< October 2	October 4 >

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 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 debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 05:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - similar to P-Funk songs nominated below. Absent the subcats that are properly categorized in Category:Albums by artist this is an empty category. Its only contents other than the subcats were albums by Parlet which I have recategorized to Category:Parlet albums. Otto4711 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the association of "albums recorded by the various P-Funk acts associated with George Clinton" in a single category, even if that category has nothing but sub-categories in it, is valuable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When George Clinton lost the rights to the names Funkadelic and Parliament about 1980 or so, he started releasing albums under his own name, under the name P-Funk All-Stars, and under the name "George Clinton and the P-Funk All-Stars". After he won back the rights, he started using the names Parliament-Funkadelic and "George Clinton and Parliament-Funkadelic" as well. A few of these albums are listed at George Clinton (funk musician)#Discography, but technically they don't belong there — they were released under one of the one of the permutations listed above. (See Template:P-Funk, where I lumped them all together in the discography, and my comments at Template talk:P-Funk.) A rigid procedure of classifying these albums by artist would make no sense; they belong in Category:P-Funk albums. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are very closely related, and so the umbrella makes sense.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments by Malik Shabazz and Mike Selinker. InnocuousPseudonym 00:03, 4 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the subcats were all nominated and kept recently but the parent cat was not. This should be deleted for the simple reason that in the absence of the subcategories, which are all reasonably housed in Category:Songs by artist, this category is empty. There are no articles on songs recorded by "P-Funk" in it. The analogy was drawn in the previous debate to Category:Motown songs but the key difference is that Motown is a record label and P-Funk is not. I have my doubts about categorizing songs by record label, as the Motown songs cat does, but that's a debate for another day. Otto4711 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would note that some of the songs in the sub-cats of Category:Motown songs (such as Category:Jackson 5 songs, Category:Marvin Gaye songs, and Category:Four Tops songs) were recorded for labels other than Motown (or its subs, such as Gordy and Tamla). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the association of "songs recorded by the various P-Funk acts associated with George Clinton" in a single category, even if that category has nothing but sub-categories in it, is valuable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are very closely related, and so the umbrella makes sense.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationales by Malik Shabazz and Mike Selinker. InnocuousPseudonym 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: we have articles on Parliament (band), Funkadelic, Parliament-Funkadelic, and P-Funk All-Stars, all of which could be considered one band or four, depending on your perspective. This is not an easy thing to classify. Note that it's possible that we should have a Category:P-Funk All-Stars songs, which would be one more sub-category here, but I'm not entirely how much All-Stars-only material exists. I once suggested merging the first two articles I mentioned into the third, but there was pretty strong opposition to the idea. Anyway, this is a borderline case, but I tend to think there's simultaneously enough diversity and enough commonality in these categories to justify the umbrella. But it's very definitely borderline. Xtifr _tälk 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When George Clinton lost the rights to the names Funkadelic and Parliament about 1980 or so, he started releasing albums under his own name, under the name P-Funk All-Stars, and under the name "George Clinton and the P-Funk All-Stars". After he won back the rights, he started using the names Parliament-Funkadelic and "George Clinton and Parliament-Funkadelic" as well. A few of these albums are listed at George Clinton (funk musician)#Discography, but technically they don't belong there — they were released under one of the one of the permutations listed above. (See Template:P-Funk, where I lumped them all together in the discography, and my comments at Template talk:P-Funk.) A rigid procedure of classifying the songs on these albums by artist would make no sense; they belong in Category:P-Funk songs. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 4 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: POV title, this will become merely a place for people to argue as to who or what is "notable" or "notorious".Corvus cornix 22:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename. Simply, not-notable antisemites don't belong to our project; it could be renamed to Category:Antisemites or deleted due to non-neutral title.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I created it but it was effectively a move from Category:Notable or Notorious Antisemites created by Ludvikus (see below). -- RHaworth 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Rename Category:Antisemites.~~:Creator's rationale: Note the qualification actually placed at top of list:

    "Listed here are individuals who played some notable role, or a notorious one,
    in history, literature, or publication. Please note that mere incident(s)involving
    some apparent antisemitic conduct or speech is insufficient to qualify the inclusion of a person
    on this list. Please be very careful in your selections. Remember also that this is not a place to make
    your own personal judgments. Neither should it be a place or space to libel or slander
    a living person with whose views you strongly disagree. Nor is it a place to list someone who exercised poor judgment
    in the choice of words on a particular occasion.
    Please further note, that the primary interest here is in historic events.
    Accordingly, the emphasis here is on individuals who are no longer alive.
    Only in extraodinary circumstance, for example, where an individual is a self-professed antisemite,
    should we list the person under this category."
    Yours truly,  --Ludvikus 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    --Ludvikus 18:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the president of Iran? He said that he wants Israel to be destroyed, but also claimed that he wasn't anti-semitic because he was against the country not the religion? - perfectblue 15:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current name. At best it's silly to pretend that one cannot tell whose an antisemite: it's one who either (1) subscribes to the view that a Jew is evil until (s)he converts to Christianity, or holds that (2) a Jew has bad blood (is genetically inferior) and must be expelled to another place, or exterminated. Is that really such a difficult distinction to make/ What's subjective here? --Ludvikus 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as above Wedineinheck 10:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it shameful that Wikipedians find antisemitism to be too subjective. Is murder too subjective? Why is antisemitism any more subjective than homicide? Please reconsider. --Ludvikus 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's whose so categorized so far (without any disagreement):

B

Henry Hamilton Beamish

Boris Brasol

G. Butmi

C

Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich

John Henry Clarke

D

Natalie de Bogory

E

Adolf Eichmann

F

Henry Ford

L. Fry

G

Howell Arthur Gwynne

H

Reinhard Heydrich

Heinrich Himmler

Adolf Hitler

Harris A. Houghton

K

Pavel Krushevan

L

Arnold Leese

N

Sergei Nilus

W

Nesta Helen Webster

Retrieved from "[1]"

- Let me point out that this is not as broad as the previous "Category:antisemitic people."
- Furthermore, I did not find such a broad consensus for Unqualified Deletion.
- Third point: Listify was repeatedly requested. And here we generate a List.
- The emphasis is un Dead Antisemites (no doubt the best kind). And I'm going to add that qualification right away - so as not to offend any living ones! --Ludvikus 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in order to be listed as a murderer you have to be convicted of the crime of murder, yet many antisemites are never convicted in a court of law. For example, in some countries it's not a crime. In the US you can legally stand up and announce that you think that Jews are the lowest of the low etc etc etc, and you can't be convicted unless you incite murder or violence. - perfectblue 15:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The proposed qualification process is highly volatile. Who's to decide what "conduct or speech" is already sufficient or yet "insufficient" for the inclusion? You, the creator? Give me a break. The whole idea seems like an open invitation to finger pointing, defamation and wholesale witch-hunt. Exactly the opposite of what is presumably intended here. --Poeticbent talk 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not keep as "Antisemites". Criteria for categorization are too subjective and category will likely be subject to abuse or at least the cause of serious application disputes. Snocrates 04:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the one who nominated the list from which this stems for deletion. As long as there are clear criteria for inclusion and it's limited to people notable for antisemitism instead of people who made a poor choice of words once I don't see this as any less valid than Category:Homophobia. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of the deleted Anti-Semites category and a recreation of the deleted Anti-Semitic people category. If this is somehow not eligible for speedy, then strong delete for all the reasons the two previous categories were deleted. POV magnet, no possible objective inclusion criteria, WP:BLP concerns, overcategorization by opinion. Otto4711 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two (2) views which supported Delete with an Opinion as follows;

    "Delete both The existence of these categories expose a major failure in Wikipedia's systems,
    as Jewish users appear to be the only group well organised enough to preserve biased "anti" categories.
         User:Osomec 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 
    "Delete both. Wikipedia needs some kind of firm precedent or policy
    against categorizing people on the basis of opinions.
    Opinions are changable and often passing.
    Likewise we need a firm policy against categorizing people with derogatory labels given them by others.
    This category fails on both counts.
         User:KleenupKrew 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two opinions were expressed in August of 2006. As Jimbo Wales holds, Wikipedia is a phenomena which evolves. The above opinion gives a good example of what will not qualify for inclusion:

    ... Jewish users appear to be the only group well organised enough to preserve biased "anti" categories.

Although those who know would agree as to what category such a sentence falls, clearly it does not qualify under our classification because the person who expressed it cannot be shown to be notable or notorious. Furthermore, at worst, for us under the above criteria, that's a bad choice of words. Unless, of course, one believes that it's true that "Jews are better organized" than non-Jews. On the other hand, it does sound like the message of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, namely that Jews are into world domination. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Jimbo Wales might hold, the second linked category above was deleted in April of this year with strong consensus and policy bases. Nothing in this CFD has rebutted that strong consensus or the strong policy concerns. Otto4711 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescent. Rename is also viable option. It should be stressed that this category includes not people having antisemitic views and Mel Gibson type of cases, but rather is limited to the people that contributed notably to the spreading of antisemitic ideology. M0RD00R 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll be adding Category:Popes as a subcategory here? Otto4711 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, subcategory Anti-Semites by profession would be a stretch. And Yes, popes, bishops, saints, whatever, notable for the history of antisemitism, can and should be included. M0RD00R 19:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for every person who says that Pope Convertajew XXI was an anti-Semite, there will be someone who says that he didn't try to convert them out of hatred but out of love and a desire to share with them Christ's glory. So whose viewpoint prevails? Or do we have constant edit wars on a hundred or more Pope articles as POV-pushers on both sides struggle to make their points? Otto4711 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue can be resolved by limiting the scope of the category to the modern antisemitism (mid XIX - XX centuries) only. M0RD00R 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in addition to all of the previously noted problems, you want to add an arbitrary inclusion standard. There is no rational basis for Category:Anti-Semites of the mid-19th to 20th Centuries. Why if we're going to categorize anti-Semites would we not want to categorize anti-Semites from, say, the 1820s? Category:Inquisition is a sub-category of Category:Antisemitism. How can you justify excluding Inquisitors from Cat:Antisemites? Otto4711 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OC is not the case yet because we don't even have one category for notable anti-Semites (in comparison to the dozen fascists categories) , and I bet anti-Semite is easier to define than a fascist. And I do not think that just because there might be some problems defining who is a fascist category:Fascists will ever be deleted. Regarding arbitrary inclusion standard I'd say that modernity is not so arbitrary standard at all. Racist nature is the main difference between modern and classic (religious-Christian) antisemitism, all this can be sourced according to WP:RS and so on. To cut lengthy discussions about definitions even further, there is a shortcut. We can say that the term Anti-Semite should not be applied regarding the person in question retroactively thus we'll limit the scope of the category to modern anti-Semites automatically because the term "Antisemitism" was coined in middle of XIX century M0RD00R 21:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently do not understand what "overcategorization" means. It is not related to how many categories exist. And were we to adopt your cut-off on the basis of when the term was coined then our articles on Antisemitism and the history of antisemitism are going to require extensive re-writes, because they cite sources identifying examples of antisemitism dating back to the Third Century BCE. As for the comparison to Fascism, while I have not looked at every single article in Category:Fascists and its sub-categories, I would venture to guess that the members are people who identify themselves as members of one or another Fascist party or movement. Now, if you wanted to make a category for members of various organized antisemitism leagues, feel free, as long as the people included have RSes to back them up. Otto4711 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Popes. The scholarship is that it was the Popes who protected the Jew - against antisemitism - with the exception of only 3 or 4 Popes. So the fear that many Popes will be so classified as antisemites is just unhistorical. --Ludvikus 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism is not a Category invented by Wikipedians. It exists in History, Civilization, Culture, ... So we must look to that for our guidance. And the fact is that there is a distinction that is made by Historians of Judaism regarding Modern Antisemitism and the earlier kind. It's not a distinctions which merely Wikipedians make. And the cut-off point is generally taken to be the French Revolution. Accordingly, the 19th century is a natural demarchation, with the date (more or less) of 1789. --Ludvikus 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern antisemitism is tied to Racism - which involves the idea that you cannot be converted out of Judaism and into Christianity because your Jewishness is in your blood; that's why the Nazis traced your ancestry several generations back, and if you were 1/3 a Jew, you were still a Jew, and off to a Concentration Camp you went. There was nothing subjective about that - except in the minds of some incensitive Wikipedians. --Ludvikus 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pre-modern antisemitism is also not hard to identify, thanks to Historians, not Wikipedians. Again, the Popes generally protected the Jews, even with Bulls (disambiguate please). Antisemitism manifested itself in Blood libels in Europe. It was that charge that Jews would kill little christian boys in order to collect their Blood which Jews allegedly needed to make their Matzos for Passover, which Christ celebrated as the Last Supper. --Ludvikus 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Jews, by the way, have an aversion to Blood (no doubt related to their Kosher laws). And what does Christ (a Jew) do at the Last Supper? He drinks the Wine, and says, "This is my blood ...". The point is, much is known about this kind of Christian hatred of Jews which was and is prohibited by Christianity itself; viz. the Second ecumenical council and the work of the great late Polish Pope who prayed at the Wailing Wall. --Ludvikus 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. This is categorization by opinion, which is nearly always a bad idea, especially for something this emotionally charged. It will be a POV and OR magnet. It has vague inclusion criteria. So many reasons to delete. LeSnail 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other editors' arguments notwithstanding, deciding who is or isn't an antisemite is a subjective judgment, unless the category is changed to Category:Self-proclaimed antisemites. Contra Ludvikus, religious antisemitism has existed for more than 2000 years; racial antisemitism generally is regarded as beginning in 1492, when New Christians were suspect because of their Jewish ancestry. People whose are notable because of their antisemitism are, or should be, in Category:Antisemitism. This category belongs in the same trash-heap as Category:Racists, Category:Anti-Zionists, and Category:Self-hating Jews. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many of the people in the current category are neither notable nor notorious, and I wonder why they have Wikipedia articles at all. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're mistaken. Maranos (converted Jews) were accused of secretly practicing Judaism. Also, Jews, being un-Batised, carried the sin of Adam. It is a mistake (a-historical) to read modern (biological) Racism into the past of 1492 - even if we find some very similar Racist views. --Ludvikus 03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm for a Category such as Category:Notable and notorious racists in which we would certainly include the officers of the KKK. As a matter of fact, our Category here would be a Subcategory of it - since N&N Racists always included together "Jews, Negroes, and Dogs" for exclusion from their (filthy) Bathrooms. Do you really find it so "subjective" to identify the "famous" or "great" Racists and Antisemites of the world? --Ludvikus 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it absolutely is subjective, because the person you call antisemitic, another person thinks is "speaking truth to power" and not antisemitic at all. I'm glad the world is all black and white to you, but most of the rest of us live in a world with shades of gray. We've been through this countless times, and that's why there are no categories for racists, anti-Zionists, or self-hating Jews — they are all POV magnets. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely subjective? You've only been around since February 1, 2007! And note the difference: Notable and Notorious. You're clearly ignorant about the people in the list right now. They are all editors, compilers, promoters, etc., of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - the truth of which apparently you seem to suggest is relative. You seem unable to make the distinction between a casual remark like yours, "speaking truth to power," and that subscribed to in the PSM (acronym for the Protocols of Zion in Russian). We also need the Category: Category:Notable or notorious racists. There we would list those who included yids with niggers and subscribed to a theory of racial inferiority. Do you think calling Hitler a notable and notorious racist and antisemite is absolutely subjective, and that he was speaking the truth - that the Jews had the power? I wonder what he did to Germany's negroe jazz musicians who held German citizenship. Oh, that too is absolutely subjective, because it has to do with "moron music". Do you know where that phrase comes from? Or are you not interested in such absolutely subjective questions? --Ludvikus 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been around since April 19, 1963, and I've been an Wikipedia editor since December 13, 2006. (This, coming from an editor who registered on August 26, 2006. I'm sure those 109 days have made you a much wiser editor than me. Ha ha.) In any event, my tenure as a Wikipedia editor has no bearing on my ability to discuss antisemitism. Obviously there is no point in discussing this further. I've made my views clear, as have you — repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been through this even once.. The issue is that (by implication) you think that categorizing Hitler as an antisemite is subjective. You think that Wikipedians (or humanity at large) will not be able to make the distinction between hardcore antisemites and racists on the one hand, and the smuck next door who happened to use the word "nigger" or "hymie" one drunken night. And you're affraid that we'll have an editor war over that drunken night. And you seem to present yourself as an authority about how many times we've gone through this at Wikipedia. I see this as the First Time that we are considering to excluden the drunken night episodes. Or is it that you think that Jews have the Power to Dominate the World? If that's the case, don't worry. Such remarks, in this context, are neither Notable, nor are they made, as far as we know, by a Notorious individual. So you have nothing to fear - but fear itself. --Ludvikus 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am pulled in both directions on the question of having a category for individuals who are/were antisemites. On the one hand, I could easily make all of the arguments that have been articulated against such categories, and would have made a number of them against this particular category. However, all of those arguments fail to address one irreducible fact that I think almost everybody would agree on -- namely that, in principle, there really should be a category for "certifiable antisemites". It seems to me that we have some sort of obligation to our readers to facilitate their efforts to find the articles for such people. So I think we should undertake a truly serious effort to fashion such a category. Failing to make that effort strikes me as simply shirking our responsiblity. And leaving Wikipedia's category structure bereft of such a category runs the risk of being seen as an implicit statement that we just don't give a hoot about this.

Having said all of that, I want to reiterate that I am fully aware of the array of problems that are inherent in categories of this sort. Generically, I'm referring to categorizing by opinion, which is well-understood to be an unsuitable basis for categorization. It seems to me that the proper approach here is to construct a category for what we might broadly term "activists of antisemitism". This is essentially the same approach we've settled on in other highly contentious areas, most notably for abortion (for & against). If we proceed along those lines, we should be on fairly solid ground. Now, we obviously can't call it Category:Antisemitic activists. (surely that requires no explanation!) If we look at it in terms of what sorts of basic activities these individuals engage(d) in, then we're talking about, for example, "promoters" and "theorists" of antisemitism. That would suggest a possible Category:Promoters and theorists of antisemitism. I would like to throw that out as a starting point for further discussion, which can, in all likelihood, be improved upon. Cgingold 13:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above, people whose are notable primarily because of their antisemitism are, or should be, in Category:Antisemitism. The need for a new category, Category:Promoters and theorists of antisemitism, seems unnecessary, when Category:Antisemitism already includes dozens of... promoters and theorists of antisemitism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People should be in people-dedicated category, i.e. Category:Antisemites.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're not really that far apart here, Malik Shabazz. The point is, it's customary to separate out individuals from a larger category they're associated with when there are enough articles to warrant a sub-category. That's basically what this amounts to. As I've suggested, the real question here is, What exactly shall we call this new sub-category, so as not to be encumbered with the sorts of problems that arise with poorly-named categories? If you can suggest an improvement on Category:Promoters and theorists of antisemitism, I would be most appreciative if you would favor us with a comment towards that end. Cgingold 21:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes being a "promoter" of anti-semitism and how is that definition any more objective than what would constitute an "anti-semite"? What is an anti-semitism "theorist"? Is it someone who advances anti-semitic theories or someone who theorizes on anti-semitism but is in no way anti-semitic, or both, or something else entirely? And none of this addresses the deletion arguments advanced both here and in the previous deleted categories for anti-semites, racists, homophobes, sexists and all the other "-ists" and -ites" and "-phobes." Otto4711 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I'm not ignoring your questions. However, it clearly was not wise to introduce my quasi-proposal in the midst of all this vituperation. So if you don't mind, I would prefer to pursue this issue separately, in a setting that's more conducive to constructive discussion. (Not sure where, perhaps Category talk:Antisemitism, perhaps somewhere else.) Cgingold 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're making progress. Contrary to User:Malik Shabazz's position, I think we need to put a human face on Antisemitism: we need to show Who are the People, or Human beings (since we must call them that) who are behind the Real phenomena of Antisemitism. It turns out that they are quite "banal", as a famous author has stated about Adolf Eichmann. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that "notable" and "notorious" are not considered sufficient to do the job. Let me put the issue this way, who are the people that Otto and Shabazz are afraid we'll include? It's obvious that "notable" requires something more than a simple antisemitic remark. And "notorious" means some significant action or even. I do not think that Jackson's off the cuff remark, calling Jew(s) "Hymie" qualifies, just as a private remark using the word "negro" would not. At the same time, I ask you guys to look at how the category is already in use: it has not been abused. At the same time, I hold that playing a notable role in getting The Protocols published or distributed does qualify one for inclusion as a notable antisemite, even if that person is not well known. So I fail to see the legitimacy of Otto's or Shabazz's objections. Shabazz - are you really saying that you cannot tell the difference between a member of the KKK and the ordinary racist who would not let you live next door simply because your an African American. Shabbazz, I'm not saying what you are, I'm only asking you to play the role of someone faced with that distinction. The distinction is this: (1) one would simply say, "Sorry, the apartment has aleady been taken." The other (2) would take you out (for talking to a white girl) and lynch you. Shabbazz - is that really a difficult distinction for you to comprehend? --Ludvikus 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to put a human face on Antisemitism: we need to show Who are the People, or Human beings (since we must call them that) who are behind the Real phenomena of Antisemitism. - has more than a whiff of POV-pushing about it. Otto4711 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must you turn this into an ad hominem attack? Why can't editors have differing opinions about how to categorize Wikipedia articles without resorting to insults? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brother Wikipedian. I wish I could get you an all-paid trip to Great Britain's Parliament. Then I could tell you: "If you can't take the heat then get out of the kichen." Remember, I only know you through cyberspace. So I really have a brotherly affection for you. Nevertheless, think of this argument like a sport. Remember the great Muhammed Ali! We are boxing here so to speak. I'm not attacking You. It's your position that I'm attacking. So please do not take it personally. And I hope you are man enough (as the saying goes) to admit when you're wrong. Think of us as playing chess. Unfortunately, the Art of the Debate has been lost in the West. The rules of Wikipedia (concerning debates/arguments) only prohibit the use of direct insulting, infalammatory, words against one another. And even if you're wrong, I think of you as my Wikipedian brother. Now let's get back into the "ring." IK, my Brother? What did Sonny Listen (was that Muhammed Ali's great opponent?) do the first time he lost? --Ludvikus 00:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One new editor (that I've noticed) has begun using the Category herein. Accordingly, I've notified him (in a friendly way) that unless he places his vote to Keep here, his work at classification hereunder will become an exercise in futility. Please note that this is in keeping with Wiki Canvassing rules. Thank you, --Ludvikus 01:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the antisemites mentioned are in the article Antisemitism, so the category is really a subset of the article, which is having things backwards. ^ross ^nixon 02:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstanding My wish is merely to make this Category a Subcategory of Antisemitism! Since there is no objection to the Category Antisemitism, I anticipate that there should be no objection to a Subcategory within it. There is no dispute (that I can imagine) involving the distinction over person, or human - though it's a shame we have no choice but to call antisemites human. Anyway, I think the discussion should now shift and focus on that - since the Category "Antisemitism" already exists, how do we make the new category merely a Subcategory of it? --Ludvikus 10:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make any category that identifies people as antisemites or proponents of antisemitism or what have you a subcategory of any other category because of the fatal problems with such categorization as has been repeatedly expressed. Otto4711 14:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: this is a dangerous violation of WP:BLP that is open to abuse by those wishing to label people in a certain way. For starters, who decided who is and isn't antisemitic? Does somebody have to self-profess? or just be accused? And what is the level of WP:V required, it'd have to be very high to pass WP:BLP and it would have to be from a neutral source as per WP:RS. Let's say that my neighbor is a notable person and they said that they didn't think that it was appropriate to show R rated Shindler's list in his kid's middle school. Does make him suitable for this category? What about if another neighbor appeared in the local paper saying that he was pursuing a zoning dispute over a new Jewish Deli because he was anti-semitic but didn't present any evidence other than the fact he was pursuing the dispute, would that be enough, or would he actually have to be convicted by a jury of committing a hate crime against the local Jewish community? No, this category is far too open to WP:BLP violations.- perfectblue 15:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Read:

Listed here are individuals who played some notable role, or a notorious one, in history, literature, or publication. Please note that mere incident(s) involving some apparent antisemitic conduct or speech is insufficient to qualify the inclusion of a person on this list. Please be very careful in your selections. Remember also that this is not a place to make your own personal judgments. Neither should it be a place or space to libel or slander a living person with whose views you strongly disagree. Nor is it a place to list someone who exercised poor judgment in the choice of words on a particular occasion. Please further note, that the primary interest here is in historic events. Accordingly, the emphasis here is on individuals who are no longer alive. Only in extrodinary circumstance, for example, where an individual is a self-professed antisemite, should we list the person under this category.

We're clearly not interested in your neighbors. And the Deli operator would be rather foolsh to open his store in Nazi town. I do not comprehend why you ignore the words notable or notorious. We are not interested in these insignificant kind of people you describe. All these border-line case - or even concern for children - is not a problem. I'm only interested in Hitler and Eichmann type of people. And you know, I hope, that Eichmann lived like the kind of neighbor you described -until he was caught by Israel, tried, and hanged. He was both notable and notorious. We are only interested in classifying the very hard working Antisemites who believe that Hitler didn't finish the job. Even if your neighbor believes that - it would be not sufficient to Categorise him or her here. But please tell me more about your neighbor - maybe I'm wrong. --Ludvikus 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only interested in Hitler...type people... Then you should check out Category:Nazis. And this notion of restricting this category to only "the very hard working Antisemites who believe that Hitler didn't finish the job" is new and novel and points yet again to the untenability of the category. What is the objective definition of "very hard working" in terms of this category? Otto4711 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Otto (my late father's name was "Otto"),

You know (I hope) that not all Antisemites were Nazis or German. As a matter of fact, the latest research is that the German Nazis around Hitler learned their stuff from the White Russians. --Ludvikus 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Otto, you're confusing what I said here, incompletely, with the complete description I've quoted for your convenience above. Why don't you criticise that, instead of taking my words out of context. Ludvikus 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have critiqued your position, repeatedly. To respond specifically to the category description, as a general rule of thumb if a paragraph of that length full of restrictions is required then that argues against the efficacy of the categorization scheme. Otto4711 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective hate magnet. Doczilla 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I explained above, I do feel that there ought to be some sort of category for such individuals. But this isn't it. The reasons have already been exhaustively enumerated, so I will simply say that, as a generic proposition, it is basically untenable to use terms like "Notable or notorious" in a Category heading, regardless of the subject. I am sympathetic to Ludvikus's intentions, but what he fails to understand is that, regardless of what may seem to be so obvious that no serious person could possibly take issue, it would be well-nigh impossible to restrict this category to the unarguable cases like Hitler, et al. because there are lots of editors who will want to use it for other individuals who they consider "notorious". And, not incidentally, it really is not helpful to make caustic remarks and insinuations about other editors when debating an intensely contentious issue such as this. All that does is inflame passions and short-circuit thoughtful discussion -- which is why I decided to discontinue the discussion that I opened above. Cgingold 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed compromise: Category:Antisemites In that case, consider this. The Category, Category:Antisemitism, already exists. So all we really need is a subcategory within it. You realize, of course, that Antisemites have already been Categorized under Antisemitism. Surely you don't think that it's problematic to distnguish, for example, Hitler (an Antisemite - "person") from his book, Mein Kompf, a thing? --Ludvikus 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: Simply put, all I'm really asking for is to be able to collect all the Persons ("human," excluding corporations, and other organizations, and things) within our already existing Antisemitism Category. I cannot imagine why I would be denied the ability to compile such a list within Wikipedia! --Ludvikus 00:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read the previous CFDs for the already-deleted Antisemites categories linked above and this may enlighten you. Otto4711 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific as to your reading assignment? However, whatever was done before it could not possibly have been that we are not allowed to sort out within the existing Antisemitism Category, the individual inhumane beings who made the phenomena of Antisemitism a reality. You make no sense, Otto. If we permit articles about people to be classified under Antisemitism, how can you deny, thereafter, our being able to sort out the humans within Antisemitism? Your feer of Trolling is unfounded. And therefore you are not protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. Anyone (who reads Wikipedia and) who wants to know Who the Antisemites behind Antisemitism were will not be able to do that.
- Maybe, Otto, you would be happy with Category:Dead antisemites? Would you support that?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's still overcategorization by opinion, still has impermissible POV concerns and we don't categorize on the basis of living or dead (with the exception of Category:Living people and the year of birth and death categories). Otto4711 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Otto, no Dead antisemites Category. But let's get to my prior suggestion, which you seem to ignore. We already have articles classified under the Antisemitism category. Surely you do not object to that or do you?
Assuming that you do not object to Category:Antisemitism how could you possibly object to my selecting, for Subcategorization the humans, persons, individuals, etc., who are already classified under Antisemitism? I challenge you to find just One individual who is currently so classified because of a POV situation. I say that there's not even One such individual who would be subject to an objection.
I do not think, Otto, you can justify not allowing me to select among the Antisemitism articles those that you would not want me to Classify as Antisemites. I challenge you further to give me just one example of an Antisemitism article which would cause Trolling because I've taken the miniscule step of further classifying it under Antisemite!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I won't support an Antisemites category. I don't believe people should be categorized either under an Antisemites category or under Antisemitism. Any individuals categorized in Category:Antisemitism should likely be removed. And frankly, you want this category for the wrong reason. You want it so you can have a place to point at a group of people and say "See! See the collection of inhumane creatures I can scarcely bring myself to call human! See how awful they are!" This isn't the place for The Ludvikus Hall of Disgust. Go start your own website and you can call anyone an Anti-Semite that you want and no one will have a word to say about it. Otto4711 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that Antisemites do not exist, or are they imposible to distinguish from ordinary folks? Or maybe antisemitism is some kind of entity hovering around like Holy spirit whos ways are unknown? Antisemtism just like any ideology has its human face - propagandists, ideologists etc. There is Marxism, and there are Marxists, there is Fascism, and there are Fascists, same goes with Antisemitism. M0RD00R 21:07, 9 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F0 or F1 maximum to Category:F0 and F1 tornadoes

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F2 maximum to Category:F2 tornadoes

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F3 maximum to Category:F3 tornadoes

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F4 maximum to Category:F4 tornadoes

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F5 maximum to Category:F5 tornadoes

Nominator's rationale: Rename, To eliminate overly wordacious title. emerson7 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but use spelling "tornadoes" per precedent in parent categories. Also consider renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks by intensity to Category:Tornadoes by intensity for consistency. Also give emerson7 an honorary "black pot–kettle award" for using the word "wordacious". :) Snocrates 05:03, 4 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholicism Church in Southeast Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Roman Catholicism Church in Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Roman Catholicism Church in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Created by a new user (see Marist School Marikina below). The second and third are redundant to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Asia and Category:Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines; I see no immediate need for the first even if correctly spelled, as the Church in Asia category isn't that large. Choess 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (duplication). Have categories been empty from creation? If so, they may be deleted speedily in a few more days. Snocrates 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and speedy delete per Snocrates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per obvious duplication. M0RD00R 21:43, 9 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Educational establishments in York to Category:Education in York

Nominator's rationale: in accordance with the other categories at Category:Education in the United Kingdom by city or town Bencherlite ^Talk 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this category today as part of a drive to reduce the number of articles in Category:York which weren't in any sub-category, and just chose an appropriate name for it without checking to see what existed elsewhere - mea culpa - and I'll keep this in mind for the future. In my defence, I do think that the name better describes the category's contents (schools, colleges, universities) than does the term "Education in York" (and indeed it is used in the definition of the contents of such categories as Category:Education in Bromley), but I wouldn't dare to suggest that all the "Education in ..." categories that currently exist should be renamed. Speedy rename seems to be the correct thing to do. --GuillaumeTell 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy rename per nom and creator. Snocrates 07:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but WP:CSD#Categories shows no grounds for a speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't it come under #4 of the speedy criteria: Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)? --GuillaumeTell 17:04, 5 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category is completely redundant to Category:Aftermath Entertainment artists and Category:Aftermath Entertainment albums. Pretty much the entire contents is double-categorized in one of the subcats along with the parent and it's also a performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom - category creates redundancy for several of these artists. Delete. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:11, 6 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marist School Marikina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marist Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marist High Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marist Marikina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marist Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marist School Wiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marist School Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Integrated Basic Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Created by a new user for a single article as category redirects. Largely redundant or no potential for expansion; I've removed them from that article, Marist School - Marikina. Choess 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recall having to speedy delete all the school's teachers (masters) a while ago: gotta admire the energy of the user. :-) Carlossuarez46 19:18, 7 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 14:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:G-Unit feuds to Category:G-Unit

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with little or no likelihood of growth considering that a number of other G-Unit related feud articles have been deleted at AFD. No reason to maintain this category separate from the main artist category. Otto4711 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all articles in this category, should be put into the G-Unit category instead because many feud articles have been deleted and so there are not many in this cat. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Small category with little chance of growth.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:34, 5 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was deleted by request of author. John Vandenberg 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing record labels on the basis of the artists or artist collectives who released albums through them is overcategorization. In the vast majority of cases record labels are not defined by the artists on the label. Labels like Atlantic Records could end up with dozens or hundreds of artist categories. Otto4711 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I created the category originally and agree it was overcategorization. InnocuousPseudonym 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never seen the value in this category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the same as the albums and songs category above.--Mike Selinker 23:51, 3 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Long distance race to Category:Long-distance races

Nominator's rationale: Rename, because a) it should be plural per category naming conventions, and b) there should be a hyphen (see e.g. Long-distance track event or Category:Long-distance runners). GregorB 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 3 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was merge Category:War on Terrorism into Category:War on Terror. Kbdank71 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:War on Terrorism, duplicate, perhaps leave a redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:War on Terrorism into Category:War on Terror. It turns out War on Terrorism is just a redirect to War on Terror; we prefer to have the category match the article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt. LeSnail 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt's revised nomination. Consistency with the lead article is almost always a Good Thing. Xtifr _tälk 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt. I think that "War on Terrorism" is more appropriate, but per our current policies the category name should follow the lead article, which was recently renamed: see Talk:War on Terror#Name_Change_.28again.29.
However, I think that this case illustrates a real problem with this naming policy, in that it can lead wikipedia to appear to be non-neutral by adopting highly partisan terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 5 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename, only one article, appears to only be in the Tracey Takes On... show. Kbdank71 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tracey Takes On... characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't these characters appear in more than one Tracey Ullman program/special/etc.? Doczilla 22:00, 7 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename Category:Character to Category:Fictional character types. Kbdank71 15:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Character to Category:Fictional characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge, incorrectly named duplicate cat. RobertG ♬ talk 15:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Update: nominator had second thoughts, see below. I think I need coffee. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I hadn't looked closely enough. I think a clearer name might be something like Category:Types of character in fiction - or "Aspects of" - or Category:Fictional character types per Otto ~~as what you say below~~. (added) Johnbod 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Johnbod has already contributed to this debate, so I won't refactor the nomination now. On reconsidering, articles about the concept of "character in fiction" seems to me totally appropriate for a category, and not to duplicate "fictional characters": but I still think the name may not be clear enough. Suggest rename to Category:Character in fiction? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Character types or Category:Fictional character types. Seems to be the most descriptive of the contents. Otto4711 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second of those would be fine - the first sounds like a real pschology cat. Johnbod 02:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fictional character types - I think fictional is needed to avoid personality types being mistakenly added. - jc37 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it turns out we have Category:Stock characters so perhaps a merge to that category would be appropriate? Otto4711 14:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is rather broader, so should sit on top. We also have Category:Characters by function, which does cover much the same ground - perhaps merge that in. I think the whole area needs tidying & rearranging. If we can get concensus around Category:Fictional character types & perhaps the merge with "by function", I could go in after & rearrange. Johnbod 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (as the original nominator who has now well and truly rethought) to Category:Fictional character types, and take up Johnbod's offer of rearrangement. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:11, 5 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Songs by performance, see also previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Include this info in the articles, possibly make a few lists, but per precedent it's not a defining characteristic of the songs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just to make a clear second for what seems completely obvious. --lquilter 16:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and many precedents. Doczilla 22:00, 7 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete per much precedent. Kbdank71 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by family name. The article Tolkien family illustrates why articles are superior to categories when most or all of the contents are family members, because an article can illuminate the relationships between the family members while a category can only list them alphabetically. Otto4711 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although in fact not all members are (I think) mentioned in JRR Tolkien which rather undercuts the argument. Johnbod 15:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it undercuts it. They're all mentioned in Tolkien family, though, and that is linked from JRR Tolkien. That seems completely appropriate to me. JRR may not even have known his great-great-whatevers or distant cousins. --lquilter 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "X family" articles are by far the better way to handle this sort of genealogical and relational ~~trivia~~ connections. --lquilter 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this category functions as a subcategory of both Category:J. R. R. Tolkien and Category:Tolkien. The basic concept is that readers browsing these two categories (one for the author and his life and times, and one for the wider subject of Tolkien-related topics) will be interested in the articles we have on members of the Tolkien family. It would be possible to just categorise the Tolkien family article, but this small subcategory does no harm and immediately tells the reader that there is (a) an article on the whole family; and (b) several articles on members of the family. Categories are not meant to act as articles. That's why we have both articles and categories. You could equally well argue that Category:Presidents of the United States doesn't do as good a job of illuminating the relationships between the presidents because it lists them alphabetically instead of chronologically. But this sort of argument is wrong. A good category makes this clear and tells readers that it is just a listing, and for the full details , see the article here. I'm going to modify the text on this category to say just that. Hopefully that will make things a bit clearer. Carcharoth 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the POTUS straw man and the it's not hurting anything non-argument, is there some reason why the article Tolkien family can't sit in the parents? Is anyone interested in the Tolkien family going to start anywhere other than JRR Tolkien or Tolkien family? No. Otto4711 18:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The POTUS argument is not a strawman. It is a direct refutation by analogy of your incorrect assertion that categories should be deleted because they can only list articles alphabetically. Let me make this crystal-clear. You said "a category can only list them alphabetically" as part of your deletion nomination. You are implying that this is a bad thing, but listing articles alphabetically is one of the main functions of a category. You seem to, in effect, be arguing for replacing all categories with articles because an alphabetical listing doesn't really tell us anything useful. I would have more sympathy with your argument if you had restricted it to saying "an article can illuminate the relationships between the family members [while a category cannot]" (without mentioning anything about alphabetical lists). By referring to the alphabetical function, it is you who are introducing a strawman and distracting from the main point of your own argument. Carcharoth 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) While the no harm argument is often abused (and if you read it, you will see that it is not talking about what you or I are talking about - it is talking about unverified material), it is also too often blithely rejected by those who fail to consider the readers of this encyclopedia. I have given a clear example of how this category helps people navigate around articles. This subcategory: "immediately tells the reader that there is (a) an article on the whole family; and (b) several articles on members of the family." The category at Category:Tolkien family, and the navbox at Template:Tolkien both do the same thing, but in slightly different ways. (Compare Category:Presidents of the United States and Template:US Presidents). Some readers browse the encyclopedia using links from articles (they have Tolkien family). Some browse using the category links (they have Category:Tolkien family). Some browse using the navboxes (they have Template:Tolkien). Have a look at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes: "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other." I can't think of any way in which removing this category improves Wikipedia. Carcharoth 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(3) The final point: "Is anyone interested in the Tolkien family going to start anywhere other than JRR Tolkien or Tolkien family?" - short answer, "yes". Someone reading Richard E. Blackwelder clicks on Category:Tolkien studies, and then starts browsing the category structure. They decide to browse up to Category:Tolkien, have a quick look round at some of the articles and subcategories, and eventually end up in Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. They then think that Category:Tolkien family looks interesting, so they click on that. They then find that they have the option to either read the main article, or to choose some of the family members who have their own articles. Depending on their level of knowledge of the subject area, they may chose to go to the article, or they might think "Christopher Tolkien? That sounds familiar..." They click on Christopher Tolkien, read the article, and then carry on reading and browsing, maybe deciding to read The History of Middle-earth. Under your scheme, things would be slightly different. Once the reader reached Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, they would have the option of clicking on Tolkien family, and in the contents list they would see "Christopher Tolkien". They could click on that, click on the "main article" link, and still end up at Christopher Tolkien. I make that one more click. But really, either system works. My view is that it is really not worth bothering too much over which system to use, but disrupting an existing structure and system (as your nomination did) is essentially pointless and a waste of time. Carcharoth 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, to be consistent, I should stick to my assertion that it doesn't matter either way, and not comment further. I will retain my 'keep', though, and await with interest your response to the points I've raised. Carcharoth 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the whole structure and subcategories of Category:Tolkien, Category:J. R. R. Tolkien and Category:Middle-earth have been carefully designed for ease of navigation and to structure the topic in the most informative way. It has been mostly stable for a few years now. Is there a way to consolidate that and avoid the shifting vagaries of category fashions over the years? Or do we have to continually 'watch out' for category nominations as the 'category specialists' sweep their watchful eyes over the system? Carcharoth 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as they say, Consensus can change : ) - Anyway, as I've seen several times in the past, I think that the current consensus (per WP:OCAT, or even WP:CLS, for that matter) is that a navbox is a better idea than a cat for most family categories. And one already exists in this case? - jc37 16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Template:Tolkien, which used to be a sprawling mess with the family tree. That spawling mess is now in the article, and someone seems to be adding the latest generation of Tolkiens in there (two new additions, born in 2005 and 2006). Not quite what Wikipedia is for, but hey, maybe it is the proud parents adding details of their baby children in there?! That would be a strange trend: welcome your children into the world by adding them to Wikipedia! Anyway, that template, after a TfD, got turned into a navbox. You are right, in that this navbox fulfils the function of the category. My only concern here is that people browsing the category system might expect to find these articles in Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. So if there is no family category, how do people get from the category system to the articles? And also, those using the navbox to navigate around the set of Tolkien family articles, will be missing out on the category browsing experience. Carcharoth 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I have to say I appreciate the description of CFDers as Sauron. --lquilter 16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Not quite my intention, but I see how the "watchful eye" comment could be interpreted that way. Carcharoth 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and obvious subcat; nothing says we can't have a navbox and a category. If deleted, merge the articles to Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to avoid confusion. There is an interest in his family, and it is good to keep that separate from th interest in his work--some people of course very much belong in both , but by no means all.DGG (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it is kept separate by using the useful and informative article on the family. Otto4711 18:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't the same as categories. If you think that some of the material in the separate articles should be merged to the family article, then you should propose a merge of the articles, rather than a deletion of the category. Carcharoth 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a relevant issue not yet raised here is that (according to current notions) all Tolkien-related articles should be categorised to some subcat of Category:Tolkien, so that we have a clear and a full cat structure; and this cannot be substituted by categorising a list article where others are linked from. If the present category is deleted, the articles on individual family members can possibly go to either Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, or to Category:Tolkien; but this would just overcrowd them, while collecting even a few related articles to a cubcat is the most convenient solution. Súrendil 18:36, 6 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was merge into Category:Green algae. That seems to be the lowest common trait (Chlorophyta).. Kbdank71 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Eukaryotes, this was a wanted category of 8 members, probably should be merged but I'd like an expert to check it out. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment it looks like it should not have any members, only subcatgories, as if it were fully populated it would be enormous. 132.205.44.5 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recategorise: Given that genus names are only unique to the kingdom of life, not the domain of life, this categorisation fails. There are a very few taxa, mainly in the Ediacaran biota, where the higher relationships are so unknown that it may be useful to put them into a generic holding group similar to this. However, that should have a more specific name, and does not apply to these genera anyway. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorise according to Adam--I think it makes sense biologically. though I can not think of a suitable name. DGG (talk) 11:12, 6 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was already redirected per discussion. Kbdank71 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Bisexual people, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as duplicate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, four of the five people in this category were already in subcategories of Category:Bisexual people in addition to this, so after removing this as a duplicate, there was only one article left — which, in turn, was also easily refiled into the appropriate subcategory. I'll redirect it right now, since it's now an empty category. Bearcat 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Making it a redirect sounds like just the thing ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:36, 6 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was relisted on oct 11. Kbdank71 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novelties, to match Novelties. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novelty items to fix capitalisation. "Novelties" can also refer to intangible things, and it including the word "items" reduces the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 3 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Propose deletion of category.
Nominator's rationale: Any such categorization is intrinsically POV. It is extremely difficult to find concensus around this subject, thus it is not appropriate to have a category available for specific writers, many of whom are likely to come under WP:BLP. Cgingold 11:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. However, it may not be consistent to delete this one when we still have the parent Category:Pseudoscience, so it might be better to start higher up the tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also have concerns re Category:Pseudoscience, but I think that will entail a more in-depth discussion. I started with this cat because of the WP:BLP issues. Cgingold 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I agree. The BLP issues make this category a clear delete regardless of the fate of the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Johnbod 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, else merge to Category:Pseudoscientists. The distinction between science and pseudoscience is not a subjective one. Or if you prefer, it is certainly no more a subjective call than deciding between any other two genres. Sure, there may be a spectrum along which individual cases may be argued and placed depending upon how egregiously their writing departs from acceptance of and adherence to scientific methodology. But that should not cause paralysis when making a decision in the majority of cases. If they're notable enough for inclusion, it'd be odds-on their writings have been identified as such by notable sources. I think the BLP concerns are overdone, responsibly employed, 'pseudoscience' is intended as a factual description, not a pejorative one. A writer whose works promote, say, Intelligent Design and evolution denialism, is not one who is writing from any scientific basis, and there is a clear and qualitative difference. However you might describe it, it is not science, but has only the pretence ('pseudo-'), as even recent court cases in the US (eg Dover) have ascertained. It is something else, and we may as well call it by the name most commonly used. I note also that Category:Pseudoscience and related others have withstood several deletion attempts in the past, and I would think they'd do so again- I for one would strongly oppose. To put it yet another way- under what genre would writers like Richard Hoagland, Zechariah Sitchin, Erich von Däniken et al. come under? All that said, there is perhaps a degree of redundancy here with Category:Pseudoscientists, so given this cat is presently underpopulated (it could easily contain many dozens of entries) then a merger would be acceptable. Quite possibly Pseudoscience writers is the better category name, but I don't want to confuse the issue at this stage. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The category is too vague. experience with the debates over the use of the word "pseudoscience" over multiple articles shows that the designation is always a source of unproductive contention. For example, I would challenge that all ID proponents are psudoscientists--one or two of them are arguably actual scientists whose work has been appropriated by the pseudoscientists. (my minority view in WP is that it remains an proposition worthy of serious presentation and discussion--which it usually does not get, especially from its proponents, who are usually not even pseudo scientists) - But this example is sufficient to show the extreme amount of contention that will be caused by this category. We have enough problems with ID without adding thiscategory as an additional complication. And similarly with every other topic. We need to argue over the content of articles, not where to put them. At the moment there is only one article here, on a person whose notability can be question & might well be deleted). DGG (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and use the synonymous Category:Pseudoscientists --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To clarify my very brief comment above: Although I do have concerns about the way the term is applied in some instances, I certainly had no intention of suggesting that Pseudoscience is somehow not a very real and serious issue. I haven't given any thought whatsoever to deleting Category:Pseudoscience, but I do think it is inherently problematic in terms of proper application. As for Category:Pseudoscientists, which I've just had a look at, I'm afraid that looks like it also has serious issues, for example, in terms of some of the subcategories that are included in their entirety. It's easy enough to say that people like von Daniken, or Zechariah Sitchin (who I had the opportunity to "debate" (pick apart, really) on the radio years ago) are "pseudoscientists". But it's simply not fair, accurate or appropriate to insist that all "Ufologists", for example, are by definition, "pseudoscientists". Most of them no doubt are, but some are not. But that's another discussion, perhaps for another place. Cgingold 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless this category is strictly controlled to limit it to authors who write about the topic of pseudoscience (and precedent says it won't be), it is likely to become a concern worthy violation of WP:BPL. It is also completely redundant as there is already a pseudoscience category that covers both authors who write about pseudoscience and the topic of pseudoscience itself. - perfectblue 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needn't be POV, but it seems like it will be - because debunkers of pseudoscience can be placed here as well, but they won't be probably. So, gotta go.. Carlossuarez46 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. Inclusion criteria could be clear, but unfortunately are unlikely to become and/or stay clear. Doczilla 22:01, 7 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Delete or rename if kept.
Nominator's rationale: Although the explanatory sentence is helpful, the name of the category is ambiguous at best. More importantly, I'm doubtful that there will ever be enough articles about such writers to justify the existence of this category, since only a small fraction of writers have articles on Wikipedia. Cgingold 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are unlikely to be enough notable examples of this, perhaps the lowest form of literary life. Johnbod 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your sentiments, Johnbod -- but I'm glad you qualified that, because I'm pretty sure the truly lowest form of literary life would have to be the artistes who have produced the dumbed-down book versions of movies that were made from classic literature. Now there's a category that's crying out to be created! Cgingold 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete terribly named category. Doczilla 22:02, 7 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename Category:Citations to Category:Specific source templates. Kbdank71 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Attribution templates and Category:Citations to Category:Specific source templates

// FrankB

Nominator's rationale: While I was sleeping or something, someone created a Category:Citations misnamed category (doesn't even identify itself as a category for templates!) that is a functional duplicate of Category:Attribution templates, both of them subcats of Category:Citation templates, which also includes other types of templates relating to source citations. The purpose of both categories is to house templates that aid in the easy repetitious citation to well-known, oft-used sources (versus manual application of ((Cite whatever|something|something...)) ). Plenty useful, so this is not a deletion nomination. They certainly should be one category (there is no discernable categorical difference between the members of the categories) and the merged result should remain a subcategory of Category:Citation templates, thus I propose a merger and rename into a new Category:Citation templates subcategory called Category:Specific source templates. A longer name at Category:Specific source citation templates would also work, but seems redundant (I would not object to it, however). The rationale for not simply merging Category:Citations into Category:Attribution templates is that the WP:ATT putsch failed, and that page to the extent anyone even notices it any longer is simply a summary/supplement page, and use of the term "attribution" in this context may be confusing to some editors. I would be okay with a simple merge of Category:Citations into Category:Attribution templates, just for the record, but prefer my principal proposal for its simplicity and clarity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)))}[reply]

Rename but don't merge. The look and purpose of the two are different. If you look at the templates in Category:Attribution templates, they all produce a line of text like:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1st ed.). James and John Knapton, et al. ((cite encyclopedia)): Missing or empty |title= (help) which is intended to be included at the bottom of an article that extensively uses public domain sources. The templates in Category:Citations produce a individual citation to an individual source, like Istituto Geografico de Agostini, Nomi d'Italia, (ISBN 88-511-0983-4), p. 1. which is intended to be included in a References section. I think a rename is a good idea. ---- CharlesGillingham 07:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to include "template"; don't merge. I also think the contents of the two cats should be kept separate since they don't mix well. One is for reference citations, one for stand-alone sentences or boxes. One possible name: "Specific citation templates". -R. S. Shaw 06:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no merger/Rename... to my original suggested name Category:Special uses citation templates (here (Wikipedia_talk:Citation_templates)), and I'll take some of the blame too! <g> Give the other guy credit for initiative even if he forgot naming conventions.
While I can live with Category:Specific source templates I also think 'that name' unnecessarily narrows what might be added there in such a category. [Note the original idea was to tidy up the cluttered category so the common everyday templates could be easily located—a bad (unsuggestive) category name can be obfusticating as well!]
For example, citing a novel, one might have a template which calls ((cite book )) with boilerplate for the book data, and pass parameters to the specific references. [Happens I plan on writing several of those, I just thought it up last night about 2am! <g>]. A specific source. However, lately I've been doing some football article stuff too, and can envision a general purpose template which would take a single parameter, process it using ((switch: (({param))} ...)), and fill in sets of the blanks to ((cite web)) (in this case). That would NOT be a single source, but one of three to five or so. Ditto for media information of a specific topic area (history channel, history channel international, Public television stations or networks, etc. which do documentary programming as a rule. Sports too[2], on occasion. Hence, I'd prefer a broader category name on that basis. // FrankB 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "attribution" (this article is based on Enc. Brit. 1911) and a plain "cite book" are two different things. The current description of category:Citations says it is intended for the latter. However, there is also a third category: Templates that contain a #switch-controlled library of citations. A typical example is template:Ref Jane's. I predict that this kind will grow, because it can be very useful e.g. within a WikiProject, and should probably have its own subcategory under category:citation templates. I'm not sure what it should be called, though. --LA2 04:15, 11 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadians of Salvadoran descent, convention of Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention/precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 3 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 05:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The society of Inklings is notable, and many of its members are extremely notable, but it doesn't make sense to categorize people based on their membership in "an informal literary discussion group." LeSnail 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From my read of Humphries's Tolkien biography, membership was actually quite exclusive, and extremely influential; to the extent that any members were not eminent, they are already dealt with by WP:N and thus simply do not arise here as a cognizable issue. The internal legalistic "formality" of the organization is of not of WP categorization concern. More to the point, the description of the inklings given above is woefully inaccurate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If the description is "woefully inaccurate" then the wikipedia article Inklings needs major revision, since my description is taken from that page. By informal, the page seems to mean that it was never clear who exactly was in the group, and it seems to be the case that a lot of people had unclear membership. LeSnail 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining for all or most of this group. Johnbod 15:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and SMcCandlish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted above, the group, and the members thereof, were quite influential. - jc37 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a better description is in the quote in the article: "the Inklings was neither a club nor a literary society, though it partook of the nature of both. There were no rules, officers, agendas, or formal elections". Having said that, people would expect to find Inklings in Category:Literary societies, and they do, so that is probably enough. Carcharoth 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to indicate is a members list, or at least a list of PEOPLE... inklings means ideas, notions, etc. not connoting "people list". // FrankB 15:35, 6 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Extremely vague category. Who is to say whether someone is an expert or not, especially when that person doesn't even exist? It is worth noting the deletion of Category:Fictional computer experts on much the same grounds. This category is, if anything, worse. LeSnail 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per outright goofiness (i.e. per common sense), and per cited precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the computer expert precedent. Otto4711 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detele--unecessary cat creep, fictional p Wooops... Category:Fictional characters by occupation ... Uh, oh!!!
Strong Keep -- Unless the nom plans on deleting all the categories in Category:Fictional characters by occupation, this is a clear case of missing a highly populated system that has been in place for at least three years by my samplings. Deleting it would be madness in light of the heavy use by Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels—a very active group— of these categories.
And to answer the question: "Who is to say whether someone is an expert or not"... "The Author", that's why the category name starts with fictional. // FrankB 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If you were to look at the category, you might notice that none of its members are from novels, and are therefore probably not in heavy use by Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. LeSnail 18:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many fictional people can be claimed to be expert in any number of technical fields and that defines them how? Carlossuarez46 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Technical experts" is too vague. There's a reason there's no such thing as real technical experts. Categorize them according to their occupations (e.g., computer hacker, robot assistant, whatever). --lquilter 03:08, 11 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: According to the list of mixed languages in Pidgins and Creoles (ISBN 1-55619-170-7), there are no "true" mixed languages derived from English. There are some edge cases (mixed pidgins and "symbiotic" mixed languages), but currently this category is not even being used for those. It's being used for things that are not even languages at all, but are just the occasional use of English words in other languages. Alivemajor 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- According to mixed language, there is actually one mixed language derived from English, namely Anglo-Romani, but that isn't enough for a category. True mixed languages are very rare. LeSnail 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Angloromani is one of the ones that Pidgins and Creoles classifies as a "symbiotic" language. --Alivemajor 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Above nitpicks aside, a lone marginal case is not enough to support a category. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's like categorizing things that include water. Excessively broad. Doczilla 22:03, 7 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was speedy renamed; Category:Geographic imagemaps deleted per CSD G6 (housekeeping). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neither of the pages in the category is an imagemap. If there is no consensus to delete, then merge to Category:Wikipedia imagemaps, since the phrase 'geographic imagemap' is repetitive (much like 'geographic map'). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Although the category currently contains only user subpages, I am nominating it here, rather than at UCFD, because it is not intended to be a user category.[reply]

Comment. They are image maps. One has to move the cursor around to find various links. It looks like a work in progress. I just added Category:Wikipedia geographic imagemaps to the user pages. So they are now merged with Category:Wikipedia imagemaps (as a subcategory). I assume that one reason you, Black Falcon, want the category deleted is because it is a regular category containing only user subpages. User categories are supposed to start with "Wikipedia", I believe. So I think the problem is solved, and this category can be deleted. --Timeshifter 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 3 October 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 3

Category:P-Funk albums

Category:P-Funk songs

Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

Category:Tornado outbreaks...

Roman Catholicism Church

Category:Educational establishments in York

Category:Aftermath Entertainment

Marist School Marikina

Category:G-Unit feuds

Category:P-Funk record labels

Category:Long distance race

Category:War on Terror

Category:Tracey Ullman characters

Category:Character

Category:Songs featured in car advertisements

Category:Tolkien family

Category:Eukaryota genera

Category:Bisexual

Category:Novelty Items

Category:Pseudoscience writers

Category:Television-book writers

Category:Attribution templates and Category:Citations to Category:Specific source templates

Category:Salvadoran Canadians

Category:Inklings

Category:Fictional technical experts

Category:English mixed languages

Category:Geographic imagemaps