doesn't include WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jam-packed full of original research at the mo, which is crazy considering the amounts of Records on the subject. Obvious POV/Troll attack cat. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher. "Jam-packed full of original research": Most rely on authoritative secondary sources like Tabari, Stillman, Ibn Ishaq or Watts. Where they don't, the reported incidents are unquestioned by Islamic and western historiography, so adding missing sources is a technicality. --tickle me 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All but two of the category's twelve articles had quality secondary sources mentioned. I amended these two (Ka'b ibn Asad and Abu al-Rafi ibn Abu al-Huqayq) with references to Guillaume and Stillman. --tickle me 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Where is the category People killed by or on behalf of George Bush or People killed at the order of George Bush?? Of course those categories don't exist because of the double standard as exemplified here. Very appalling. --Inahet 23:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with George W. Bush? Guy Montag 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See logical fallacy Tom e r ^talk 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is a bias towards Muslims and Islam, it's obvious, and appalling. A category lisiting people killed on the order of George Bush would be immediately deleted on the day it was created. Tell me, is there any other "People killed at the order of person X" categories?Person x can be Ariel Sharon, King Henry VIII, Alexander the Great, and every other despot. Singling out the prophet Muhammed, who happens to be an important figure in the faith of millions of people throughout the world, suggests that the creation of the article was perhaps done out of political reasons, which is clearly against Wikipedian polices. --Inahet 06:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when, Inahet, has Ariel Sharon been a despot? He was popularly elected by his people, and he was always clear about what he intended to do in power. I would say that the Guardians in Iran are much more despotic. Dev920 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pondering over my "strange suggestion" how about bringing your attention to the people who are jacking up articles and creating unreasonable categories in order to disrupt Wikipedia? --Inahet 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice my keep above, you will know that I do not consider this category a waste of time. Dev920 12:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rename per User:Pecher. Tom e r ^talk 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per all above.--Jersey Devil 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I think might be a better solution, really. If it stays, then rename per all above. It really should be just a list, though. Actually maybe not just a list but a proper article... Herostratus 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. I'm not convinced that cause of death is a person's most notable characteristic -- if the only thing a person is notable for is being killed by order of Muhammad, they're not worth an article; if they are worth an article, then I highly doubt that having been killed thus is one of their primary identifying characteristics. What I'm getting at here is that if the first thing that pops into your head when you think of a person's name is "Oh, yeah, that guy Muhammad had killed," then they're very probably not historically notable. I'm not necessarily opposed to the content, but I am opposed to using it as a categorization; I say this is something for article space. Make sense? Luna Santin 11:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or Listify. Ok. This is an important search point for Wiki User.--Connection 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. per Netscott, His Excellency. --- Faisal 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very POV. -- LGagnon 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher. Intangible 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice User:BhaiSaab has been spamming a number of User talk pages, every one of whom but Zora is listed as a member of The Muslim Guild, where this category was proposed for deletion: [9],[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].Timothy Usher 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is another one of Timothy's one-sided comments. Zora, for example, is not a member of the Muslim Guild. Furthermore, Timothy Usher, decided not to mention anything about Briangotts posting this deletion on several user pages [16], [17], [18], [19]. In fact, he didn't even mention how he was notified about this category for deletion: [20]. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- BhaiSaab, you're right, I saw this in many places, including the above. You're also right that Zora isn't a member. But it's still spamming.Timothy Usher 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah? So sue me. Be sure to note Timothy's correction to his premature and one-sided "report." [21] BhaiSaab ^talk 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - BhaiSaab, Timothy will never be satisfied even if you had contacted more Non-Members than Members. Just take it easy. --Aminz 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm afraid converting this category to a list would not be a good idea because it would potentially attract many otherwise non-notable people. For example, a List of people killed during the Holocaust would result in millions of names, most of which are only known for being killed during the Holocaust. However, I see no reason to delete the category because it certainly is of interest to some. The motives of those who created the category may have been sinister. Perhaps the editor who created the category wanted to portray Muhammad as an terrible, ruthless, evil man. But we're supposed to assume good faith here. If we were to assume good faith and assume the creator(s) weren't trying to push some negative point of view, many of the delete votes would have no weight. joturn e r 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing is not a good idea indeed. However, you're smearing the creator's rep by questioning their motives. That's a personal attack, ostentatiously assuming good faith afterwards doesn't make it better. --tickle me 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the statement to something along the lines of perhaps the American government was behind some conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy, but if we assume good faith and let the evidence speak for itself, we'd have to go with the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed him. Just because I say perhaps or may have does not actually mean I believe those in fact were the intentions. What I'm saying is that because we don't know the creator's intentions, we shouldn't jump to conclusions like the ones I formulated in my statement (which were ultimately derived from some statements above). That couldn't be farther from a personal attack. joturn e r 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You "don't know the creator's intentions" - indeed. However, that doesn't hinder you speculating on the "sinister", motives pushing some "negative point", "ultimately" hypothesizing on yet another user's comments. "we shouldn't jump to conclusions like the ones" ...you took care to "formulate" in the bleakest tone. That couldn't be closer to a personal attack. Neither "perhaps" nor "may have" mitigate the fact. --tickle me 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too narrow to be useful; but if kept, rename per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that perhaps saying Muhammad sounds a bit too specific, but I couldn't think of a group that would better represent him. There's a Category:People killed by the Third Reich instead of a Category:People killed by Adolf Hilter. But, at least as far as I know, there is no name for the group of people led by Muhammad. joturn e r 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The group is usually called "Muslims" or do you disagree? Pecher ^Talk 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling someone was going to say that. No, that obviously wasn't what I was talking about. Perhaps sahaba would be the closest, but I don't know enough about the deaths of the subjects in the category to know if that would indeed be correct. Additionally, I have an aversion to using Islamic terms to explain concepts to the general public. joturn e r 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I think it is unnecessary. --Aminz 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per User:Joturner. Whatever this may be intended to say about Muhammad, a reader can formulate an opinion based on the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tewfik (talk • contribs) .
Delete - by it's very nature the category isn't neutral and can only really defend one POV i.e. here look Muhammad is evil, here is a list of people he has killed. Probably unnecessary as well. Wikipidian 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete This was a though one. But after som consideration, i vote delete per the arguements of Inahet, Luna Santin and Wikipidian. --Striver 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Pecher. This is not POV; it is factual. --Musicpvm 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Delete' - This is totally pointless, you can make similar topics such as "people killed on the orders of X USA president" its just really stupid and makes Wikipedia look like a sub-par encyclopedia with a bunch of useless articles. --Street Scholar 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no...plenty of other articles take care of that for us. :-p The solution is improvement, not deletion. :-) Tom e r ^talk 01:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Delete'- Doesn't add anything beneficial to the encyclopedia, except maybe in the eyes of a few sectarian warriors, who want to force some kind of anti-Islamic agenda on the project. Ulritz 11:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for deletionists: How is a category listing people executed by order of a religious leader different from a category of people executed by order of a religious organization? Sure, the exact name might be offputting, but that can be changed; there's no reason to delete simply because you don't like the wording of the name. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 22:23
- This category does nothing but bringing us farer and farer from each other. It is simply unnecessary & controversial. It is like someone creating a category titled "Enlightened Jews who converted to Islam". That's my reason at least. --Aminz 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Enlightened" is POV. However, "Jews who converted to Islam" wouldn't contravene any WP rules or guidelines. --tickle me 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see my arguments (fair ways above), they take an entirely different spin on the issue. Specifically, is this cause of death useful as a categorization for articles? Take Walt Disney as an example. When we think of the name, we don't think, "Oh, yeah, that guy who died of a heart attack!" and I wouldn't see much point in categorizing him as such -- nobody's going to look him up that way. If a person is only notable for having been executed, are they truly notable in an encyclopedic sense? If it makes sense, I have no opposition to the content, but I question its use as a category and encourage turning it into an article. Likewise, you do bring up a good example with Category:People executed for heresy, but I'd like to point out that the comparison isn't quite perfect -- the heresy category has more to do with what the person did while alive, and the struggles they went through, and covers hundreds of years of history, not just "Oh, they died by execution," or, "Oh, they were executed because X said so." To put it another way, a category for prisoners executed for murder may be worthwhile, a category for prisoners sentenced to execution by a particular judge, probably not so much. I'm sure you'll have some good counterpoints, I look forward to seeing them. Luna Santin 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Jewish Encyclopedia uses ' "Enlightened" Jews who converted to Islam' to specify a particular group of converts. But yes, it is Jewish Encyclopedia's POV. Anyways, I don't support this category since it will only increase tensions & + in response some may make other "NPOV sounded" categories. These categories are simply unnecessary. --Aminz 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not work in a vacuum. Whatever the category's abstract right to exist, it is of limited use at best, and can reasonably be expected to annoy some of us. On balance it does the project more harm than good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a category listing people executed by order of a religious leader different from a category listing people executed by order of a political leader? There probably wouldn't even be a CfD filed to remove "People killed by order of Ariel Sharon" or "People killed on behalf of George W. Bush" as it would be straight away speedy deleted by admins. Raphael1 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or rename' per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless "People killed in the name of/by the order of/at the behest of George W. Bush/Tony Blair/George Washington/etc." are also created, which they won't be, because the whole idea of a category like this is intentionally inflamitory and supported, above, by ardent anti-islamists. Publicola 08:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FUD. These cats would be discussed and criticised as this one is - and eventually accepted or rejected. --tickle me 02:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gren グレン 00:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher or listify - but clearly a major characteristic of these individuals. For instance, Huyayy ibn Akhtab is not famous for being a Jewish warrior, he's famous for being somebody who fought against Muhammad and getting executed for his troubles. Not sure that the Bush comparisons are worthwhile - though if it ever became clear that President Bush actually produces lists of people he wants killed and orders people to carry it out, I don't see why they shouldn't be categorized as such - it would clearly be a major characteristic of those people that they had been killed by order of Bush. This isn't a general category for "people who died as a result of Muhammad" (so general war victims are not included for instance), which to my mind makes it much more useful, verifiable and neutral. However, I am leaning mildly towards listifying on the grounds that this would enable sourcing to be made clearer. I can't see that the category is being abused at the moment sourcing-wise, but it may be safest to switch to a list for sourcing reasons. TheGrappler 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Leaders of cities in the United States to Category:American mayors

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 relist Tim! 09:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better name for inclusion in Category:Mayors by country which is what they really are. The proposed name is shorter and clearer about the contents. If there are notable city managers they can be placed in a category for that title. But city leaders are generally know as Mayor. If this really is mostly about mayors, then why not use mayor in the name? If results of this nomination are positive, then the subcategories would need to also be renamed. Vegaswikian 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Mayors in the United States; it already exists, and keeps with the trend of preferring "X of/in the United States" to "American X". —Zero Gravitas 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a naming convention for the proposed form. Vegaswikian 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, move per nom. —Zero Gravitas 07:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- The subcategories should not be renamed. Therefore, the parent category should follow the convention for the children.
1. We've already been over this state by state for the past 8 months:
  - Some US states have Mayors only, some have managers, some have both.
  - Some Mayors are executive, some are honorary, some are legislative.
  - The law varies by state under the theory of home rule.
2. Note that the UK and others also have Leaders of cities.
3. Wikipedia is not the world legal body for enforcement of uniformity.
4. I cannot find the discussion of any Category:Mayors by country decision that resulted in the spurious Naming convention. --William Allen Simpson 03:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, we should still have the mayor categories since almost everyone listed is a mayor and that is the common term in the US and around the world. They can be a subcat of leaders if that's the compromise point. Vegaswikian 05:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. "mayors" is much clearer than "leaders of cities". -- User:Docu

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:Juneau, Alaska

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 Category redirect. Vegaswikian 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and utterly pointless duplicate (and sub-category of!) Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, created two days ago solely as a holder for Category:People from Juneau, Alaska, which I've moved to Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, where it belongs. —Zero Gravitas 05:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should this be a category redirect? I suspect that is a mistake a lot of editors could make. Vegaswikian 07:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. As long as it isn't cluttering up ordinary category-space. —Zero Gravitas 07:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:NHS Hospitals

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty duplicate of category:NHS hospitals. Delete CalJW 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant. Afonso Silva 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed.--Dakota ~ 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. David Kernow 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Non DJ Clue Apperances

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 --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. This would be like "artists who haven't recorded with Carlos Santana." I could see an argument for performers who have appeared with DJ Clue, but this is nuts. JDoorj a m Talk 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a BJAODN? If not it should be. Speedy delete. BoojiBoy 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh my. ×Meegs 08:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or else create Category:People who have never been in Cliff Clavin's kitchen —Zero Gravitas 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uninformative. Tim Ivorson 2006-06-16
Delete - so this category tells us that there are only 3 rap artists who have not appeared with DJ Clue? That's amazing. Per nom. Rossrs 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless category Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plus, it's misspelled. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:LGBT comic book characters to Category:Fictional LGBT 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 (was not tagged). --William Allen Simpson 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The section has numerous entries that were altered to better qualify for the category, these alterations mean that whoever altered them lacked the necessary neutrality required by Wikipedia and are tantamount to vandalism. I feel that merger with the larger category means more eyes, more oversight and hopefully more applied neutrality. All the pages in the category still need to be reviewed, and at least 1/6 need to be corrected as the LGBT comic book characters category was spammed into quite a few pages. Basique 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "LGBT comic book characters" is parsing categories far too finely. The category situation is getting way out of hand, divided into such hair's-breadth differences so as to become only marginally useful.--Tenebrae 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The narrow focus of the category has been helpful to me. I don't want to have to wade through LGBT characters in other mediums to find the material I need for my research. Breakaway 03:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. CalJW 03:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Feeds directly into category:Comics characters and category:Fictional LGBT characters. Works great for me.--Mike Selinker 05:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Comic books are a significant and unique medium with its own unique fanbase. For people who want to research LGBT representation in this specific medium, keeping the categories distinct is invaluable. And there seems to be plenty of interest in this very specific topic, with recent news articles on the upcoming lesbian Batwoman, plus the speculation about Superman Returns. Why complicate a research tool unnecessarily? Perceive 06:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mike S. It has problems, as described in the nomination, but nearly one hundred members makes this a very practical subcategory of Category:Fictional LGBT characters. ×Meegs 08:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Practical and populated subcategory. Afonso Silva 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The merger would result in a parent category with over 200 articles and locating comic book characters would become a task in itself. User:Dimadick

It's a large category precisely because of the mislabeling of certain pages, which it seems was deliberately done to build up the size of the category. --Basique 13:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I encourage you to root out the ones that don't belong there. But Northstar, Akbar and Jeff, and Cherry Poptart, to name a few off the top of my head, certainly deserve being in this category. Even Mary Jane Watson, who's as heterosexual as they come in the mainstream comics, has been portrayed as a lesbian character, and so doesn't seem a mislabeling to me.--Mike Selinker 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is composed of some mislabeled articles, we should change the articles, not the category. Considering the usefulness of the category, deleting it won't make Wikipedia better. Afonso Silva 18:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; per Mike Selinker -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Side nomination. This probably should become Category:LGBT comics characters to match the parent Category:Comics characters. Thus Akbar and Jeff, two comic strip characters, make more sense here.--Mike Selinker 00:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Perceive and Alfonso Silva. --Newt ΨΦ 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --DrBat 00:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I added a comment to the category discussion page about whether certain characters belong in the category. If anyone wants to do some research on this, it would improve those articles' link to this category.--Mike Selinker 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Percieve, Alfonso Silva and Mike S. The medium-specific catagory is useful -- if there is a problem with the items in the catagory, fix the content, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. ~CS 01:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly sympathize with your concerns, Basique, and I can see some merit to your suggestion, but I think we might do better to just show the category some more love (...and monitoring). By all means, seek out miscategorized articles, and revert/edit vandalism with prejudice. Luna Santin 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I achieved most of what I wanted, which is more eyes monitoring the category, and a decent degree of oversight from other Wikipedians. So I'm perfectly willing to concede defeat om the issue of a merge. Plus it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. --Basique 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too broad. --Chris Griswold 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all good resons above. Th e Gerg 14:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons above Palendrom 03:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are several good reasons above Caesarcub 04:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 102 articles is big enough to warrant its own category. Even if 1/6 of them don't belong, 85 is still enough to warrant its own category.
Oppose but rename per Mike S TheGrappler 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.