March 27

Category:Singaporean executions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for renaming to People executed in Singapore by PDH. Not listed here by editor. Listing. -- Longhair\^talk 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Longhair\^talk 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this and all similarly named categories.--cj | talk 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Presidents of organizations

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The few people in this category - and the many potentially in it - have little in common, so there is little value in them being grouped together. Many people have been a president of something or other, even if just a local group with a handful of members, and often this kind of role will have little to do with what makes the subject of an article notable. This is not a defining characteristic. Piccadilly 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category seems overly vague and could be used for virtually any organizational leader. It simply does not seem useful. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as far too vague to be useful. The category already includes at least one president of a company, and it could also include everything from the president of a defunct small local camera club to the president of a major NGO to the president of a univrsity. These peopel have nothing in common other than the use of the title "president" rather than other terms such as "Chair" or "Chairman". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BrownHairedGirl. --Xdamr^talk 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Category:Chief executives Seems to me this is a near-duplicate fork of Category:Chief executives. Merge into that. Dugwiki 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge into Category:Chief executives. Presidents are often non-executive. Choalbaton 21:55, 28 March 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beavis and Butt-head locations

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article contains but one entry. Even if "Highland (Beavis and Butt-Head)" was created I don't think it would be enough to warrant a category. Lenin and McCarthy

Delete - too narrow and specific, no room for growth, the sole entry is already appropriately parented in the fictional restaurants category. Otto4711 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as over-categoriastion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization/trivia. Doczilla 07:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. --Xdamr^talk 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorisation. - Longhair\^talk 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can shapeshift

The result of the debate was rename Category:Fictional characters who can shapeshift to Category:Fictional shapeshifters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters who can shapeshift to Category:Fictional shapeshifters

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, A shapeshifter is one who can shapeshift. Simple, short and precise. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 19:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Simplifies without losing clarity or grammar. -Sean Curtin 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Simpler categories are always better (so long as they don't drop information, and this doesn't). Bladestorm 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. We've been doing away with power-based categories. As a noun, however, "shapeshifter" is something more. Doczilla 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i'm all for making power catagories short and to the point. --Piemanmoo 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ECAC Hockey League players

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ECAC Hockey League players to Category:ECAC Hockey players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, League changed name to simply "ECAC Hockey", effective March 17. ccwaters 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Djsasso 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Wilchett 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey families

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - similar to the recently deleted Sports broadcasting families and its subcategories, categorizing family members by a shared occupation is overcategorization. The articles on specific family members are appropriately interlinked amongst themselves (and in one instance the family has its own article) and the main category is being used as a dumping ground for any hockey player who has a relative who plays hockey, creating the false impression of familial relationships far beyond those that exist. (edit: There is also a list article for family relations, which is a much better way to capture the information, although listification should not be required for deletion) Otto4711 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At the moment, almost any professional hockey player who has a parent or a child in hockey is listed in Category:Hockey families, which simply does not make sense given the category's title. The category does not demonstrate how the people in the category are related to each other, and it could cause confusion if the category contains relatives with different surnames. Even if the category renamed more appropriately and used to indicate people with children or parents in hockey, this still does not seem appropriate. This type of categorization is not done for other professions (e.g. Category:Astronomer families) nor should it be done, as it simply contributes to category clutter. As for the individual family categories, they seem unnecessary. The small number of articles in each category could be linked through the text to show the familial relationships. Dr. Submillimeter 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of thing is much better handled by lists. In a slightly different context, I started Families in the Oireachtas, and was delighted to find how it is much more useful showing relationships than a category would be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was already put up a couple weeks ago and the result was to keep hockey families and baseball families etc etc in favour of removing NHL families or MLB families. --Djsasso 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the way that discussion was closed would hold up on review. It is not clear to me that there was a clear consensus. Vegaswikian 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention that technically the target cats were not actually nominated. Otto4711 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't change the fact that those people who voted to merge the other cats into this one obviously thought this one should still exist or they would have simply voted to delete instead of merge. --Djsasso 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nor does it change the facts that the articles are now up for deletion on their own and that similar categories for sports broadcasting families have been deleted. Otto4711 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Hockey families and leave the other two. This is over classification. The others are groups of notable family members. This is a common category and so far in this discussion there has been no reason raised as to why the two family categories should be treated differently then all of the other family categories. Vegaswikian 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family categories should IMHO be treated the same way as any other category named for a person. There should be a large number of articles that are not easily interlinked for navigation. In a situation where the "family" consists of just two or three people, there is simply no reason to have a separate category for them instead of simply linking the two people together through their articles. If the family is significantly larger and suffiently notable then there should probably be either a significant section within the articles or an article specifically for the family as a unit. The two family categories nominated here utilize each of those strategies and ably demonstrate their utility. Otto4711 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if we keep those ones, we need to create categories for the Hull family, the Bentley family, the Hextall family, the Apps family, the Morenz-Geoffrion family, etc. The lists go on and on. If we keep those ones, we would need to set a guidline of what they need to earn a category. How many family members need to have been in the NHL? Because all the families I listed had at least 3 memebers play, while the Staal family has only had 2 so far. Kaiser matias 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But how about the main category? Are you objecting to the one that doesn't have a specific name attached to it as well?--Djsasso 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that is the only one we should keep. I just didn't actually say that. So Keep the main category, Delete the others. Kaiser matias 04:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sub-cats and Keep the main cat as a place to put articles about the individual families, not categories. Kevlar67 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapermen

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Newspapermen to Category:Newspaper people

Category:Newspapermen by newspaper to Category:Newspaper people by newspaper

Category:American newspapermen to Category:American newspaper people

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to neutralize unnecessary sex-specific language. Otto4711 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Newspapermen" is a quaint old term, but unless it is being used for a male-only category, better to use the non-sexist alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 12:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Postlebury 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Ian Spackman 08:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename so that it is more clear and not gender-biased but we also need a category of Category:Newspaper journalists, which I can't seem to find anywhere else. Scarykitty 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pixar people

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per strong precedent. The category seeks to capture anyone who worked for or with Pixar in any capacity, making it an improper performer by project categorization. Otto4711 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and long, long line of precedent. --Xdamr^talk 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Southern California athletes

The result of the debate was rename Category:University of Southern California athletes to Category:University of Southern California sportspeople. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Southern California athletes to Category:University of Southern California sportspeople

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Wikipedia convention is to use "sportspeople" when not dealing with athletics (track and field). Punkmorten 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Category includes basketball and baseball players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Casperonline 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the nominator. Acalamari 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:USC Trojans sportspeople to parallel parent/children/peer categories. ~ Bigr Tex 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic newspapers and magazines

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic newspapers and magazines to Category:Roman Catholic periodicals

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, More concise and in keeping with other subcats in the category. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "newspapers and magazines" is clear and unambiguous, whereas "periodical" is often used to exclude daily publications, as per the Shorter OED: "Of magazines etc, published at regular intervals longer than a day, as monthly etc". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are separate hierarchies at Category:Newspapers and Category:Magazines. Splitting this category in two may be the best option. Casperonline 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per both above. Probably should be split, with the current category as an empty hread category Johnbod 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teenage Wikipedians

The result of the discussion was: moved to UFCD.--Mike Selinker 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Teenage Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in their teens

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, For consistency with the other age brackets, which follow this naming convention. See Category:Wikipedians in their 20s. — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and move to the appropriate discussion area for Wikipedian categories. Otherwise delete per previous discussions about categorizing children for privacy concerns. Otto4711 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pervert magnet. Casperonline 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion ~ Bigr Tex 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operas by Marc-Antoine Charpentier

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operas by Marc-Antoine Charpentier to Category:Compositions by Marc-Antoine Charpentier

Upmerge as excessive sub-categorisation. Category:Operas by Marc-Antoine Charpentier contains only one article, and there are only 4 articles in Category:Compositions by Marc-Antoine Charpentier and its subcats. (see CFD for the other sub-category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn after discussion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me that Category:Operas by composer ought to be treated the same as Category:Songs by artist or Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm inclined to agree with Prove It. Opera constitutes a distinct and specific art form/genre; I'm not sure that it is useful to lump it in with 'compositions'. --Xdamr^talk 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prove It. Haddiscoe 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he wrote 6 operas & several more quasi-operas. No doubt all will get articles eventually (they all have recordings I think). This would mess up the Operas by composer hierarchy. Johnbod 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peak 11 Schools

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Peak 11 is unexplained, and not mentioned in the member articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a "learning Federation comprising all 11 secondary schools in the High Peak and Derbyshire Dales" in Derbyshire Peak district: see [1], [2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but open to change. I read the references, but they don't help. This appears to be a category for a NN school organization. Schools working together as part of an umbrella organization seems to be a common concept and most of these are not likely to be notable. Why is this one notable? Why is a category a better solution for this information as opposed to a list or a template? Bottom line, at this point I'm not convinced we need the category and I would suggest all that is needed is a template. Vegaswikian 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if this is a defining characteristic, why is this not mentioned in the school articles? Vegaswikian 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use a template if desired. Changing my vote 'cos Vegaswikian is right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Vegaswikian, and as category without a defining article, nor a pre-existing categorization scheme. Suggest that we may want to review fair-use of Image:Peak11 logo.gif as well. Xtifr _tälk 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 2 items in the category, and no chance of expansion. Jeffro77 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate. Useful subcategory of Category:Christian magazines. Haddiscoe 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate per Haddiscoe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haddiscoe.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Acalamari 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Why should it be kept if it is that short? Are any other articles going to be placed in the category? And how many? Summer Song 10:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should it be deleted, if it is useful? Postlebury 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violin restorers and makers

The result of the debate was merge both into Category:Violin makers and restorers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violin restorers

Category:Violin makers

Renominating - see excellent previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 16#Violin restorers and makers for the discussions of the previous suggestions. Commentators are welcome to reiterate/clarify their previous comments in this new nomination. - jc37 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~Category:Violin restorers and makers~~Category:Violin makers and restorers Per some of the replies in the previous discussion, it sounds like not everyone who restores violins makes them, and vice versa. However, the two categories are so similar that I think it might work well to simply merge them together into a single combined category called "Violin restorers and makers". It would avoid a lot of redundancy and still accomplish the task of indexing people in the violin restoration/making industry as a whole. Dugwiki 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers because it suits my sense of aesthetics to have the two words in order both alphabetically and precedence (a violin must be made before it can be restored). Otto4711 16:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the alphabetical listing. I modified my comment above accordingly. Dugwiki 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers per Otto4711. There is too much overlap to justify keeping separate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers per Otto4711 for the time being. It sounds like subcategories could be justified if populated, but let's get some population in here first. I believe this is consistent with the input from the luthiers and violinists who participated in the prior discussion. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers per Otto4711. Choalbaton 21:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers for now. Lesnail 21:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sea

The result of the debate was merge Category:Sea into Category:Seas. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sea to Category:Seas

Merge, Redundant. The Sea category was just created by a newbies. — Indon (reply) — 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I do wish we had a way of speedily merging such obvious duplicates: this sort of things should not have to be taken to CFD unless there are objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do: Speedy criteria number 3 is "Conversions from singular to plural, or back (such as, Steamship → Steamships)".--Mike Selinker 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That criteria is for speedy renaming, not speedy merging. New criteria for speedy merging are needed. Dr. Submillimeter 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure it is. The header for that section is, "Criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging are strictly limited to:". No new criteria needed.--Mike Selinker 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mike, that section is headed "Empty categories that have qualified for speedy renaming" (emphasis added by me). Neither of these categories is empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think you're reading the same section that I am, BHG. It's labeled "Speedy Renaming," and its criteria cover all categories, empty or otherwise. This can be merged under the Speedy Renaming criteria.--Mike Selinker 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I was looking at WP:CSD#Categories, but now that I have checked again, I guess you must have been reading Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Speedy_criteria. The former has the empty criterion, but the latter doesn't ... and I dunno which takes precedence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see now. I think that means that if you've renamed something under the speedy criteria, you can delete the previous category immediately. In other words, that's the second action you take after you do the first action under the Speedy Renaming criteria. That make sense to you?--Mike Selinker 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - I was looking at WP:CFD. The relevant section is titled SPEEDY RENAMING, not SPEEDY RENAMING OR MERGING, although it does say "criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging" in normal-sized font in the section. I suggest changing the title of the section name at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Done.--Mike Selinker 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. That was very useful. Dr. Submillimeter 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't nominated for so long time and honestly I was confused to choose which criteria and notices should I used when reading the complex guidelines of the CfD. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge - per above discussion. ~ Bigr Tex 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. "Sea" is redundant to "Seas" and also does not conform to naming conventions. ~~I should note, however, that all of the articles classified in "Sea" are already classified in "Seas". So ... maybe a redirect (as a plausible search term) is all that's needed?~~ -- Black Falcon 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, never mind; not all of them are in both categories. Some of them were in "Seas" but were later changed to "Sea" (e.g., Argentine Sea). -- Black Falcon 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nomination to merge my contribution of "Category:Sea" with "Catogory:Seas". Shelblake 01:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[3] Comment moved by: — coel acan — 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DOS games converted into Windows games

The result of the debate was rename Category:DOS games converted into Windows games to Category:DOS games ported to Windows. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DOS games converted into Windows games to Category:DOS games ported to Windows

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Ported" is the correct term to be used in this case. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename I agree, and the proposed name is also shorter. — brighterorange (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - ported, yes, but should it be "to 32-bit Windows" or ??? --Justanother 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't differentiate, it's just Windows. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous thefts

The result of the discussion was: rename. Choose "Individual" over "specific" because that's the term we usually use. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous thefts to Category:Individual thefts

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Eliminate "Famous" per WP:NCCAT. I considered just Category:Thefts, but that would result in a "dreaded" singular/plural categorization conflict with Category:Theft. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see anything to bad about the name famous thefts; perhaps notable thefts would be better - arguably only notable thefts should have encyclopedia articles. Individual thefts is awkward name and excludes thieving sprees that might be notable like the Danish Royal Library, which was many thefts over a period of time. --Peta 06:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using notable or famous in a category name is redundant since any article is here only because it is notable. Vegaswikian 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Thefts. There is no obvious solution here which avoids the theft/thefts conflict, and I suggest that best option is to live with it and put a clear warning note on each category. "Famous" is clearly tautological per Vegaswikian, and "individual" is inaccurate per Peta, so Category:Thefts is best of a bad job. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Specific thefts As above "famous" isn't a necessary word. I agree that "Theft vs Thefts" might be confusing, and "Individual thefts" isn't quite right because some of the articles involve serial crimes. So how about "Specific thefts"? Dugwiki 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does specific thefts mean? It sounds as odd as individual thefts. In most cases the article in the cat is used to categorize something that has been stolen - maybe Category:Stolen objects as a subcat of Category:Theft could be more useful. --Peta 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Specific thefts or category:Individual thefts. Casperonline 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Instances of theft. This is a rather fraught issue—Famous/Notable are POV, the theft/thefts distinction is quite confusing, 'individual' is not necessarily true, etc, etc. We have Specific thefts and Category:Individual thefts as current suggestions, I'd like to propose Category:Instances of theft as another to be considered. I'm afraid they all sound slightly jarring to my ear, I suppose this is simply a question of choosing the least worst.

Xdamr^talk 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UT

Another suggestion, one which actually doesn't sound too bad (at least not to me)—Category:Incidents of theft. --Xdamr^talk 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:X executions

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:People executed by X. I considered the merge comment as support for a rename. I have placed a no bots on these entries in the work list so that someone can verify that the target name is correct, there are some possible issues there. I'll remove that warning in a day or so. Feel free to remove the no bots from those that are correct. Vegaswikian 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:X executions to Category:People executed in X

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, first we don't organized people by cause of death, so I don't think it'd be against categorization guidelines to delete these. However as they stand there is some ambiguity as to who should go in these categories, a fooian who was executed, a person who was executed in foo (this is the more encyclopedic of the two options and this seems to be the way it it being used) Peta 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oppose renaming for now. This is a thoughtful nomination addressing an obvious ambiguity, but I don't think it solves the problem. Not all executions under the authority of a particular country will have taken place within the boundaries of the nation-state concerned. e.g. a British colonial execution in Kenya is an "execution by Britain", but not an "execution in Britain". If we want to focus on the state ordering the execution, "Executions by foo" is a better option.
However, I think that there may be a case for a parallel category of "Fooian people executed" for the likes of the Barlow and Chambers execution, which would have the advantage of fitting neatly into the "Fooian people" hierarchy, and probably be the most readily accessible category. My hesitancy is that it would cause a little clutter by adding a further execution category to individual articles (though most such articles are not heavily categorised): we would then have execution by method, execution by nationality of person, and execution by country imposing the death penalty. In most cases, the last two will be the same country.
Oh, keep because the death penalty is regarded by both its supporters and opponents as an important and notable issue, and individual executions are widely reported where the the media has access to the info. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple solution to this would be to rename to Category:People executed by X; still removes the ambiguity but allows for offshore executions by a regime. --Peta 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (preference) or rename all - In general, I think categorization by death is not very useful. These categories specifically are not useful if they encompass broad time periods; for example, someone executed during the Chin Dynasty in China will have almost nothing in common with someone executed in the 1990's in China. If kept, then the categories should at least be renamed to indicate the location of the executions and not leave ambiguity as to whether the executions were in the country or if the people were of the given nationality. Dr. Submillimeter 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - support renaming - the ambiguity needs to be resolved. New names should not exclude by time-period. For example Qing period executions in China obviously do not belong in Executions in the People's Republic of China but should be within Executions in China. Categorization by death cause is, I believe, a useful one. Jaraalbe 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion and merge There are plenty of executions, and one big categroy with all of them would just be way too big. the content of such a category is valid--Sefringle 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Serie A players

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be deleted, as all of the articles are already included in the parent category Category:Serie A players. Every time a player moves in or out of Serie A he would need to be added to/removed from this category. Categories should be a matter of historical record, not of a current fluid position. Furthermore we don't have a Category:Current FA Premier League players. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and past precedent. Qwghlm 07:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Serie A players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and merge to Category:Serie A players). Very hard to maintain as in all current players categories. Also, are the following "Current Serie A players":
- Players who have signed for a Serie A club but haven't made an appearance yet (especially for youth players).
- Players who are currently loaned out by a Serie A club to one outside of Serie A.
- During the offseason, players who are contracted with a club who's going to be promoted, going to be relegated, or players whose contract will expire before the new season starts. Chanheigeorge 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also Category:Current Serie B players. Chanheigeorge 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, to avoid current/former distinction. --Xdamr^talk 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, get rid of it in some way, per WP:RECENT (essay). Punkmorten 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

The result of the discussion was: delete. No objection to a list. We have an approximate 2/3rd majority and several backing policies (NPA/POV/OCAT) so that's about as consensual as it gets on such issues. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a clear violation of WP:OCAT (Subjective inclusion criterion) because it is impossible to define with precision who is and who is not an antisemite. It also violates WP:NPOV (and, for living individuals, WP:BLP) for the same reason, unless the people included have chosen to define themselves as antisemites (which most haven't). This category has been the subject of serious strife for years. It was created by User:Battlefield, a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. We deleted categories like Category:Fictional racists, and certainly having similar categories which apply to real people is even more problematic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive BLP issues. --Peta 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename into Category:Antisemites - for consistency with Category:Antisemitism, Category:Antisemitic canards, Category:Antisemitic forgeries, etc. Unlike Fictional racists, antisemites are not fictional. Antisemitism was (and still is) a real life phenomenon, see History of antisemitism. Unfortunately (my POV), human history is full of hatred, cruelty and violence - and it is not up to us to glamorize it. If reliable sources reliably designate someone an antisemite, his own denial should not cancel it. There were 6 unsuccessful attempts to sweep this cat under the rug. Of course, it should be watched and innocent people should not be added. The same goes for Category:Islamists, for example. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't address any of the concerns. The category is inherently POV, and no amount of monitoring will alleviate that. Furthermore, the WP:BLP concerns are far too serious for this category to be kept. Your argument above amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL. No one is questioning whether antisemitism exists. What is being questioned is whether it is at all consistent with NPOV to brand people antisemites over their denials. You have suggested this is exactly what you plan to do, which is a recipe for endless edit wars. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? The cat is problematic because certain users make it such. Do you have in mind someone who does not belong there? By far, not all of the listed there are living today, so BLP is not a good reason for CFD. We can work on a better criteria for inclusion, but I am against wholesale removal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the category is impossible to police. Nothing stops individuals from slapping tags on whatever article they want, and if they contest removal, we've got constant edit wars on our hands. Secondly, the reason that Fictional Racists was deleted wasn't because it was fictional, but because it was inherently subjective. The majority of the individuals on this list do not call themselves antisemites. They have been called that by others - probably accurately, in most cases, but WP:NPOV says we can't make that determination. In the articles, we can qualify this by saying, for instance, that the ADL considers them antisemitic, or that they made specific statements that were considered by others to constitute antisemitism. (All this, of course, requires proper cites for any such claims.) But a category is not appropriate because it doesn't convey sufficient information for an accusation of this gravity. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "we can't make that determination'". That is why we have reliable sources policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. As a list, no information would be lost. All the entries could be cited, and additional information could be added. The list would appear in the same categories that this category now resides. The list could be linked from all the articles. Nothing would be lost, but quite a bit could be added, NPOV concerns would be addressed, and best of all, there wouldn't be an 8th debate. Saying "Keep" does not address the serious problems that plagues this category (and categories like it), Saying "Delete" does not satisfy the need to seriously document this subject. "Listify" is a win-win possibility. -- Samuel Wantman 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the proposed list will suffer from the same problems. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least a list can provide cites explaining why these claims were made, and unsourced entries can be aggressively removed. If things get really bad, there's protection and semiprotection. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can already hear screams "POV!" and impending AFDs. BTW, "cites explaining why" could be provided in the article being categorized. All one needs is NPOV and RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think there are lots of good reasons a list would be preferable; in particular, I think that the possibility of abuse will be diminished if sources are at least required. Neither a list nor a category in this area is going to avoid POV; listifying, however, will provide significantly more ability to meaningfully police the content, providing a better defense against the POV charges. The idea that there may be ways in which a list will have the same deficiencies isn't a good argument against a list: a good argument would be that the list makes the problems worse, which it will not so far as I can see. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reliable sources are always required. Some users feel uncomfortable with factual events from human history. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        While although I don't approve of a 'list' either, it'd still address some significant concerns. You say that "reliable sources are always required", but in the David Ahenakew, one (insanely offensive) statement, which he later retracted, is all that was required to label him as a confirmed antisemite. Maurice Barrès's article doesn't even have any references listed asserting his antisemitic status. Maurice Bardèche's article only mentions his holocaust denial which, though misguided, doesn't concretely prove antisemitism. I already came across three articles which don't properly cite the claims by just going through the first dozen names on the list. There's clearly a lack of standards being currently applied.
Keep and do not rename It is used where there is sufficent evidence to be certain, and has been removed from people who are very likely anti-semitic, but the evidece is not iron clad. It is not inherently subjective, for example, when someone calls Jews "Scum of the earth", "monkeys and pigs", and asks God to rain curses on them. Further it should not be renamed to ensure the differentiation between this category and Category:Antisemitism. -- Avi 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or Merge into Category:Racists (yes, I know...). // Liftarn¨
- Why is Category:Racists any better than Category:Antisemites? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Category:Racists has been deleted and protected from recreation. Otto4711 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Antisemites. Inclusion of course is based on reliable sources, like every other category. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack category and categorisation by opinion. Haddiscoe 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack category and categorization by opinion. Either anti-semitism is clear and apparent from the sourced facts in the article itself, or it's debatable. In either case, categorization as "anti-semite" does nobody any good, and unlike profession, national origin, or alma mater, this grouping is not helpful in navigation. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other people-by-opinion categories. Anti-semitism is too subtle and pernicious a concept to be reduced to a simple binary choice between the attaching or omitting the label. Unlike atg, a list or article can be referenced, and can also consider nuances of position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note this CFD which contains links to several previous CFDs for this category. Otto4711 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all the same reasons we have deleted similar categories for racists, misogynists and the like (both real and fictional). Whether or not someone is anti-Semitic is often a matter of opinion. Otto4711 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are dealing here with millennia of very factual persecutions and hostilities, see History of antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but look in to deleting Category:Holocaust deniers, as that particular category is MUCH more relative and problematic than this one. --WassermannNYC 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So relative and a potential WP:BLP and WP:ATT nightmare. Needs to be more specific, like "Persons who belong to <XYZ anti-Semite organization> or <Writers for XYZ anti-Semite periodical>. --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-BLP is certainly an issue. Just because dead people are in the category doesn't necessarily negate the status of those still living. But that's beside the point. It's already being applied unfairly. Note two subcategories: Holocaust Deniers and Hamas. There are many reasons for why one might be a 'holocaust denier', ranging from poor education, to ignorance, to a general dislike of what's been politically justified based on the holocaust. It isn't fair to make a claim of an irrefutable lack of distinction between antisemitism and holocaust denial. One does not necessarily mean the other. And, as for Hamas, well, I'll concede that (or, at least, assume that) many members in hamas are very much antisemitic. However, their only certain hatred is for Israel, not jews. Being against Israel is explicitly listed as being an invalid criteria for inclusion in the category, but being a member of an anti-israel group suddenly qualifies? It's inconsistent, and reveals a horrendous lack of neutrality. Labelling people subjectively is bad enough. Evidence of it being even more abused is simply additional reasoning to get rid of it. Bladestorm 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong on Hamas, check out the article. It's in their organizational charter; they specifically announce their hatred of Jews (in addition to Israel and Judaism). I was going to quote some of it here, but it's long. Take a look. IronDuke 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a current edit war going on as to whether Hamas fits in this category, and there is a discussion in the Hamas article that includes a "defense". Should this category be where the issue is decided or should that be left for an article, where it is possible to present a real analysis? A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too subjective to act as a category, and I'd also be skeptical of it as a list. It's too easy for someone to use this as an attack category. Also note that there are going to be people who don't outwardly hate Jews but who vehemently disagree with policies of Israel that will fall into a grey area. Dugwiki 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a "grey area" at all, any more than the question of whether passionately hating Nazis makes one a racist German-hater. Casperonline 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per humus sapiens.Baka man 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a matter of opinion, and this is not a field in which everyone keeps a calm head and assesses matters objectively. Casperonline 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reason we have the Category "Murderers." Lots of BLP issues there as well; just because someone has killed doesn't make them a murderer. We just have to be vigilant with this category and make sure it doesn't violate BLP. IronDuke 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I have other issues with the Murderers category tree, it really isn't comparable to this category. Whether someone has killed or not is a matter of objective fact. Whether someone is an anti-Semite or not is not objectively defineable. Otto4711 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category's article page includes a commendable effort at providing an objective test of antisemitism. It avoids many of the common pitfalls, such as confusing anti-Israeli with anti-semitic, and it includes a motivation test (so a yob who breaks all the womdows on a street isn't labelled as anti-semitic just because one of the houses was owned by a Jewish person. But the problem is that it all hinges on a test of "hatred", and that's a weasel word, defined in hate as "intense revulsion, distaste, enmity, or antipathy for a person, thing, or phenomenon, generally attributed to a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy the hated object". So by the current definition someone who says "I intensely dislike all those Jewish rituals around food, so I try to avoid Jewish people and Jewish rituals" can be classed as an anti-semite.
Sorry, but that's just too vague a test and too ow a threshold, and I don't see any reasonable prospect of a more precise definition of "hate". Of course anti-semitism exists, but it takes many different shapes and many different degrees, and a category is just too crude a way to consider the nuances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreation of what? It has survived six CfDs to date? -- Avi 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm assuming he means to protect it against being recreated. However, this is a very disturbing trend. CFD's should only address the facts at hand, not past CFD's. More importantly, this has not survived six attempts at deletion. It has survived three attempts at deletion, and not even a single one of those resulted in a "keep". The other three were for spelling (eg. Antisemitic instead of Anti-Semitic). It's very misleading to keep saying that it survived six cfd's. Bladestorm 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a category with horrendous issues that in my view clearly violates policy. Simply the need for a mini-article at the beginning of the category telling you what the criteria are suggests that this category ought to be a list, if it ought to exist at all. BUT it has been nominated repeatedly (six times before) for deletion without any consensus being reached, and at some point it is important for there to be stability in categories, so the work of building out the categories by the appropriate criteria can be carried on without loss of information. As a result, I'm on the fence. Can anyone point out what has occurred since the category was last deleted that suggests abuse of the category, or otherwise suggests a change in circumstances? A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem there is one benefit to nominating this one periodically, in that it gets reviewed for questionable cases and a number of people de-categorized. Everyone used as an example for the category being inappropriate has now been de-categorized. Let me raise another: Ulysses S. Grant, whose article has a short discussion about whether or not he was anti-semitic based on one incident. It seems anyone suspected of anti-Semitism can be added here, and where there is a legitimate debate, adding the category becomes one way for one side to "resolve" it by applying the label. A Musing (formerly Sam) 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like people will keep nominating this category for deletion until they get the desired result (which may never happen, of course). Contrary to what has been claimed above, it's entirely possible to identify antisemitic people; all one needs to do is do research and use reliable sources. There seems to be an unstated presumption in the deletion votes that calling someone antisemitic is a method of political abuse and vilification of opponents. This is just not true. Lots of people, both in the past and in the present can be described as antisemitic and this description will be a NPOV one; just consult the reliable sources on antisemitism to see what notable individuals are consistently called antisemites. Many people were and are self-described antisemites, for example, Wilhelm Marr, who popularized the term "antisemitism" for the ideology he adhered to. Without violating the Godwin Law, I must point out that there can little doubt that people in the Category:Nazis can be called antisemitic without breaching an iota of WP:NPOV. Whatever WP:BLP issues may arise should be dealt with on a case by case basis; there must be no throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Beit Or 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can imagine a pretty compelling argument against assuming that anyone who was a member of the National Socialist Party at any time was by definition an anti-Semite. And there remains the simple fact that it is not possible to objectively determine whether someone is an anti-Semite. Otto4711 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the simple fact, just your own opinion. Beit Or 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I can do better than that, Otto. See, this brings up the problem of sub-categorization. If you accept listing the 'nazi' category with 'anti-semitic' people, then let's see what we get:

Etienne Léandri and Émile Dewoitine are both listed as being antisemitic, even though nothing in their articles asserts that they were.
Alois Hitler is anti-semitic just for having Hitler as a son. (At least, his article doesn't assert anything more concrete than that)
Alois Hitler Jr. is anti-semitic, even though he had nothing to do with his brother's regime (at least, according to the british. I guess it could be a conspiracy or something?)
Rudolf Freiherr von Gersdorff, Claus von Stauffenberg, and Axel von dem Bussche are all considered anti-semitic. Why? Because they tried to kill Hitler. Well, if that doesn't say "I hate jews", then I just don't know what does!

It's because whole CATEGORY Adolf Hitler is in "Nazis". --HanzoHattori 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the fictional world, Montana Max is listed as antisemitic, even though (at least, according to the article), he had no specific political or idealogical motivations beyond simply desiring war. And heck, Tyrannosaurus Reich, in spite of not even being human, is still an anti-semitic person. Wow. That's impressive. (of course, there isn't any indication of his anti-semitism in the article... but you know those nazi dinosaurs. They hate jewish dinosaurs sooo much!)

Seeing the problem here? Granted, these are very extreme cases. However, the point is, the second you try to make sweeping generalizations, you're bound to cause problems. Bladestorm 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that while the Nazi ideology was antisemitic, the people who adhered to it were not antisemitic. This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. A couple of straw man examples where articles were improperly included into Category:Nazis don't strengthen your case. Anyway, you didn't address the cases where reliable sources agree that a person was antisemitic (per WP:NPOV, we must describe them as such) and where people call themseleves antisemites. Beit Or 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made no argument about people who "adhere" to one tenet of National Socialism or another. I stated that it is possible to be a member of a political party without adhering to every position espoused by that party. Case in point: Gay Republicans. Very few gay Republicans agree with the party line on the subject of same-sex marriage or anti-discrimination laws, but they are still members of the party. Similarly, it is certainly possible that someone joined the Nazi party for reasons other than anti-Semitism (to gain an advantage in business or for social contacts, or because they were forced to, for instance) and that individual had no adherence to the pary line on Jews at all. Otto4711 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I believe the quintessential example you are looking for is Oskar Schindler, who was irrefutably a member of the Nazi party, but whom few would be eager to see categorized as anti-Semitic. He has not been categorized as a Nazi at this point, but he was a party member and does belong in that category.A Musing (formerly Sam) 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you replying to me, or to Otto? Of course, you'd be wrong in either case, but still, need to know how to reply. If you meant to me, then I partially argued that calling people who tried to kill Hitler necessarily antisemitic is laughable. If you were replying to Otto, then the Nazi party gained so much power from things beyond antisemitism, including preying upon people's vulnerability right after WWI. Not every nazi was necessarily an anti-semite, any more than every republican is against abortion or for war. Bladestorm 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rargh! You changed part of your text to address us separately! Now I don't think mine makes sense! Anyways, the fact that this over-categorization tends to lead to even more over-categorization is not, in and of itself, a valid argument for categorizing. (was that confusing enough?)

However, if you'd prefer to choose something else, then Mahmoud Ahemenijad (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) has drawn a lot of anti-semitic criticism. However, there's no objective way to definitively call him antisemitic. However, by suggesting that the holocaust be re-examined, he's been categorized as a holocaust-denier, which has then recast him as antisemitic, even though nobody would have a chance at directly adding him to the 'antisemitic' category. In other words, he's been added in through the back door, even though he'd never get in through the front. That isn't a problem to you? Bladestorm 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"calling people who tried to kill Hitler necessarily antisemitic is laughable" Says who? And why? You're focusing on whether it's appropriate to call all Nazis antisemitic or just those whom reliable sources call antisemitic. Either way, this is not a good argument for the deletion of the entire category because it can be easily demonstrated that there are lots of people who can be called antisemitic in a NPOV manner. This is a fact and you don't even seem to dispute it. Beit Or 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you're only repeating the same logical fallacy. You've pointed out a case where categorization of a person is problematic. However, you need to make a much stronger case, to wit, that this categorization is problematic in all instances. This is what neither you, nor anybody else in this discussion has so far managed to do. Beit Or 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi... The reason I was dealing with nazis was in response to your claim that "there can little doubt that people in the Category:Nazis can be called antisemitic without breaching an iota of WP:NPOV." This was outright false, because some people are listed under the nazi category for reasons other than being nazis. For example, Adolf Hitler is a sub-category, and Hitler's family is a sub-category of that. Anyone in his family, even if they weren't nazis, were still categorized as nazis. Similarly, people who tried to kill Hitler are associated with Nazis, in that they tried to kill a Nazi, and are thus listed in the category of that general topic. But, but virtue of Nazis being a subcategory of Anti-semitic people. I did not say that a person can't try to kill Hitler and still be antisemitic. I said that trying to kill Hitler does not in and of itself automatically make someone an antisemite. If you fail to see the difference, I can't help you.

However, my primary arguments with the category also included other subcategories. For example, listing holocaust-deniers. Some deniers were explicitly and intentionally removed from the list of antisemitic people, because there was nothing to back up that claim. However, they are now re-added to it, by virtue of that subcategorization. See the problem there?

People were explicitly removed from the list because there wasn't evidence to call them antisemitic, and yet they're now re-added through the backdoor. Hmmm... Aren't verifiability and reliability supposed to kick in somewhere?

And, that's really the problem with subcategorization. Any and all category tags should be intentionally added. Adding something by virtue of something else, by virtue of something else, by virtue of something else, is inherently stupid. And, as such, your argument that nobody could argue that the people included in the nazi tag weren't antisemitic was verifiably and incontrovertibly false. Since you were wrong, I felt the need to address that incorrect statement.

My other arguments are already listed above. And how do you cite what's in another person's heart? What is the criteria? For that matter, where do you put the citations? This is a category, not a list. Where do the checks and balances come into play? Hmmm?

And, more generally, you make the claim that people can be verified to be "antisemitic" in a NPOV manner. By whose relaxed standards? To me, you can't start labelling people, and grouping them together by perceived character defects, without it being inherently POV.

Perhaps you should answer this: What is the motivation for lumping all accused antisemites together? How does it improve the knowledge in wikipedia?

For that matter, how does it serve the project to support a system that explicitly supports making unattributed additions? (labelling ahmenijad antisemitic by proxy, labelling each nazi as an antisemite without, by your own admission, bothering to actually prove that claim in each case) Bladestorm 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments won't magically appear even if you write 100Kb more. You seem to have a problem with inclusion of some categories into Category:Anti-Semitic people. Try to resolve your problems on a case-by-case basis. You just don't have any coherent case for the deletion of this category. Beit Or 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:BOLDly removing argument that drifted off the subject of the category)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Or, I disagree about the test you are setting up, that the category is fine unless it "is problematic in all instances". If we follow your logic, a category with ambiguous criteria may have 1000 dodgy entries and only one robust and unambiguous member, but the lone unproblematic entry makes the rest ok? Sorry, but I think we need to aim for much higher standards of reliability than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make no straw man arguments. There is more than one person that can be called antisemitic in a NPOV manner. Beit Or 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment. First of all, I feel like I'm experiencing déjà vu, that we've been through this CfD before and yet I don't seem to see a record of the previous results (or maybe it was a similar CfD for another topic, I'm not sure but it is important to have that information when we are making this decision). I think this is an important category to have. At the same time we need to be very careful as this is likely to cause libel debates. --Valley2city^₪‽ 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the list on the talk page of the category - this is number 7. It is the only reason I have not supported deletion at this time. A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Mentioned above, but in a looong thread. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was intentionally removed from the category, because nobody actually came up with cited references directly proving antisemitism. He's now added to the list by way of Category:Holocaust_deniers. That is, he wasn't allowed in the category because it was unsourced. Now, even though it's still unsourced, he's back into the category. Just thought that was significant. Bladestorm 21:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where is he back in the list? Are you certain you are not confusing Category:Antisemitism with Category:Anti-Semitic people? -- Avi 23:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I mis-linked the 'Holocaust-deniers' category-link-thingy. Holocaust-deniers is a subcategory of anti-semitic people, and ahmadinejad is listed as a holocaust-denier. Since the category (very consciously and intentionally) qualifies all holocaust-deniers as antisemites, that also applies to ahmadinejad. ('Antisemitism' certainly applies to his article, of course; since his controversies and accusations against him-true or false-are still related to the topic of antisemitism) Bladestorm 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was under the impression that it was a subcat of Category:Antisemitism, which is a better choice. I have since changed the category, so now it is a subcat of Category:Antisemitism, and not the people. -- Avi 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, well then. I guess, regardless of how this cfd turns out, at least something was accomplished. Bladestorm 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify - BLP, NPOV, etc - how exactly do you prove this? A list would allow the information to be kept and discussed. Rgds - Trident13 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe that there is yet another CfD for this category. Yes, "Category:Anti-Semitic people" could be wrongly edited into a biographical entry, as could the text "...was an anti-semitic person". And responsible editors would promptly remove it per policy, as they would any other information violating BLP. Tewfik^Talk 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not editors remove articles per BLP, those articles that remain (and those that are removed) are still classified on the basis of an editor's subjective decision absent a source in which the subject says "I am an anti-Semite." Otto4711 01:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. One's personal opinion of himself matters little here. We have a WP:RS to determine one way or another. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to make sure that I understand your position here. If the category is kept, then every single article listed in it will have to be completely cited to confirm that they're definitely antisemitic? Which will include removing the 'Holocaust Deniers' and 'Nazis' subcategories since some of the members of the former aren't cited as being antisemitic and some of the members of the latter definitively weren't antisemitic? You're willing to accept that strict of a standard? Bladestorm 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is, if RS consistently assert that Holocaust denial and membership in the Nazi party constitute antisemitism, we should categorize them as such. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... even though it isn't entirely accepted that holocaust denial, nazi categorization, or hamas membership necessarily prove antisemitism... you still support their being listed as antisemitic in spite of a total absence of direct cited references? If nothing else, labelling people as antisemitic because they're vicariously antisemitic by virtue of affiliations with concepts typically associated with antisemitism certainly doesn't qualify as neutral and reliable. In truth, I don't think it even makes sense.

But, if that's your position, I want to make this totally clear: You do support including holocaust deniers and hamas members as antisemites, even in the total absence of direct proof of antisemitism? Bladestorm 04:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Moot point. Holocaust denial is a subcat of Category:Antisemitism, where it belongs, and people who voluntarily belong to organizations whose expressed desire is the killing of Jews usually qualify as anti-semitic people. -- Avi 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify It is impossible to source such a claim in a category, making it impossible for this category to pass WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. In list form, each entry could be referenced. Resolute 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep very notable list. It is important to recognize certian individuals who are anti-semitic as such. I would also support the un-deletion of Category:Racists--Sefringle 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This actually begs the question: Why is it important to recognize certain individuals as being antisemitic? How does applying these labels to people improve the quality of knowledge in wikipedia? If a person calls for the extermination of jews, then I can see how it helps to include that information. But, what is the specific benefit from also categorizing them as antisemitic? Bladestorm 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its like what is the purpose of any category. They all provide the same purpose; to group people or articles based on meeting a certain criteria. Adding the category makes it clear beyond reasonable doubt that somebody is an antiemite, even if it isn't completely clear from a quick glance at the article.--Sefringle 04:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh my, this is getting tiresome. Just look at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people and see that this is the 7th time this is up for a vote, or don't people bother taking that into account? IZAK 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not the seventh time it's been listed for deletion. Of the previous 6 listings, three were for renaming, including one where the point was simply to remove the hyphen. Pretending that this is the seventh listing for deletion is misleading. Bladestorm 05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with qualifications. I remember I ran into an academic source listing many notable people and explaining their antisemitic writings. I think to identify some comment or some writing as antisemitic is valid but to classify someone as antisemitic is hard. If someone goes around and frequently makes antisemitic comments, he/she can be viewed as antisemitic but usually it is harder. In the past, some people were not hesitant to call themselves as antisemitic but today people usually don't do that (i.e. they either don't consider themselves as antisemitic or don't want to be labeled so; -> POV problem). So, I suggest we rename this category to something that does not make one 100% antisemitic but shows that the person has made certain antisemitic comments. --Aminz 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note that Cyril of Alexandria is not included in the categore despite that he personally led a mob plundering and destroying the synagogues. He also expeled the Jews from Alexandria. // Liftarn
Keep per Avi. Nom may be advised to read WP:SNOW as this CFD has been up several times and failed every single one. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the previous afds Note that the previous afds either were for technical renaming or resulted in "no consensus". Debates ending in "no consensus" is not an endorsement of the category nor does it prohibit a renominatino. In fact, lack of consensus implies that the issue probably will be debated again over time until a consensus can be reached one way or another. Dugwiki 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as waaay to prone to subjective opinions and abuse. One man's anti-Semite is another man's freedom fighter. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your explanation is does not address the issue. The freedom fighter is thus anti-Semitic. Where is the contradiction? I am sure Hitler felt he was "freeing" Germany of Jews (Juderein) and was a freedom fighter as well. Your innate feeling that the category is disparaging is obfuscating the issue. The tag should only be applied where the evidence is clear; so there is no subjectivity, and the motivations behing the antisemitism are irrelevant. -- Avi 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that it was "disparaging?" My main concern lies in determining exactly what an anti-semite is. You say "when the "evidence is clear." Well, when is evidence clear? On one hand, I have friends that would apply the label to anyone that opposes Israel. On the other hand, some would say that an "anti-Semite" applies only to folk that call on Jews to be persecuted specifically because they are Jewish. And there are people like Mel Gibson: is he an anti-Semite or just a drunk jerk or a little of both? I guess what I am saying is that if you can alleviate my concerns that this categorization scheme won't be abused or subject to the whims of whatever editor is loudest at any given moment and will instead of some sort of non-subjective definition, I will gladly support the inclusion of this category. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what you have friends that say. That myth has been going around to allow people to go on with whatever they want to say. --Shamir1 02:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was. That was merely an example of the sort of POV pushing that this category invites. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of WP:BLP concerns. ElinorD (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There is an introduction on the category page that says how this is categorized. This is a very important part of history--ancient and current. It should be kept. --Shamir1 02:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but like everything such as this, only include people who self-identify as anti-Semitic. It doesn't matter how many people think they are; if they do not identify with an ideology, we should not say they hold it. -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as much as I do not like anti-Semites, this is just a POV magnet and useless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually wrote up a deletion nomination for this last week, after it got put on the Jimmy Carter page. Decided it wasn't worth the inevitable furor. BLP issues, over-categorization issues (likely applies to the vast majority of Europeans prior to WWII). Certainly there are some people for whom this is a defining characteristic, and the label is unquestionable. I would thus be open to restricting the category to self-identified anti-Semites, for whom this is a notable feature of their importance. Derex 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't want to bother reading all this discussion, so sorry if this has been said. It is a highly subjective essay. There is no uniform decision of what constitutes an anti-Semite. Some people are just generally discrimatory to all ethnicities. To subjective for an encyclopedia. Kaiser matias 05:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: flame-bait, WP:BLP, problems with definition of the term Alex Bakharev 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:: Extremely important topic given the events of the 20th century; important to remember and memorialize. Rename if necessary and keep close eye on names added to category, some of which may be inaccurate or challenged, but that is insufficient in and of itself to delete the entire category. Jill Teed 12:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP issues, subjective, accusatory, non-illuminating, and can be used punitively.— Preceding unsigned comment added by QuizzicalBee (talk • contribs) 10:36, March 29, 2007
Delete for many of the same reasons as have already been stated, but largely as POV and harmful to the project. --InkSplotch 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anti-Semitism is an important topic. However, this category has been used to attack, intimidate editors and push POV. Moreover, this category creates obvious BLP liability issues which may endanger the WP project. Majoreditor 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for the abuse of WP:BLP policy. — Indon (reply) — 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would support a "self-identified anti-semites" category but no more than that. Usually reliable sources have called people foolish, surely we don't want to have a "fools" category.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The votes are currently running (approximately) 62% in favor of deletion / listifying vs. (approximately) 38% for keeping. That's approaching a 2 to 1 difference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.22 (talk • contribs) 14:44, March 30, 2007
Comment: Hmm, I count 16 opinions for keep, 22 opinions for delete and 4 opinions for list (or 23 and 3, depending how you cont "delete/listify") Even at 16/26 that is a ratio of closer to 1.5 to 1, which approaches 1:1 as much as it approaches 2:1 Either way, another "non-consensus" I'm afraid. -- Avi 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about a lack of consensus on this one, but it still was worthwhile. At least two of the 'keep's still suggest fundamentally changing the category. (ie. one for keeping, but only including self-identified antisemites, and one for keeping, but changing the name to show that they've said antisemitic things, rather than outright labelling them antisemites) Even if (as is likely to be the case), it's declared 'no consensus', there still is at least a 2:1 ratio (28:14) that don't accept the category as it currently is. And we've got clear, reasonable ideas for how to at least minimize the problems that people like myself have. Bladestorm 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think that there is a case to be made for an admin closing this one as "delete" instead of "no con," I do agree that this has been helpful even if it sticks around. Some ground rules have been set that will keep every Pope before 1900-something and whatnot. I do have one question if this is kept, however: if someone renounces their anti-Semitism, would they still be included? For example, I argued unsuccessfully on a recent CfD that KKK members that renounced the Klan should be in an "ex-members" cat instead of a plain ol' "KKK member" category due to WP:BLP concerns. While I am willing to accept defeat on that one, I have noticed that KKK member cat is a subcat of this one. In the KKK member cat is Robert Byrd, an admitted former member. This categorization scheme would have him in a subcategory of the anti-semite category. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone that would contend that Byrd is currently an anti-Semite. Would it be fiar to indirectly imply that Byrd is an anti-semite? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I think that the concept that subcategories always imply total containment is somewhat in error. I asked for clarification a while ago here Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 10#Does subcategorization automatically imply a proper subset?, but not much clarity seems to have been gained. The way I see it, Byrd is not being called an Anti-Semite now, but a KKK member. Undoubtedly at one point he was, or professed to be such due to his membership in the KKK. But I would agree that now, placing him directly in the ASP category requires the same high level of sourcing that BLP does, and his former entry in the KKK is insufficient. But that is just one person's opinion :) -- Avi 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (Several Options - Read comment): I'm not really sure how much I can add given the excellent summaries by previous editors (BLP issues, very subjective, POV, etc etc.) I think the category would be better off deleted, but having the category be only self-identified antisemites would work as well. In that case, there would be no BLP issue (because they self identify) as well as no POV issue (because they're admitting it.) The next best option, but somewhat unfavorable, is a list. Although it still can potentially suffer from the same problems as this category, it at least has citations. Given that "Anti-semite" is often used as a pejorative term, having citations seems like it would be paramount in such a case as this. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unmanagable category with little upside. The only "legitimate" use would be to gather up self-proclaimed antisemites but even that would be a nuanced decision as their self-proclamations would all be qualified and nuanced. Any other (ab)use would be POV and it would be heavily (ab)used in that manner, IMO. No, not worth the price of the ticket. --Justanother 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise? Reading over this discussion, there is a majority for deletion, several "Listifies" which implies deletion, some keeps but only if renamed "self-identified anti-semites", and the rest want to keep it as is. If the closing were to rename the category as "self-identified anti-Semitic people" after a list of was created, and then all non-self-identified anti-Semites removed, that would probably be acceptable to three of those four groups, a fairly large number of the people discussing this. The List of anti-Semitic people would maintain all the information currently in the category, and the new category of self-identified anti-Semitic people could be NPOV and easy to verify. There would be no information lost, just the transformation from a category to a list, and the list will offer oppertunities for citation and annotation that are not available for a category. Such a decision would also be in keeping with past CFD discussion that have deleted similar categories such as Category:Racists and Category:Homophobic people. -- Samuel Wantman 09:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categorization by an opinion. (I have such a feeling that this category was deleted in the past.) Pavel Vozenilek 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real criteria. Inherently pov category. Jiffypopmetaltop 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with qualifications. Those listed must have made direct anti-Jewish remarks (while not under the influence, i.e. Mel Gibson) or direct anti-Jewish actions. It is very simple and very many people fall into this category. --Shamir1 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shamir1, didn't you already vote to keep on 02:42, 29 March 2007? Majoreditor

Comment: It seems so. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but if we aren't deleting, let's not revisit this for at least 6 months, and preferably a year. I note that the prior discussions have all landed without consensus, and I think it is legitimate to revisit cases where there was a lack of consensus, but that it should not be done too often. If this is revisited six months from now, it should be held to a high standard. I note that the list is significantly shorter today as a result of this review; it should not take a review to police the category. A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videogame's fighting women

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A category for female characters in fighting video games - a too-specific cross-section of categories. Also, misspelled. -Sean Curtin 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Fighting women in video games. Fighting women have become a regular feature of video games despite their absence in real life and their rarity in other art forms, so this is a culturally-significant grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The cross section is too specific. Note that we also do not have categories for people of African descent in fighting games or overweight people in fighting games, even though those types of archetypes also appear regularly. If desired, a referenced article on the subject would be more useful than just a list of characters. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this category, but it's better it be erased before I make enemies.Brazilian Man 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rename~~ as per BrownHairedGirl. Why not? I can see people being interested. --Justanother 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See, what do I know? - as per Bladestorm, too. I am neutral. --Justanother 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I wouldn't raise a stink if it was kept. :) I just think that Category:Female video game characters is a more helpful category. Bladestorm 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ps, not everyone thinks that Category:Female video game characters is helpful - it is up for deletion. --Justanother 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dang! Thanks for pointing that out! That category is indeed a valuable one! Bladestorm 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... but as routinely happens to any gendered category, it has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 30#Category:Female_video_game_characters), though at least that nomination is one of the rare constructive ones which actually addresses the relevant guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous Australian leaders

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out who this category gets applied to; the people in the category range from historic figures to contemporary politicians, writers and footballers. While these living people may be role models to some; does that qualify as leadership of a community? The criteria for inclusion are too fuzzy and have led to a category that isn't useful. Delete unless someone can come up with a suitable rename or some firm inclusion criteria Peta 04:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is hard to define a simple set of definitions of leadership for a society which has experienced as much change as indigenous Australians, and which doesn't have the same formal structures as Western societies. It'd be great if someone can do come up with a more clearcut definition, but for all its current fuzziness, it's more useful to have a deficient category of indigenous leadera than no category. Improve, don't delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems that this category is merely being used for "prominent people", which is very subjective. Postlebury 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tehran University faculty

The result of the debate was rename Category:Tehran University faculty to Category:University of Tehran faculty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:University of Tehran faculty, per discussion of March 20th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom. The official name is University of Tehran. Siba 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename-I can't even imagine any possible argument against it. Bladestorm 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncommon firearms

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncommon assault rifles
Category:Uncommon handguns
Category:Uncommon submachine guns
Category:Uncommon machine guns

Delete all for subjective inclusion criteria. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is the definition of an uncommon firearm? bibliomaniac 1 5 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective. Haddiscoe 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete: the uncommon-ness can be explained in a list, but not in a categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion criteria are vague. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Change "Uncommon" to "Rare" and the category should be fine. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women sportspeople

The result of the discussion was: merge, people in favor of deletion are suggested to renominate. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Women sportspeople to Category:Sportswomen
Rename Category:Women sportspeople by sport to Category:Sportswomen by sport

Merge to Sportswomen, which I had created in error (not having noticed Category:Women sportspeople); I was going to delete the new category, but I think that "Women sportspeople" is such a clumsy name that it's better to merge to "Sportswomen". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we divide sportspeople into two groups, "people" and "women"? That seems odd. Otto4711 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, of course not. Per WP:CATGRS, there are some sports which have gendered sub-categories, mostly those where women's participation is separate or rare. Those are the already existing subcats of the clumsily-named Category:Women sportspeople by sport, and we already have guidance in WP:CATGRS on their usage so as not to divide by gender. I have not proposed creating any new new subcats, and this proposal relates simply to container categories which link those into higher-level parts of the category sytem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them both, there are no subcats anyway. --Peta 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, there are subcats: see Category:Women sportspeople by sport. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:BrownHairedGirl A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the one and Rename the other per BrownHairedGirl, but I'd like to point out that Category:Women sportspeople by sport (by any name) could stand some serious review and cleanup of its subcategories as well. Xtifr _tälk 15:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just silly. Delete all but the main and Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released. --HanzoHattori 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Casperonline 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly support per nom. Some of the categories appear useful, but to be any use, the information needs reliable sources, and categories don't permit attribution. Lists with references would be a better approach to this job, but I referenced lists cannot usefully be generated by by robotic listifing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Guantanamo detainees held because they wore a Casio watch"? You must be kidding me. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there might be some use for keeping Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees missing from the official list, which does appear to be a well documented category within this mess. --Peta 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say okay. --HanzoHattori 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but the main category and consider sending some titles to WP:DAFT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly over classification. I might be able to support a listify for this into a single list if there is overlap on the various categories. But then how much of this data can be verified? Vegaswikian 07:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees - Guantanamo detainees do not need to be subclassified to this extreme. Also, many of these categories are named using weasel words ("alleged") or POV terms ("Guantanamo captive"). Some of these could be used as examples at Wikipedia:Overcategorization once this nomination is closed. Note that most of this is the work of Geo Swan, who should be told not to create categories like these in the future. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words? Guantanamo Bay detention camp is in the categories such as "Concentration camps" or "Political repression in the United States". --HanzoHattori 09:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prisoner" would be my choice as a neutral descriptive term, but "captive" is not unresaonable, and no more so than "detainee". Surely you don't think that people are staying there voluntarily? I still think that most of these categories are non-defining and that the information needs to be handled by a method which (unlike categories) allows proper referencing, but I do worry when I see the cats dismissed because some people prefer a softer term than "captive". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Half of them are useless "Guantanamo detainee who had a writ of habeas corpus filed on his behalf" this is going a bit extreme. Af648 10:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail is far too much. If major historical figures had sets of categories describing all their achievements and attributes to this level of detail, the lists of categories on their articles would be ten thousand word biographies. Haddiscoe 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and one more thing, all the Geo-Swans spamming. Just look at this picture (there are many others like this one), look on which aticles it is featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trailer_where_CSR_Tribunals_were_held.jpg Yes, it's SEVERAL HUNDRED pages. Just... wow. --HanzoHattori 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees As per Dr. Sub's suggestion above, this seems like wanton overspecification. Merge back into the main GB detainees category. Dugwiki 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but it would be civil for the creator to be notified, both so that he or she can be part of the discussion, can understand why their work is being thrown out, and won't be tempted to do this (or some variation of this) again.A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify - to a multi-cell list, with the very long category descriptions above. Then it would be useful & actually far easier to use, since presumably many are in many of these categories. And yes, the creator should be told. Johnbod 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan seriously needs a life (unless this actually is his full-time JOB): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp&curid=4407941&diff=118735063&oldid=118432715 and some action from the admins. --HanzoHattori 09:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are most unhelpful, but the edit by Geo Swan which you linked to looks to me like an editor who knows a lot about the detail of the subject being discussed. It doesn't excuse the huge overuse of categories, but surely a detailed knowledge of the subject should be welcomed rather than mocked? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all Geo Swan is doing (and working hard) is with agenda of trying to discredit the Gitmo and the US Tribunal, not inform neutrally. For example, the article EVERY reviewed czase prisoner (hundreds of articles) is illustrated not with anything REALLY related to him, but with the one image saying:

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in a small trailer, the same width, but shorter, than a mobile home. The Tribunal's President sat in the big chair. The detainee sat with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor in the white, plastic garden chair. A one way mirror behind the Tribunal President allowed observers to observe clandestinely. In theory the open sessions of the Tribunals were open to the press. Three chairs were reserved for them. In practice the Tribunal only intermittently told the press that Tribunals were being held. And when they did they kept the detainee's identities secret. In practice almost all Tribunals went unobserved.

The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed):

Mohamedou Ould Slahi, * Moazzam Begg, * Mamdouh Habib, * Feroz Abbasi...

Pretty hardcore? --HanzoHattori 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of readability I have trimmed the list of articles that include the image he is concerned about. It is off-topic. It has nothing to do with the issue of whether these categories should be deleted. Respondents who want the full list, can go to the image that triggered the nominator's concern. Respondents who think the caption needs rewording can go to the template.
I replied to User:HanzoHattori's concerns about this image on his talk page.
I am also going to add some colons and asterisks, when Hanzo's has been careless, and made this discussion less readable. -- Geo Swan 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think there are at least five or six of them that should be kept. Others can be merged or listified somehow. We are talking about an incredible level of labor put into these categories and HanzoHattori's attitute is inappropriate. He should stop being uncivil to a hard-working editor.cs 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I've decided to withdraw my vote on this matter. cs 14:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredible level of labor indeed, but what for? Besides the obvious agenda issue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_victims (multiple millions of people in a major historical event) have two (two) sub-categories, one of which is odd and should be moved elsewhere (I did already). And I don't see anyone posting the same semi-related picture(s) in all these articles too. I believe what you see above^ is aimed at discrediting the Tribunal, using all these articles and categories. These articles aren't even about these people themselves, as illustrated by this illustration (always the same, with the same long caption). In one word: "Incredible level of labor" at the propaganda (or just obsession). That, or just a obsession. And what is funny, at the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, where, and where ONLY the image belongs, the caption is much shorter (because it got more attention, and is NPOV-tagged anyway). 90% of each or most of the "detainee articles" is about... guess what, it's not hard. In most cases these guys are completely not notable, too (take, randomly, Menhal Al Henali at google and see yourself). "Incredible level of labor" at unneeded and unwanted information, name it like you want but I'd call it "spam". --HanzoHattori 10:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down! I dont doubt that it is overcategorization. I doubt the motives you attribute to the user and I see WP:Civil, WP:NPA at hand in your statements above.cs 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then notice one thing: he wasn't building these categories for the articles, he was writing the articles around the categories (to attack the Tribunal, or Guantanamo Bay in general). Most of these articles are of people of around zero notability at all (just try and google the names above). Imagine if someone started writing, say, millions of articles for the category "German people of World War II" (I think he made an article for every single Gitmo detainee), just to prove his point that, for example, Adolf Hitler was a bad or maybe a good guy (all these articles illustrated with the same long-captioned photo of Hitler, etc). All the Geo Swan's should be seriously reviewed, especially these articles started by him. --HanzoHattori 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the nom to delete all, except the main and the released one. All the sub-categs are POV with the alledgely terms. — Indon (reply) — 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- all but the main category, Guantanamo Bay detainees - Longhair\^talk 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Geo Swan 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer I started these categories...
- Unfortunately — I wish the nominator had shown the people who chose to address the viability of these categories the courtesy of acknowledging I took their concern seriously, when they first expressed it. I openly acknowledged I was new to starting categories, and I told them I welcomed any helpful advice they could offer. Unfortunately, the nominator proved totally unwilling or unable to be civil. Unfortunately, nominator proved almost totally unwilling or unable offer any helpful advice. Unfortunately, the nominator did not show you the courtesy of letting you see my efforts to try to address their possible concerns.
- Unfortunately — Nominator didn't show me the courtesy of giving me a heads-up that he or she was going to be nominating these categories for deletion, so I could present a case for them. I'd like to thank Johbod for giving me a heads-up.
- Triviality — Several of you have expressed a concern similar to a concern I guessed the nominators had from their vague hints — that these categories are trivial The Casio F91W category being one example. Granted ownership of one of the most common watches ever made gives the surface appearance of triviality — except at least 18 of the captives continued detention has been justified, at least in part, due to ownership of a casio watch. Bibliomaniac thought this category was a joke. I'll agree that it should be a joke. But detaining these captives based on ownership of this watch is not a joke. Some people think it represents a shocking abuse of human rights. At the very least it is the subject of a controversy. And I think that means coverage of this watch noteworthy.
- Sources — About half of these categories are paraphrases of allegations that were repeated in a significant number of the allegations used to justify captive's continued detention. Those allegations are repeated, verbatim, in the articles about the captives. They are properly referenced. Any reader is free to check the sources. I made it easy. Matching the captive's name to their transcript represented dozens of hours of work. On March 3 2006 the DoD was forced by court order, to release the first 5,000 pages of the 6,000 pages of transcripts. The DoD distributed those 6,000 pages of transcript identified only by an ID number. On April 20 2006 the DoD released a list of the captives names, nationalities and ID numbers. Matching the captive's na
- Verifiability? — I wish I had had an opportunity address this concern, and ask some questions, before the party was over. I am not sure if I am missing something. Is there something required to make sure the reasons entries are included in these categories are transparent and verifiable, beyond a willingness to strictly comply with wp:rs? I made that effort, and I did structly comply with wp:rs.
- Good faith, but — A dozen of several hundred articles about Guantanamo captives were nominated for ((afd)). It seemed to me that those who felt the articles should be deleted, held that view in good faith, but, their conclusions were based on very serious misconceptions. One nominator thought the Guantanamo captives weren't any more notable than —any other POW— when, of course, the Bush administration detainee policy is that the President can order the breach of the Geneva Conventions, and the captives have been, very controversially, stripped of the protections of POW status.
- When examined in detail — when the allegations against the captives are examined in detail, they do not support the descriptions offered by DoD spokesmen and Bush administration. For instance, the captives are routinely described as being —captured on the battlefield—. But, when examind in detail, on a case by case basis, the documents show that mere dozens of the captives were captured on the battlefield, for any reasonable definition of "battlefield".
- Useful explanation? — User:A Musing, the second last person to comment in this discussion, was the first person to notice, and comment on, the nominator's decision to not inform me that they were nominating these categories for deletion. And I would like to thank him or her for that. But one of the reason they thought I should be informed was so I could learn what I have done wrong, so I won't do it again. Well, no offense, but, so far, this discussion has been a failure at explaining to me that I have done anything wrong. While I believe the concerns expressed here, about the apparent triviality of these categories, or their suspected unverfifiability, were sincere, I also believe they were misplaced, based on misconceptions.

overcategorization? — the opinion of almost all the contributors to this discussion is that these categories represent instances of "overcategorization". Those contributors seem to think that this overcategorization is so obvious that it does not need to be explained, or examined in any detail. Half of these categories are paraphrases of the allegations against the captives. In light of the obvious malice of the nominator, and his or her attempts to subvert the deletion process, I would like to ask the other contributors to please reconsider these categories on their merits. In particular, in light of the fact we are all busy people, I would like to suggest contributors direct their attention to a couple of specific categories that have already been mentioned, and reconsider whether those categories really deserve deletion, or whether I have answered the concerns about them sufficiently for them to change their mind.
- Category:Guantanamo detainee held because they wore a Casio watch — As I explained above, while this might seem like a trivial category, on first examination, this is a paraphrase of the actual allegations used to justify, at least in part, the continued detention of 18 men. And, in my opinion, that turns what one correspondent asked was a joke, into a controversial topic, worthy of coverage in the wikipedia.
- Category:Guantanamo detainee who had a writ of habeas corpus filed on his behalf — This cateogory isn't fully populated yet. But, IMO, it deserves to be. Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, made their way all the way to the United States Supreme Court. These two important Supreme Court rulings were over writs of habeas corpus. In my opinion I think that shows that the writs of habeas corpus submitted on behalf of the Guantanamo captives are significant and worthy of coverage in the wikipedia. -- Geo Swan 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why these categories are useful — Geo Swan 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very disappointed that no one has chosen to address the defense I have offered for these categories. I sure which I had some indication that someone had read them, and given them fair consideration. Geo Swan
- I've acknowledged I am new to starting categories. I asked User:HanzoHattori, the wikipedian who nominated these categories for deletion, to help me learn how to use categories properly, when he or she first said they had concerns. I asked Hanzo for helpful advice several times: [4] [5] [6] I did not find Hanzo's sarcastic replies helpful. I think I addressed the concerns he or she raised. And I think I have addressed the concerns the rest of you have raised. If my defense of these categories is unsatisfactory, I can't understand why one or more of you can't make a serious, civil attempt to explain why my defense of the categories is unsatisfactory. Geo Swan
- I had plans to use these categories in the work I am doing on the wikipedia. Now maybe utility alone is not a sufficient reason for a category to be preserved. But, if it isn't, I wish someone would explain what criteria is sufficient.
- I am trying to rush more than a month's worth of work into a couple of days. As Hanzo has sarcastically pointed out, this discussion does not seem to be going well for these categories. In the first deletion discussion I have ever participated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 20#Category:Guantanamo witnesses User:GRBerry suggested one yardstick for whether a category merited surviving a ((cfd)) was whether an article that could stand alone could be written about the intersection of the articles in the category. Well, I had already told Hanzo, when he made his one limited, sarcastic attempt to be helpful, by suggesting that the wikipedia needed "list articles", not categories, that I had already started over a dozen "list articles" related to these categories, and it was my intention to start an article on the intersection of the articles in all these categories. I thought this would take me at least a month, probably more. Now I am trying to rush, to make as much use of these categories as I can before they are deleted. Geo Swan
- Here is an example. I planned to start an article parallel to Category: Guantanamo detainees whose factors memo was released. Today I started Summary of Evidence (ARB). I started a section listing the 121 Guantanamo captives whose Summary of Evidence memos, which lists the factors for and against their continued detention. I planned to use the category to help populate the list. It takes time. The list currently lists just six of the 121 captives who belong there. Adding them took about half an hour. At that rate I could populate the list in about ten hours. Can't I squeeze ten hours of my spare time into finishing this list before this ((cfd)) closes? Sure. But that wouldn't allow me to try to make use of the other categories, which also seem to face imminent deletion. Geo Swan
- Isn't this example an argument for the categories perservation? I think so. Maybe I am wrong, and there policies or procedures I am unaware of, that over-ride the usefulness of these categories? Well, if that is the case, I would really appreciate someone making a serious, civil effort to explain that to me. Some people might suggest I need to be reminded I don't own these categories. Sure I know that, But I think it is reasonable to ask for a meaningful explanation. And, in the absence of anyone making an attempt to offer an explanation that shows they have considered my reply, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't think the issue remains open for discussion.
- What about that reasonable main article test? GRBerry suggested a reasonable test was whether areasonable main article could be written about the category. That is useful So, can I get some feedback as to whether his view this is a reasonable test is widely shared? Geo Swan
- The place in the hierarchy test? GRBerry also mentioned his test that a category should have a reasonable place in the hierachy of categories. Category:Guantanamo witnesses didn't then have one. So, correct me if I am wrong, by virtue of being subcategories of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, these categories do, right? Geo Swan
- Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are just way out of line with the way categories work, which is as succinct guides to key attributes. The detail should be in the text of each article. AshbyJnr 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or ( Listify - to a multi-cell list, per Jonbod.). I picked a supposedly useless category at random and found useful information!!.Aatomic1 08:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for not running with your first surface impression.
- Listifiying all this information to a union list woon't work however. There are almost 800 captives. We don't have any information about one third or so of them. But, for those we do have information about, we have multiple references. References are long. The references to the captives' transcripts are about 150 to 200 bytes long. That is 200K, just for the references.
- As an experiment, I tried creating a file similar to what you suggest. I stopped when it got to 399K. It took ages to render. Note, over 650 references. A table even fifty names long, that was too wide to fit on the screen, would be unusable. Geo Swan 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all. WP:POINT gone mad. Pavel Vozenilek 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]