< December 13	December 15 >

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A high street is defined it that article as "the primary business street of towns or cities in the United Kingdom", but they are virtually always thought of in their role as shopping streets. Some of the streets currently in this category do not meet this definition, eg Neal Street, or even Regent Street (it is less important than Oxford Street). It would be better to retitle this after a high street's main function. There are plenty more streets which could then be added, and there would be less classification problems (is it the most important or not?).

• Rename Rhollenton 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. And it is also worth pointing out that traditionally in many parts of Scotland the principal street is called the main street, not the high street. (I assume that it was from Scottish emigrants that American English adopted this term.)--Mais oui! 23:26, 14 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles are about the incidents, ship articles are present when the name is synonymous with the incident. To put all ships involved in international incidents in the category would be unnecessarily broad (most ships of any note are of note because of their involvement in international incidents of some sort). Joshbaumgartner 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For reason that Category:International maritime incidents is more concise and more inclusive. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 13:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 16:40, 16 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy and prior CfD. Joshbaumgartner 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. -- Ze miguel 17:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Izehar (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 16:40, 16 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is a city rather than a sect. Rename to the usual form category:Mosques in Jerusalem in line with category:Mosques in Israel. Rhollenton 19:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree Rename Yoninah 21:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Olve 01:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --אריאל יהודה 19:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Izehar (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is a city rather than a sect. Rename to the usual form category:Synagogues in Jerusalem in line with category:Synagogues in Israel. Rhollenton 19:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree Rename Yoninah 21:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Olve 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom --אריאל יהודה 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Izehar (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The following changes are requested as a result of the discussion below [1] (and are supported by this method of categorization devised for this subject on the Norwegian Wikipedia -- to differentiate between the Christian and Jewish religions' view of these texts -- see comments of User:Olve below [2]). Christianity has its own naming conventions that are not in accordance with Judaism's naming conventions. Thus, from the Christian perspective there is already Category:Old Testament books and Category:New Testament. Judaism never uses the term "Old Testament" and the term Hebrew Bible is not accepted by many Jews because it is a term used by Christians as well. Therefore the name Tanakh is ideally utilized when conveying the teachings of Judaism. Similarly, Ketuvim and Nevi'im are the accepted names for the Jewish sub-divisions of the Tanakh. (There already exists the sub-category Category:Torah for the five books of the Humash which is important to Judaism.) There is already a fairly strong consensus for these moves, see [3] (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12#Category:Hebrew Bible). Thank you. IZAK 12:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh --> Category:Tanakh

    (interwiki: no:kategori:Tanákh nn:kategori:Tanákh de:Kategorie:Tanach nl:categorie:Tenach)

    • Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh events --> Category:Tanakh events
    • Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people --> Category:Tanakh people

      (interwiki: nn:kategori:personar i Tanákh)

    • Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places --> Category:Tanakh places
    • Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh prophets --> Category:Tanakh prophets
    • Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs --> Category:Tanakh stubs
    • Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim --> Category:Ketuvim
    • Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im --> Category:Nevi'im

      (interwiki: nn:kategori:Nebiím)

• Note: This was moved from speedy, as it does not qualify. --Kbdank71 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move ASAP as stated above. IZAK 12:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as per nom. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as per stated above. Kempler video 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move ASAP. -- Olve 16:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as stated above. Alansohn 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move immediately in support of above argument --Leifern 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. I suggest adding the word "Tanakh" to the cats Torah, Ketuvim & Nevi'im but I won't go to court over this. altmany 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move consistent and less confusing gidonb 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as stated above. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move for the reasons stated here and in the related discussions. Joaquin Murietta 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move for the reasons above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move: Everything has already been said. --Hersch 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. Izehar (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. Evolver of Borg 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. Yoninah 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. maayan 23:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. --Vizcarra 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not move to the stated categories. Instead, move to the common English names of those categories, and don't use attributive nouns (so "Hebrew Bible", "Events in the Hebrew Bible", "People in the Hebrew Bible", "Places in the Hebrew Bible", "Prophets of the Hebrew Bible", "Hebrew Bible-related stubs"). Average readers should be able to tell just by looking at the category what it contains, and these should no more be moved to "Tanakh X" than Moses should be moved to Moshe. Not sure on Nevi'im/Ketuvim; I don't think there's any English term for those classifications that isn't completely ambiguous, so no problem with that. Anyway, just pitching in my two cents, although my cause is pretty clearly doomed. :) —Simetrical (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your concern about clarity of names is valid, but naming one religion's writings from the POV of another simply isn't an acceptable solution. Do you have another solution? -- SCZenz 03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Surely you don't think that, for instance, the article on the Book of Job should be renamed Iyov, do you? The Tanakh is a subset of the Old Testament, together with the deuterocanonical works, and its contents are held sacred by Christians as well. (I'm an Orthodox Jew myself, in case you were wondering.) —Simetrical (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Simetrical, I would prefer that a more secular term be used but wouldn't otherwise have a problem with the move if it was a subcategory of an easily identifiable, non-specifically Jewish-termed category. (my not-quite-worth 2 cents) Grika Ⓣ 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Language is not the issue. The issue is that some Jews consider Hebrew Bible to be a Christian term. -- SCZenz 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, of course it's a Christian term. English speakers are overwhelming Christian, and traditional Jews (even English-speaking ones) almost always use Hebrew terms to denote concepts within their own religion. In most cases, therefore, the Jewish term will be much more obscure than the Christian term, particularly to those who aren't well-informed on the topic (who are the most important people to consider, given that Wikipedia's goal is to inform). —Simetrical (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simetrical, this category's name was set up originally as a compromise so that BOTH Hebrew Bible and Tanakh should be displayed, hence its name since 27 June 2004 [4] has been Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. However, on 23 October 2005 User:Alkivar created the newer Category:Hebrew Bible minus the word "Tanakh" in it. In response I nominated Category:Hebrew Bible for deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12#Category:Hebrew Bible where almost everyone is voting to delete. (Not User:Alkivar tho', who claims that having the "/" sign between "Hebrew Bible" and "Tanakh" was against Wikipedia rules, even though I tried to explain to him it was actually needed for the purposes of creating a "Neutral" title for the category.) Then User:Olve stated that on the Norwegian Wikipedia they only used the name Tanakh to denote the naming conventions for Judaism's holy books. Following that, this vote was introduced to move Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to Category:Tanakh. In the other vote, when a User:HG opined that: "For an English NPOV encyclopedia, I think the term "Hebrew Bible" is completely adequate for the Tanakh/Torah/Miqra. I find this discussion unnecessarily polemical and political. Numerous Christian and Jewish academics use "Hebrew Bible" as the best (yet) effort at a neutral terminology, moving away from Old Testament. Sure, I wouldn't use this term among Jews (except w/my wry academic humor) but Wikipedia is for a general English-speaking audience, probably mostly Chrisian. Tanakh isn't really much of an English word, if at all, and why use such an unfamiliar term for such a key category? Look, old Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't use Tanakh and the EJ only has Tanakh as a tiny stub (for "Bible"). So it looks like some of my fellow Jews are just voting for Tanakh in a petty way, to get back at the Christian POV. I think it would be more mature to go with "Hebrew Bible". Furthermore, it would be better pedagogically to familiarize Christians with this term (HB) as a less offensive alternative to OT. It takes the high ground and leaves open the possibility that we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV articles for these beloved books." This was my reply IZAK 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC):[reply]
      • "While what you write may have a nice theoretical touch to it, it is at best a "daydream" and at worst a "nightmare". How on Earth can one possibly believe that (as you say:) "....we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV...?" It is liking wishing for a day when an article will emerge that will prove that "fire" and "water" will live in a "chemical NPOV" of "peace" which would be impossible in this world as we know it to be. Do not project notions that relate more to the subject of Jewish views of religious pluralism than they do to learning what are Judaism's strict and exact definitions, descriptions, and explanations of the תורה and תנ״ך with its כתובים and נביאים without getting side-tracked. If non-Jews are ignorant about Tanakh as a definitive name, then here is a golden opportunity to educate them and not allow them to impose "definitions" and terminology for Judaism's sacred texts. Christians are free to do with the New Testament as they wish, but they should not tell (nor "suggest" to) the Jews what to call the Jewish religion's texts. This is very logical I think. For example, Wikipedia respects Islam's holiest texts calling them Qur'an (not the English "Koran" -- and certainly not "Arabs Bible") and Aqidah ("creed"), and so without any apologetics they have created Category:Quran (a variation of "Qur'an" I guess) and Category:Aqidah and many more. Nobody is running around telling the Islamic editors to adhere to "English" standards all the time. Same goes with the Chinese, remember the days when Mao Tse Tung was called just that and not Mao Zedong as they want him known today, and when Peking was Peking and not Beijing? (Oh, and the Polish editors on Wikipedia never stop reminding everyone to spell things in Polish as much as possible, never mind that no-one will have a clue what they are trying to talk about, for example did you known that Żydowski Związek Walki is actually about "Jewish Fighting Union"? or that Żegota refers to the "Council to Aid the Jews"?) So if the Arabs, Chinese, and Polish don't feel bad about making the world aware of how they would like to have their important words spelled, why should Jews be concerned that non-Jews won't latch on to a little word like Tanakh? Maybe it'll take time, but like "Oy!" and "Shalom" the good word will get out. You have nothing to fear!" IZAK 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't want to get into an adversarial position which I do not particularly support because I love everybody, but (building on your point regarding Qur'an vs Arabic Bible or Islamic Religious Text etc.) isn't assuming the default bible to be the English Christian Bible essentially as POV as a symmetrical move to rename Old Testament to "English Christian Chumash" and New Testament to "Popular Messianic Writings"? (I understand the real life issues of making things easy for the majority, btw, I'm just not adressing them here for the sake of debate) Gzuckier 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Wikipedia respects Islam's holiest texts calling them Qur'an (not the English "Koran" -- and certainly not "Arabs Bible")". Yes, it does, because Qur'an or Koran or some variant thereof is the common English term used to describe that book (although Koran is more common than Qur'an, that's changing). Hebrew Bible is more common in English than Tanakh or Tanach: 1.2 million Google hits as opposed to 715,000 for Tanakh/Tanach. Factor in that the Tana[ck]h hits are undoubtedly disproportionately on Judaica sites, and it's pretty clear that our readers will be more familiar with Hebrew Bible altogether; even if they aren't, the meaning is pretty close to self-evident from its components.

        I'm clearly outnumbered, of course, so there's not much point in arguing about this here. If I do continue this, it will be on policy pages, not individual CFDs. —Simetrical (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move for the reasons above. Rachel1 08:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as per nom. -- Nahum 14:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. --אריאל יהודה 19:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• move Gzuckier 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move for the reasons above. Hiergargo 17:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per IZAK. Put in a redirect from Hebrew Bible to satisfy all those 1.2 million Google hits. Yoninah 16:45, 20 December 2005 (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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Category: Cinema of the United Kingdom. There really isn't such a thing as a separate "Cinema of England" or "Cinema of Scotland" and there aren't separate English and Scottish film industries. The industry in Britain has only ever been a UK-wide one, its not regionally based. Trying to sub-divide it in this way is a really bad idea. If we want to be precise, most Scottish-set films are actually usually either American or English. Famous "Scottish" films like Whisky Galore! are usually "English" films made on location in Scotland. JW 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I should also point out, the sub-cats Category:English films and Category:Scottish films have also recently been created, probably by the same user. These are equally over-specific and problematic. Transferring the content from Category:British films into separate sub-cats would be a mammoth task, and trying to decide which films were "English" and which were "Scottish" would not be easy. JW 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cinema of Scotland, but delete the more recently created Cinema of England. Separating out English cinema isn't helpful, but Scotland has a wide range of cultural categories already. Carina22 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Both countries have a rich cinematic heritage: both categories will become large. Indeed they each already have several subcats, and they are only in their infancy.--Mais oui! 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't have separate cinematic heritages or separate film industries. And please declare an interest when voting on a category you created. JW 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem extraordinarily well-informed on this topic. What is your source for your rather sweeping statement: "They don't have separate cinematic heritages or separate film industries"? That is a new concept to me, so I can only assume you have some solid basis for the statement. Where is it stated that voters must declare that they created a category: I have never seen that done before, nor read about it, and I did not create Category:Cinema of Scotland, User:MacRusgail did.-- Mais oui! 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • He simply disagreed with you. You haven't mentioned your credentials as a world renowned cinema historian either. CalJW 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say its fairly obvious you should declare an interest if you are voting on something you created. And its very true to say England and Scotland don't have separate cinematic heritages or film industries. The British film industry has always been based in and around London, and this is still largely true. But it has always drawn on talent from around the UK, including Scotland, which is why it is a "British" film industry. Most Scottish-set films like The Wicker Man, Whisky Galore! or Local Hero were produced by companies based in London, not Glasgow or Edinburgh. JW 22:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Not helpful from where I stand. Sumahoy 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Mayumashu 02:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Better to lose the English one than keep the Scottish one. I am an English nationalist, but that is besides the point. We should only have categories which reflect the world as it is and are useful. There is no "English" film industry, just a British one in which most of the people are English, but a good number aren't. CalJW 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is the kind of thing that happens all the time, be it about literature, architecture or scientists. Although English and Scottish are clearly a subset of British, there are sufficient cultural differences to make distinctions useful. Maccoinnich 12:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category: Cinema of the United Kingdom. Category:Cinema of England and Category:Cinema of Scotland (and Wales and NI) can be sub-categories of the merged cat. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Cinema of England and Category:Cinema of Scotland already are subcategories of Category: Cinema of the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! 13:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sorry, didn't realise! Camillus^{talk|contribs} 13:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; there is a small Gaelic cinema community. If this was to be rejected it would have to be on the grounds of being non-notable, not non-existant. Nach0king 14:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; I note with interest the above comment regarding a gaelic cinema community - something i (and im a native speaker of the language) have never encountered. If it exists it is pretty far from notable.
  • Not trying to be cheeky, but try typing 'gaelic film' into Google. Nach0king 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: articles about people that are unlikely to be known outside their social and occupational circles may be condemned as "non-notable" for Wikipedia purposes, but "non-notable" is not a synonym for "little-known". If there is a Gaelic cinema industry that has got so far as producing films that have been shown in public or on TV, I would personally believe that it is highly notable as far as the question of inclusion in Wikipedia is concerned.Palmiro | Talk 03:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is saying they shouldn't be included as articles. We are talking about categories. There would be nothing wrong with an article on Gaelic language cinema, if it exists, or even a category for Gaelic films. But Cinema of England and Cinema of Scotland are being imposed to separate English and Scottish actors, films and directors as if they are part of a separate culture and industry, which they aren't. JW 10:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then surely that's just incorrect usage. I agree that if, say, you class Braveheart as a Scottish movie merely to say "oh, look, this is Scottish" then that's entirely inappropriate. But it seems to be that deleting the categories because people are misusing them is akin to deleting Wikipedia because people misuse it. Let these categories continue and the small Gaelic and Scottish film community information sets will find their way onto these pages. In the meantime, people adding inappropriate films (e.g. British productions) will have their work edited out. Sounds about right? Nach0king 12:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scottish films are British productions. The problem with the categories is that they are making a claim that England and Scotland have separate film industries and cinematic identities without offering anything to back this up. It's not a view that would be supported by anyone with any knowledge of the subject. JW 22:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're just repeating yourself. I've already said that, if British films (which, as you say, comprise the vast majority of films made on these islands) are being split apart into English and Scottish merely to suit the views of a few people, then this is a misuse of the category and can be reverted. This does not make the category useless. This does not remove the existence of an (admittedly tiny) industry of filmmaking in Scotland. Nach0king 13:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, serves a useful purpose in containing the English and Scottish directors, actors etc sub-cats. I'm less sure about Category:Scottish films though. As an example of potential confusion, where would I Know Where I'm Going! go? Leithp (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge English categories should be restricted to places, buildings people and little else. Osomec 14:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is amazingly arbitrary. Any particular reason for that tiny list? Nach0king 23:20, 19 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catagory for pages that have merged together in to one page. Redundant. Speedy Delete if possible. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Empty category. For the record, I'm not familiar with how this category is (or will be) used, so I'll take nom's word that it's redundant. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The articles previously in this category (which probably should have never been created in the first place) have been merged into a single article. Warpedmirror 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --FlareNUKE 10:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nach0king 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 16:44, 16 December 2005 (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.

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/delete -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wrong naming convention, moved contents to Category:Military history of France -- Ze miguel 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Joshbaumgartner 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 16:45, 16 December 2005 (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.

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 Category:Film and television logo descriptions -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the wording is compliant with our naming conventions, but the capitalization most certainly is not. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. For latter reason. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Name should probably be Category:Film and television logo descriptions; though currently it is underpopulated. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:27, 17 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered by Category:Pro-choice celebrities . -- Fplay 11:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No it isn't. "Pro-choice" is the expression for those people who believe there exists a right to abortion. "Anti-abortion" would imply that one rejected that such a right exists. Valiantis 14:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reason quoted by the proposer is wrong - see my comment - but delete on the basis that my initial response on seeing the name is "Anti-abortion what?" - i.e. on the grounds the cat is poorly named to the point that it is useless. Valiantis 14:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yikes! Sorry, I ment to say: Category:Pro-life celebrities . -- Fplay 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A somewhat controversial title. Gotta go with political correctness in this case. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pro-life is their preferred term, and the more widely known. -- SCZenz 02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP if this kind of category is kept at all. Delete all pro-life categories as disingenious, as many "pro-life" people support the death penalty. And Anti-Abortion has equal play to "Pro-life" but is a more accurate term. 132.205.44.134 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, duplication.--nixie 00:41, 20 December 2005 (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.

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/redirect -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered by Category:People from Los Angeles . -- Fplay 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:People from Los Angeles to Category:Angelenos. 'Angelenos' is an established demonym for the city. -Mayumashu 14:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's unused, and established demonym or no, consistency in category naming is to be desired. If people really think people will look in this category and not the other one, a ((categoryredirect)) might be appropriate. -- SCZenz 02:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Ezeu 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We shouldn't use any of the hundreds of allegedly well-known demonyms that there seem to be. CalJW 09:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People from Los Angeles and delete Category:Angelenos for sake of clarity. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for clarity. Osomec 14:06, 18 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If one does a search for terrorism related categories then one finds many useles categories. (eg. Terrorists by nationaliti, terrorists by ...) They should all be deleted. Terrorism can be considered POV unless one declares himself as terrorist.

Search Results

helohe (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Entries for deletion need to be individually tagged, and all need to be listed out here. Whether they need separate entries or can be lumped under one vote is a matter for debate, but you can't just say "delete all that show up on a search" and have that be the submission. You've got to be a lot more specific. - TexasAndroid 14:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't mean to delete all that showed up, but I rememer there later was already a discussion with some of those categories that voted for delete so I thought to finish the job the others should be deleted as well. Update: I just see they are listed as unresolved. --helohe (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC) See here:[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Category:German_terrorists#:Category:German_terrorists
    • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Canadian terrorists
    • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:American terrorists
    • ... among others ...
      • Thus they should be maybe also noted there: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/unresolved. helohe (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know the debate on terrorism is complex. I also know any "terrorist" category (whether state terrorism, state-sponsored or "independant" terrorism - if such is possible!) renders possible hasty generalizations. Hence, the claim that "terrorism" is POV and should therefore be removed. If this category is deleted, so should be the article (why would the category be POV and the article NPOV???). However, lots of things in Wikipedia are POV and are not removed (see Category: Neo-Nazi music for example: I personally think such a category is POV and makes it easy for Nazis to spam their external links and promote their hate bands.) NPOV is an ideal of objectivity, followed by modern social sciences: everybody knows that it is difficult to define (this doesn't stop us from using this word!). Terrorism is, like all political issues, POV. Having a Nazi category (not only neo-nazi music, which seem to have been created to promote those bands) on Wikipedia forces us to impede any historical revisionism attempts, in order to enforce a NPOV. The same should be done with "terrorism" or "state terrorism". However, nobody forbids speaking about political issues on Wikipedia. "State terrorism" is a really common definition. The US Department of State has an official list of state-sponsored terrorists and "rogue states" which may participate in terrorist activities. This list is interesting (even though POV), and is better defined in a "state terrorism" category than a more general "terrorism" category. Terrorism can (must) be studied as a historical subject (i would go so far as philosophical, as it concerns the use of violence, which has been legitimized by some philosophers, among whom Hegel). If you do study terrorism, you will see that almost all terrorist groups are sponsored by state. You will also find out some famous examples of state terrorism on which a NPOV can agree, such as operation Condor, the Great purge or Pol Pot's regime. Denying this is historical revisionism. I'm sure a debate on whether such or such entry enters this category is legitimate, but the category in itself is NPOV. Because of the War on terror, terrorism is today a really important issue. Ignorance - and ignoring this in Wikipedia - only helps fanatics. Kaliz 14:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then some of the list should maybe renamed to something like "People or Organisations declared as terrorists by the US Govenment". helohe (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stated. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}
• Keep This keeps coming up. The arguments for deletion don't get more convincing. Carina22 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that this is a difficult topic but do still consider to read this Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. --helohe (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Terrorism is a very important topic and should not be censored. Mirror Vax 01:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not censorship as the article itself will not be deleted as the word itself is not POV. But categorising people into terrorists is POV. So the categories should be at least renamed to something like "People listed as terrorists by the US govenment". helohe (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If terrorism exists - and it does - there must be terrorists. Can't have one without the other. I trust Wikipedia's editors more than the US government to be an unbiased judge of who is a terrorist. Mirror Vax 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What about state terrorism ? I think it should also be kept (it's also in CfD) Kaliz 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • "State terrorism" seems to be basically the same idea as "human rights abuses" (which already has a category). Mirror Vax 21:27, 16 December 2005 (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.

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 (so keep) -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is POV. For one thy'r terrorists for the other they are freedom fighters. Else Bush and Sharon had to be added to this category too for example. One could only add people that declare theyr self as terrorists. helohe (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The debate on terrorism is complex. I agree that any "terrorist" category (whether state terrorism, state-sponsored or "independant" terrorism - if such is possible!) renders possible hasty generalizations. Hence, the claim that "terrorism" is POV and should therefore be removed. If this category is deleted, so should be the article (why would the category be POV and the article NPOV???). However, lots of things in Wikipedia are POV and are not removed (see Category: Neo-Nazi music for example: I personally think such a category is POV and makes it easy for Nazis to spam their external links and promote their hate bands.) NPOV is an ideal of objectivity, followed by modern social sciences: everybody knows that it is difficult to define (this doesn't stop us from using this word!). Terrorism is, like all political issues, POV. Having a Nazi category (not only neo-nazi music, which seem to have been created to promote those bands) on Wikipedia forces us to impede any historical revisionism attempts, in order to enforce a NPOV. The same should be done with "terrorism" or "state terrorism". However, nobody forbids speaking about political issues on Wikipedia. "State terrorism" is a really common definition. The US Department of State has an official list of state-sponsored terrorists and "rogue states" which may participate in terrorist activities. This list is interesting (even though POV), and is better defined in a "state terrorism" category than a more general "terrorism" category. Terrorism can (must) be studied as a historical subject (i would go so far as philosophical, as it concerns the use of violence, which has been legitimized by some philosophers, among whom Hegel). If you do study terrorism, you will see that almost all terrorist groups are sponsored by state. You will also find out some famous examples of state terrorism on which a NPOV can agree, such as operation Condor, the Great purge or Pol Pot's regime. Denying this is historical revisionism. I'm sure a debate on whether such or such entry enters this category is legitimate, but the category in itself is NPOV. Because of the War on terror, terrorism is today a really important issue. Ignorance - and ignoring this in Wikipedia - only helps fanatics. Kaliz 14:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (excuse the hasty writing)[reply]

Keep - terrorism has a relatively narrow definition within Wikipedia, and individual's status on a list of terrorist is something to argue on Talk:George Bush or Talk:Osama bin Laden, not to claim than an entire category should be deleted. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This debate should be contiuned in the topic just above this one to avoid confusion and dupplication. helohe (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not the first time this issue has come up. Carina22 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a magnet for POV warring and POV categorisation, to which some articles I'm involved with have already been exposed. A more sensible definition of "persons convicted of terrorist offences" was proposed on a recent CfD. That avoids POV issues admirably. Palmiro | Talk 03:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can neutrally define a "terrorist offense", then you can neutrally define "terrorist" (i.e. a terrorist is one who commits terrorist offenses). Mirror Vax 14:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" is a useful cliché here. Category:Dictators and similar categories have been voted down as "hopelessly POV". This one is too. --Ezeu 03:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories must, by definition, be clearly defined. Djegan 19:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• When Category:Irish terrorists came up for deletion I made the following suggestion:

I think the whole categorisation scheme needs to be reconsidered, after all a group is not a terrorist. Something along the lines of proscribed groups in foo for organisations, and persons found guilty of terrorism in foo for individuals, both which can be stated factually and neutrally --TimPope 10:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I never followed it up at the time, but I have now been asked to revisit the idea by Palmiro so I am making the suggestion again, and hope that it might bear some fruit. --TimPope 09:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is an objective definition of terrorism -- something along the lines of "the use of violence against civilian populations for political purposes" -- and if there were any prospect of this being applied consistently then we could use it. However, it's clear that it won't be applied to many cases where it might be warranted, and this is where the POV problem comes in. The bombing of Dresden, for example, fits the definition, but does anybody really think this category could be applied to Bomber Harris, Winston Churchill or even Royal Air Force without interminable edit wars and associated grief? --Ryano 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Mais oui! 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definition is fine, it just needs to be enforced. Osomec 14:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This perennial debate always seems to bring the deletionists out of the woodwork. They've been vanquished consistently before and they'll have to scurry back into their hidey holes this time too. Terrorism and terrorists are ideologies and ideologues we have to confront and ultimately to defeat. We can do these things by initially identifying and categorizing them!Phase1 22:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ideology? Are you serious? What are its tenets? What are its objectives? Palmiro | Talk 03:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The difference is 'conventional' tactics versus unconventional. --Vizcarra 03:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That argument may work if there is one consistent definition for what is conventional tactics. Remember, tactics from past centuries may no longer be considered conventional in one part of the world, yet are still "conventional" in others. Pepsidrinka 12:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Pepsidrinka 12:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Terrorism has a technical definition, it may be misused in common parlance, but it means something. It's the act or threats of violence against civilians for the purpose of creating a sense of terror for political gain. Freedom fighters can be terrorist or not. They simply aren't the same. We have a page on terrorism, no one has slapped a POV tag on that last I checked. People who take journalists and cut their heads off and distribute the tapes are terrorists... there can be no intelligent discussion to suggest otherwise. -- Jbamb 00:52, 23 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elf schools. Elf schools. Sheesh. I think "small without potential for growth" kind of describes this category, unless I'm really out of the loop. Delete. Herostratus 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't you heard? The Elves have taken over large parts of Europe! Nah, I kid, most amusing Delete I've voted on in a while though Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Sumahoy 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Believe it or not, I found another possibility for the category: [5]. But not, y'know, one in the real world. Seems pretty limited.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's next—Category:Elf trade schools? How else would Santa's elves know how to make toys? (Hey! What about Category:Elf universities. Who knows? Maybe some conscientious elf will get his doctorate and go on to win a Nobel Prize for his dissertion: Anti-gravity and the Theoretical Physics of Flying Reindeer.) -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unencyclopaedic --Ryano 19:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this really the right time of year for this nomination? Come on! The elves are working 24/7 making toys for ya all and this is the thanks they get? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:15, 23 December 2005 (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.

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/redirect -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories seem to cover the same ground, and Disputed convictions is older and bigger. Merge? --PHenry 08:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Disputed. (There might be a tiny semantic difference, but way to small to worry about.) Herostratus 09:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Sumahoy 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge backwards Disputed -> Controversial. Most if not all convictions are disputed I'm sure. --Vizcarra 01:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Both terms seem to have shades of the same meaning. But I tend to see disputed being more agressive; that is, actively calling into question something. Whereas, controversial seems more passive; as in, questioning the merits of or invoking discussion about something. Could there be some word that falls in between? -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Izehar (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge though I'm relatively confident that almost all convictions would fit into this category. "Controversial" is rather more difficult to verify than "disputed". siafu 22:49, 16 December 2005 (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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing capitalization of "Muppet". tregoweth 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename. This definitely falls under the rules for it. Sikyanakotik 07:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename—Muppets is a proper name! Yoninah 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. Ditto. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per everyone above. --אריאל יהודה 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Izehar (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. Surprised it hasn't been done already. -- DocSigma 14:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Pepsidrinka 12:28, 22 December 2005 (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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing coherently similar about these templates that they deserve to be in a category. Also fails Wikipedia category standard by failing to include the word "wikipedia". (More of these odd categories can be found at Category:Wikipedia templates.) -- Netoholic @ 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but don't delete. No problem with adding "Wikipedia" to the title. As for deletion, I can't quantify the importance of it, but it seems there is some inherent utility in grouping these templates by type -- perhaps it could be a help to someone looking to create a new one (i.e. comparing their looks and code). — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxs already have a naming standard to avoid this problem (Wikipedia:Infobox templates) and should be found using Special:Allpages ([6]). Categorization for it's own sake in this case gains us nothing. It can never be complete, and is an incredible undertaking. -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This debate has occurred before, I think with the CVG category. The whole point of this exercise is to use the power of categories to create a handy index of useful templates for presenting information on wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 17#Category:Computer and video game templates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:06, 28 December 2005 (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.