Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15

Category:Legend of Zelda games

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename.--Hujdn 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote see also relevent discussions ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per previous discussions. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Simpsons category

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

The result of the debate was rename/delete per Radiant. David Kernow (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All rename.--Hujdn 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Support the rename - however, Delete the "set in the future / past" cats as trivia, and rename further because "episodes: Season X" looks awkward; I'd recommend "episodes, season X" with a comma and proper capit. (Radiant) 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agreeing with Radiant's suggestions. (Though I have no opinion on the past/future episodes.) - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to Radiant's suggestions, delete past/future cats. --tjstrf talk 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Batman actors

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

The result of the debate was delete and protect. the wub "?!" 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as recreated content, see October 17th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its swift recreation shows that CFD regulars are out of touch with the needs of the community. Tim! 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, if "swift recreation" was the standard for undoing a CFD... SPEEDY DELETE as recreation and PROTECT. Postdlf 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note that this category does not mean "actors who have played Batman," but rather "anyone who ever played any role in any Batman film or television show, no matter how minor." Postdlf 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block. It is not useful to link people who had a small role in a film with people who had a small role in a television series on the same theme. Hawkestone 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - George J. Bendo 07:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performers by role. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A million times Strong Keep - Look at the Spider-Man actors category. This is the exact same thing. They don't list just actors that have portrayed Spider-Man, they list "every actor" who has played a character in the universe. Should we delete it too for that reason? NO! User:Cartoon Boy 1:30, 16, November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should, actually. Thanks for pointing that one out. See CFD here. Postdlf 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, all such crufty categories would need renaming. "People with major acting roles in <superhero> media" or some similar title. It'd just get...stupid. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will only be a defining characteristic in a minority of cases, ie it is mostly clutter. Piccadilly 05:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom... and salting sounds like a good idea. — J Greb 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities and towns in Venezuela

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom and apparent common practice. David Kernow (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Venezuela to Category:Towns in Venezuela

Rename, This category contained five articles. One was about a city of 369,000 so I have moved it to Category:Cities in Venezuela, which has dozens of articles. The remaining four articles are all about small places that are called "town" in the text. Choalbaton 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inverse merge both subcats into the cities and towns category until we have more than 4 town articles. Overcategorization imo. Disclaimer: I may be advising against common practice, I didn't check. If so, discount this opinion. --tjstrf talk 08:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I would say that tjstrf is advising against common practice. It is better to get things right now than later. Hawkestone 11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nickelodeon Gas Shows

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

The result of the debate was rename to Nickelodeon Games and Sports shows. David Kernow (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Nickelodeon GAS shows, Category:Nickelodeon Games and Sports shows, Category:Nick GAS shows. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This is one of those annoying cases where there's a real name that nobody uses. See Nickelodeon Games and Sports for Kids. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Nickelodeon Games and Sports shows. Vegaswikian 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:W Cloud cluster

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is supposed to be a category for galaxies that lie within the "W cloud", which is the designation for an obscure group of galaxies. The structure does exist, but it is non-notable. The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the SIMBAD Astronomical Database contain no information on a "W Cloud". A search with the ADS Abstract Service only turns up 5 articles (of which 4 are refereed scientific articles) that use the term "W Cloud" in the sense that it is used in the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article on the object was deleted from Wikipedia (see the discussion here). Moreover, since the object is so poorly studied, identifying other galaxies that lie within the W cloud will be difficult if not impossible. Therefore, no articles on galaxies (or anything else) will ever be added to the category. So, in summary, the category should be deleted because it is about a non-notable subject and because it will never be populated. George J. Bendo 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Muslim Culture

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom; redirect left at Muslim culture. David Kernow (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Islamic culture, convention of Category:Islam. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal - please go ahead and merge into Islamic Culture. Aylahs 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Olborne 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is obviously a duplication. Perhaps a redirect should be added to avoid recreation? George J. Bendo 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep as a redirect Hawkestone 11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Hmains 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Early 1930s

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Theres a category for the decade, and for each of the individual years. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vague, imprecise, pointless. Postdlf 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems like it could encompass anything from the 1930s. George J. Bendo
Delete as a bad, vague precedent. Does 1933 count? 1934? Piccadilly 05:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently empty cat per Post. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Characters of Saga of Seven Suns

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Saga of Seven Suns characters, convention of Category:Characters in written science fiction. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename for uniformity. --Pinkkeith 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Women geologists

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia policy, sole member belongs to Category:American geologists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dugwiki 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not policy, please stop claiming that it is. --Pinkkeith 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Note that gendered categories are allowed, providing that there is a distinct reason, and a consensus for them. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason to presume this is a distinctly meaningful intersection instead of irrelevant trivia. Are there academic studies on the role of women in geology? Postdlf 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are a few such studies.British women who contributed to research in the geological sciences in the nineteenth century, On the origin of women geologists by means of social selection: German and British comparison, THE WISSAHICKON CONTROVERSY: FLORENCE BASCOM'S EDUCATIONAL TRIUMPH, and a few others.[1]--T. Anthony 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is no better than category:Men geologists. Scientists are notable if they do notable work, not because of their gender. Choalbaton 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it's part of Category:Women scientists. True there is only one name, but her being a "woman geologist" was noted in her life so it's part of her fame or notability. I'll try to think up an explanation justifying it as is required.--T. Anthony 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few, trying to limit to where it's historically appropriate. Truth be told though there aren't that many who could be categorized as this at Wiki.--T. Anthony 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See my arguments in favor of deleting Category:Female Egyptologists. Subdivision by gender inhibits navigation. If other Wikipedian really think that examining the contributions and stuggles of women in geology is important, then perhaps a Women in geology article is more appropriate (as long as it is written as a history of the subject and not an essay on the inclusion of women). George J. Bendo 07:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be acceptable I guess, but I'm not sure I'm competent to do it.--T. Anthony 07:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a relevant intersection. (Radiant) 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes/Kudos

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

The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETE, CSD G7—requested by creator. Postdlf 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please speedy delete this category. I made it myself, and it was user error. It's a G17 case. --Takeel 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alumni of Mirzapur Cadet College

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mirzapur Cadet College alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in Bangladesh. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vanessa Hudgens singles

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

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Vanessa Hudgens songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist, per discussion of June 9th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per previous discussions + add the ones below. ×Meegs 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. (Radiant) 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom.Bjones 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cave temples

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hindu cave temples, convention of Category:Hindu temples, description says its for Hindu cave temples. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Churches in England by City

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as requested by author. Tim! 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Category:Churches in England by City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Newly created category with typo in name ('City' should be 'city'). Cat is empty. New cat with correct name has been created and is now in use. (Next time I'll request a rename instead!) EdJogg 13:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7, C1. -choster 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Prominent Penn Political Scientists

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prominent Penn Political Scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No reason to have a category which is a branch of Category:University of Pennsylvania alumni and Category:University of Pennsylvania faculty. There could be hundreds of other categories related to alumni by industry for hundreds of other institutions, but this is unnecessary. Harr o5 07:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "prominent" is not objectively defined. (Radiant) 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since all biographical Wiki articles are supposed to be about notable people, "prominent" is a redundant term. Dugwiki 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as overcategorisation. The thing that worries me is that some people worked at three or four universities and were active in three or four narrow academic specialisms that have categories, so the potential is there for people to end up in ten or more "University and specialism" categories. Hawkestone 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Queer writers

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queer writers into Category:Gay writers and Category:Lesbian writers

Merge, unless there's some particular distinction between "queer" and "gay", I don't much see the point in the former. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Category:Homosexual writers, per category naming conventions. Is that called a merge or rename? I don't know. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split between gay and lesbian writers, and delete queer writers, strongly oppose homosexual writers. Tim! 08:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:GBLT writers, per the norm here. (Radiant) 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the writers self-identify as "queer" then there may be a need to maintain the category. Splitting into "lesbian writers" and "gay writers" is thoroughly unacceptable as not all of the writers in the cat identify as one or the other. If the cat goes, then Merge to Category:LGBT writers as LGBT has become the standard abbreviation. Otto4711 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split between Category:Gay writers, Category:Lesbian writers, and Category:Bisexual writers as needed. Delete Category:Queer writers. Strongly support LGBT writers. --Pinkkeith 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into already existing categories above. Dugwiki 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oppose merge into "LGBT writers," as "LGBT" is a social and political conglomerate that is useful for broad issues relating to gender/sexuality, but not useful or informative at all for categorizing individuals (so he's either gay, bisexual, a transvestite, or a transsexual. Um...thanks). Postdlf 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Gay writers, Category:Lesbian writers, and Category:Bisexual writers as needed. I reserve the right to support a upmerge into Category:LGBT writers since that may be a better choice. If nothing else, the suggested move fixes other probelms and does not prevent a second move in the future. Vegaswikian 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Where would you categorize Susie Bright? Per the article she lives with a male partner. But she's not heterosexual. Is she a lesbian? Gay? Bisexual? Are you competent to categorize her? "LGBT" is imperfect but it's better in the case of these writers than segregating by sex. Otto4711 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is not clear, then you can always use Category:LGBT writers from the United States. Vegaswikian 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly; any given person is supposed to be filed in Category:LGBT writers from the United States and the appropriate non-country-specific gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender writers category. They're not redundant with each other; one tree aggregates writers on gender/sexuality and not country, and the other one aggregates them on country and not gender. (Also, for what it's worth, country-specific LGBT writer categories currently only exist for the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom; they're not created until the more general "LGBT people from Foo Country" category is sufficiently large to merit further subcategories. So for a writer from any other country, that option doesn't even exist yet.) Bearcat 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - no opinion on which of the several directions above, but it's obvious that this cat is a duplication of them all : ) - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Split into appropriate existing category (Category:Gay writers, Category:Lesbian writers, Category:Bisexual writers, Category:Transgender and transsexual writers or Category:LGBT writers depending on the article). Mairi 17:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Split per Pinkkeith.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it one way or another as a duplicate/over-lapping semi-duplicate. Piccadilly 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse in the other categories. Otherwise we are essentially left with a duplicate with no significant purpose. Pascal.Tesson 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as I see it, is that some of the people in question can't be easily reassigned to an L, G, B or T category; identifying as "queer" is, for some people, an explicit rejection of conventional sexuality categories. Certainly some could be reassigned easily, but others can't — for instance, where on earth would one categorize Leslie Feinberg, who identifies as "gender-neutral" and could quite literally be filed in all four of the conventional categories simultaneously? I understand that "queer" can also be problematic as a categorization scheme, and I've elsewhere argued against the position that Wikipedia can realistically reconcile its NPOV requirements with using "queer" as a replacement term for LGBT in many cases — but at the same time, Wikipedia does also have a policy of respecting people's self-identification rights (that is, using the terms that they use for themselves), and in some cases it's virtually impossible to determine which more conventional term would fit. So colour me neutral on this one. Bearcat 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:School subjects

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School subjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. POV category that doesn't clearly define how common a subject needs to be in order for it to be included in the category. After all, school subjects vary depending on region, ethnic group, or culture; and what might be considered a school subject in the United States might not be so in Africa or Asia.TBCΦtalk? 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't agree with the nominator's reasoning, but this is an extremely vague category which doesn't serve the purpose of categories in clearly grouping articles by useful measures. Harr o5 07:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, that is the basic gist of my reasoning; in that the category is vague to a point where deciding whether or not an article should be included in it becomes POV.--TBCΦtalk? 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, systemic bias. (Radiant) 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Completely useless. Note also that while it appears that it was intended for secondary school, it doesn't specify that, so by the inclusion of higher education curricula, it would include everything on Wikipedia. Postdlf 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category is too open-ended, even if it is limited to just secondary school curricula. George J. Bendo 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Category:Education by subject. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Female Egyptologists

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia policy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm biased as I created the category, but having read the above policy, I don't see how it breaches any od them, please explain. Markh 09:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It says Use gender-neutral category names, unless there is a distinct reason and consensus to do otherwise. Saying Female clearly isn't gender-neutral, nor is there currently a consensus to do otherwise. Is there is a distinct reason to categorize Egyptologists by gender? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say that is an interpretation of what it actually says (and the example given), however, if everyone wants it deleted, then delete it. Markh 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge, overcat. (Radiant) 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no policy on this, the link that was used is a guideline. Even when using the guideline this is allowable if there is a consensus to do so. I see no harm with this category, no violation of policy, and no non-consensus to not allowing it. --Pinkkeith 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there IS a harm to it. Take a look at Sara Yorke Stevenson. She's an Category:American Egyptologists and now also a Category:Female Egyptologists. Does adding another category to all these people make any sense? To me, it looks like category clutter, and that's the reason for the guideline. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see there being harm because someeone belongs in two different categories. I think the spirit of the guideline is not to make occupations that are gender specific, not to not place tags before the occupations such as gender, ethinicity, nationality, sexuality or religion. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. There is no harm with something who is both an American and a woman. --Pinkkeith 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like the Hank Aaron article as a counter-example of what happens when too many categories are applied to an article. So many categories are present in the Hank Aaron article that it inhibits navigation. This is why we are all questioning differentiating Egyptologists by nationality and gender. (Maybe the distinction by nationality should also be eliminated. If I want to look up Egyptologists, I do not want to navigate them by nationality and gender. I just want to see a list of Egyptologists with articles on Wikipedia.) George J. Bendo 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Somehow Hank Aaron is a "Happy Days actor." I'll give a cookie to anyone who can back that up with a straight face. Postdlf 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Hank Aaron appeared in the 1980 Happy Days episode "The Hucksters." Gimme my cookie. Otto4711 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        cookie enjoy! --Pinkkeith 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, because guest-starring in one episode of Happy Days doesn't make you definable as a "Happy Days actor." I'm taking that cookie back. See this discussion for a suggestion to fix this specific issue of overbreadth, btw. Postdlf 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        :) Taking cookies away from people, how mean! For the record, I do agree with you. --Pinkkeith 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am changing my vote to abstain. I think that it is an opinon when and how many catagories an article has until it inhibits navigation. I also can see how a category like this could be useful. There might be a young inspiring female Egyptologist who wishes to know if there are any others out there and look up that information here on Wikipedia. --Pinkkeith 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piccadilly. Irrelevant intersection. Postdlf 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per standard policy against gender specific categories Dugwiki 17:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy on this. --Pinkkeith 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The research performed by female Egyptologists is probably no different from the research performed by male Egyptologists. I see no reason to separate male and female Egyptologists. George J. Bendo 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps a women in Egyptology article would be appropriate as long as it discusses the history of the issue and the current situation in a neutral tone instead of trying to persuade readers to a point of view. Unfortunately, the women in physics article was apparently written like an essay, so it was nominated for deletion and later turned into a redirect for women in science. On the other hand, the women in computing article is still present, although it looks poorly organized, and someone has tagged it as lacking a worldwide point of view. George J. Bendo 07:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Affiliates of Kidd Kraddick in the Morning

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't want to create Category:Radio stations by radio program. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recury 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - George J. Bendo 07:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Terrorists

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Prior CfD was overturned at WP:DRV^[2]. Relisting is procedural, so I'm abstaining for now. This category has an extensive history, so please check the prior discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been agreed several times. Essential grouping of related people who cannot be grouped in any other way. Piccadilly 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, de:Andreas Baader is categorized as member of the Red Army Faction on de.wiki. So there are alternatives to a blanket category Terrorists. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also for reference: it is misleading to say "as has been agreed several times". This is the fourth debate I am aware of. The first two were closed as no consensus with the first one having a 10-6 majority of delete opinions. The third was closed as delete. Actually, I think the creation of WP:WTA indicates, on the contrary, that the community is slowly evolving towards a more careful use of the term. Pascal.Tesson 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per nom Hmains 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nom doesn't seem to be advocating for either deleting or keeping.--TBCΦtalk? 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I understand where Kb was coming from, this category deserves to be kept. If there was another way that made sense to categorize these people, we would. But whether we like the term or not, the term is accurate, and should not bend because it makes us queasy.--Mike Selinker 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As POV as having "Category:Freedom fighters".--TBCΦtalk? 06:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly defines in NPOV terms what constitutes a terrorist; to delete this is to border on WP:POINT. Harr o5 07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All terrorists use terror, but not all so-called freedom fighters fight for freedom. Hanbrook 07:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's precisely the kind of reasonning that shows that some supporters of this category are ignoring NPOV issues. Pascal.Tesson 04:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior discussions, CfD listings, DRV, Guidelines & Tutorials, etc --Francis Schonken 08:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - As I was the one who listed the last AFD I stick by my comments there. The category uses the term terrorist regardless of the WP:WTA guideline. People have suggested that it is not the category that is the problem but the addition of articles to the category that is the problem. Ok, this may be the case but if I remove all the items that contravene the guideline (remember, WTA is an extension of WP:NPOV, especially in this case) then the category will be empty (well, maybe there will be one person remaining if they self-claim to be a terrorist). So simply put, it is a bad category as it encourages articles to breach WP:WTA. As TBC says, it is as bad as having a category called Freedom Fighters or Nice People.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick up on that last point, we would consider Category:Freedom Fighters as unacceptable even if it gave a very precise NPOV definition. How about "For the purposes of this category, a Freedom Fighter is a non-state actor which is involved in paramilitary or guerilla operations designed to topple a government that they perceive as unlawful, to fight a foreign military presence or to obtain additional rights for their ethnic or religious group". Ok so that's not perfect but after some debate we could come up with a meaningful NPOV definition. But that wouldn't make the category more acceptable or more NPOV. We would reject it without a doubt and we would be right. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see that efforts have been made on the page Category:Terrorists to disarm those who believe the word 'terrorist' to be POV. It even says 'Disclaimer: This category may inappropriately label persons.' Can we allow a category which admits this? Putting Category:terrorists at the bottom of someone's page could easily be construed as POV. (WP:WTA guideline has several sentences specifically about 'terrorist' and mentions 'militant' as an alternative. Category:Militants sounds better to me.) -- roundhouse 13:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While WP:WTA is a new guideline since prior discussion, what it actually says about this word is "There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below." There is no prescription here against using the word, so references to it in this context are not to a guideline that tells us what to do. The category comes with clear, definitive criteria for inclusion. If someone is using POV to insert something to the category, that should be corrected with reference to the category's stated criteria. The word is in use, has an accepted meaning, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to avoid categorizing people and organizations as terrorists when they meet/met the stated criteria. GRBerry 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that guideline also gives as an example of non-encyclopedic use: "X is a terrorist group". That is precisely what this category is doing. Pascal.Tesson 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Picadilly. There are two possible POV arguments that can be made: 1) it's POV as to who is a terrorist. This is refuted by the category's clearly stated criteria, which defines inclusion based on the non-state identity of the individual, the methods of targeting civilians with violence, and the goal of affecting a government's policy (rather than the simple goal of killing those particular civilians). That the word is commonly misused more expansively to mean any act that causes terror does not mean that's how we use it, or that our use of it is going to be misunderstood to mean the more expansive usage. 2) the very term "terrorist" is POV because it's disparaging. Well, yeah, it's seen as disparaging because intentionally killing civilians is generally seen as a bad thing. A "freedom fighter" that uses those tactics rather than just attacking the occupying troops, for example, is a terrorist regardless of who agrees with his end goal of ending the occupation. "Murderer" is also a disparaging term, because people don't like the act of murder; it's seen as a bad thing to be a murderer, yet nevertheless, some people are. Yet it would be idiotic to equivocate all of those who have killed another human being, regardless of the circumstances, just to adopt a "non-judgmental" term. Just like "murderer" is the only term that fits "those who kill without justification," "terrorist" is the only term that fits "non-state actors who target civilians with violence to affect a government's policy." Postdlf 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to those who are saying that WP:WTA doesn't say avoid 'terrorist' - it does in the title of the page that it is on. If it was a guidance on words that there is a debate on then the page would be called 'contentious words' or similar.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural ground From what I can tell this category has as a procedural matter been discussed previously and survived the deletion process. Therefore it should not be deleted unless something major has changed. It is vital that there be some measure of closure on cfd discussions to avoid the continual renomination of controversial categories. Renominating simply because the nominator didn't agree with the previous outcome can't be a valid reason. So to maintain the consistency and closure of the cfd process, it is important to keep this category in place unless it can be shown that something significant has changed. Dugwiki 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the latest decision (Oct 31CfD) was delete. And nothing has changed ... so I take it that you mean 'delete on procedural ground'? -- roundhouse 14:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't get a much more clear cut case of an incorrect closure decision, which is why it was overturned. Osomec 12:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the debate on deletion review does not actually conclude that it was such a clear-cut case. If deletion debates are not votes, then there are instances where the closing admin will make a judgment call and judge whether arguments from one side are stronger and more rooted in existing policies and guidelines. Pascal.Tesson 17:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is a perfectly valid category. It should be used for all individuals who are 'verifiably' members of terrorist organisations or organisations that find themselves categorised here. Sarvagnya 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Essential category for Wikipedia ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ ^(Ŧ) 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename -- One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Osama Bin Laden is not considered a terrorist in many countries.Balloonman 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (warning: long justification but please do read on) I would like to appeal to those who are voting "keep since we have already decided to keep". The main reason why this is being brought up again is that many editors feel that the majority got it wrong in the first place and I would like to calmly restate my opinion in the hope of convincing some that there's got to be some better solution than this categorization. The main argument for keeping the category is that it is populated according to a very specific definition which avoids any POV issue. That's a good argument but in fact experience has shown that the category is not being populated accordingly. On one hand you have people like Kamran Atif categorized as a terrorist (which in many ways makes sense but does not fit the strict definition since he is accused of involvement in a plot to assassinate Pervez Musharaff). Members of the FLQ are also in this category (which makes some sense but their action was for the most part not targeted at civilians). On the other hand the Contras and its members are not (which again makes some sense but the definition says they probably should be). Even that objective definition is problematic: I find it plain strange that someone running a car of explosives into a group of army recruits is somehow characterized differently than someone who runs a car into a Shi'ah market.

But the real problem here concerns the very nature of the term "terrorist" and its use today. There is no denying that the term is being thrown around for political purposes and that it has become emotionally laden. On the surface, that state of affairs does not prevent us from keeping the category if we populate with respect to a NPOV, objective definition but in reality this is not helpful. First, every reader has, depending on their cultural experience, a very specific definition of what a terrorist is (and I'm talking here about reasonnable people, not those that want to categorize George W. Bush as a terrorist or Bin Laden as a freedom fighter): that definition is most likely quite different from the one used here. This is inherently problematic because, like it or not, anyone who reads "Joe X is a terrorist" receives an information that is specific to the definition they have in mind, regardless of the definition intended in the sentence. Neutrality should not be judged by our intentions but by the perceptions induced in our readers. While here we have a clear intent of keeping NPOV, the end result is that readers do not receive the information as intended but rather through the prism of their own beliefs and this inadvertently imposes an interpretation of the facts. Countless news organization across the world have acknowledged this problem and chose to be very careful in their use of this politically charged term, why shouldn't we? In any case categorizing various groups and individuals as terrorists does not help in understanding complex situations since it is utterly void of nuance.

I am saddened to see that the Wikipedia community, which is usually so careful about maintaining NPOV, can so easily refuse to accept that the term "terrorist" is inherently political. It would be so much simpler to stick to categories for memberships in various organizations, members of the FLQ, members of Al-Qaeda, members of Shi'ah armed militias in Irak, members of the Armed Proletarians for Communism, members of the Baader-Meinhof gang, etc. Clearer, objective, admitting nuance, not imposing an interpretation on readers. Pascal.Tesson 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete Wikipedia:Words to avoid specifically states: "...the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist..." Thus:

"The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush ' the greatest terrorist in the world ' on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez."—Fox News, Sunday, January 8, 2006, accessed November 15, 2006. See Fox News Channel.

There is no universally held definition of what a terrorist is. As is illustrated by Belafonte, calling someone a terrorist is a point of view, not a fact.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is policy and requires that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."

Many of the articles on so-called "terrorists" which are in this category cite no references or sources, let alone ones that identify the subject of the article as a terrorist, and shouldn't be using the word in the article. Additionally, how is one supposed to represent the view that someone is a "terrorist" proportionately? For each person that is called a terrorist by someone, is there a reference to a person who describes them as something that's an opposite of a terrorist?—Chidom ^talk 20:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With regard to the point made by trialsanderrors having a separate category for each group does not sound like an improvement as there are so many groups, most of them rather obscure. Also it just transfers the debate to what to call the categories that hold those categories, without resolving it. Olborne 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the current entries in the category, I don't think it's more than ten groups. The advantages of categorizing by afffiliation are that 1. It's tangible. Most terrorists identify with their group, so there is no POV issue. Baader might have considered himself a freedom fighter while the German government considered him a terrorist, but they both agreed on his membership in RAF. 2. It's more fine-grained than "terrorist". 3. It doesn't preclude the use of other categories, say "CIA Ten Most Wanted" or "Guantanamo detainee" to describe individuals based on tangible facts rather than interpretation. In any case, I'm still neutral on this, but I recommend considering these additional categories anyway, and then later decide whether they might supercede the blanket category terrorists. ~ trialsanderrors 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Pascal.Tesson makes an interesting but imo, a flawed case for deleting this cat. His concern seems to be more about misuse of this category than its propriety itself. He may be right in saying that this cat may be misused or populated wrongly. But that surely shouldnt be held against the category itself. If need be, more stringent guidelines can be put in writing as to who can or cannot be categorised under this category. IMO, this shouldnt be too difficult to do since we already have a category for terrorist organisations. Any avowed or self confessed member of any of these organisations can in all fairness be categorised under Cat:terrorist. Thus Velupillai Prabhakaran of LTTE and Osama bin laden of Al qaeda surely will make the grade, but not Veerappan who certainly did create terror, did kill innocent people, in my book is a 'terrorist' but officially he is only a 'bandit' or 'dacoit'/outlaw etc.,. No elected govt., ever called him a terrorist. Again, we may have many borderline cases where people may be suspected of being members of one of these terror groups and in such cases this category shouldnt be used. Sarvagnya 04:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the kind words. However, I'd like to point out that my main concern is not about the category being populated incorrectly but about its POV nature even when it is populated correctly. The problem I see is that everyone has a "book": you do, I do, and these perceptions influence how we receive the category. Pascal.Tesson 13:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorise by organisation, not by accusation. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about people such as Timothy McVeigh, who didn't belong to any organization? There certainly seems to be some similarity between him and members of certain organizations, based on their common activities, that no category besides this captures. Also, if this categories goes, does Category:Terrorist incidents go for the same reason? Mairi 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a fair point. Although I think in that particular instance we could figure something out. But what exactly is gained by having a category that has Theodore Kaczynski, John Allen Muhammad and David Gilbert? Wouldn't it be oh so much more enlightning to group only McVeigh with Terry Nichols, one category for Symbionese Liberation Army, one for the Weatherman (organization) and one for those anti-abortion bozos? Grouping all of them under American terrorists creates artificial parallels between them that don't reflect the true diversity of their motivations, actions or history. Pascal.Tesson 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Category:Terrorism is too clogged to contain another 225+ entries. --tjstrf talk 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Terrorist" may be a word to avoid, but not at all costs. The category system should cover all subjects, including controversial ones, and Wikipedia shouldn't use weasel words. The hassle caused by disputed entries is probably only a small fraction of the total hassle generated by those articles. Osomec 12:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with all due respect, I don't understand what you're saying. What is the cost incurred by deleting the category terrorists and replacing it with categories that are organisation and movement/ideology specific ones? The category system would still be covering all subjects. By your argument, we should also support the category Freedom Fighters because it's a subject, although it's controversial. But we would not do that, naturally, because there would be a clear-cut POV concern. Now I'm not saying that the POV concern is as strong for terrorists but it is still present. Pascal.Tesson 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the common English term. Neutrals as well as opponents of causes call people terrorists, but only advocates of a cause use "freedom fighter". Hawkestone 11:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the BBC (which is by most measures a pretty neutral entity) does not and recognizes the inherent problems associated with the use of the term, and states that "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding". [3] Reuters, the Associated Press, the CBC and many others have also chosen to be very careful [4] [5]. Pascal.Tesson 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is idea that won't work in current structure of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists. Pavel Vozenilek 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV (see Definition of terrorism#United_States: "the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder"). The exclusion of state terror leads to participants in one side of a conflict being labelled as terrorists, while those on the other side may not be so labelled for very similar actions. For example Hafez al-Assad doesn't get labelled as a terrorist for organising the killing at Hama of over 10,000 people; but Jamal Al-Gashey is labelled as a terrorist for his role in an episode which saw 14 peple killed. Joe Slovo, as heda of Umkhonto we Sizwe fits the category definition, but the state officials responsible for the Sharpeville massacre do not.
It would be much better to delete this overambitious POV category, and then see if it could be partially replaced with more focused categories describing the actions undertaken, e.g. something like "People who detonated bombs in public places". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance Ariel Sharon has just been put in Category:Terrorists (see diff). His article is very long but I can't see on what grounds he fits the definition (he was in Haganah, which is in category National Liberation movement) and neither can I put in a 'justify' tag (which I could if someone puts 'AS is/was a terrorist' in the text). AS is alive, this is (arguably) a potentially libellous claim etc. slipped unobtrusively in amongst the footnotes. (This is partly a technical matter as watching Category:Terrorists doesn't reveal new additions (unlike say a conventional page with a list of terrorists) and it doesn't have a useful history page either.) -- roundhouse 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Inherently POV as most other people have said. A very bad idea for a category. And see Wikipedia:Awords to avoid, which this category blatantly runs roughshod over. Either the claim is attributed to a source or it shouldn't be made. A category cannot have an attributed claim by its very nature.--Zleitzen 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename or... engage in a wider discussion. That is, we can't take a very American-centric view and list people Americans call terrorists but ignore opinions and rulings elsewhere in the world. Do the cases against Sharon and Rumsfeld warrant putting them in the category of war criminals? I don't know, however we need a clear methodology which is more than "the American government considers them a terrorist while it doesn't consider the others war criminals". I don't think anyone should have problems with "people designated terrorists by the U.S." or something similar, however, we need some realization that there is a political dimension to this which is not cut and dry. Keeping the category without having some explanation of definition or uniformity is no good. gren グレン 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Grenavitar's last sentence above, illustrates for me the pronlems inherent in this category. Gren is right that the category would need some coherence of definition, but the insurmountable problem in doing that is that there is no accepted definition of terrorism. Some of the widely-held definitions are poles apart, and almost contradictory; as a result, using any of the available definitions is in itself a POV position. That leaves us with a choice between making an undefined category without any objective test for its use, or a defined category with is inherently POV. Neither seems acceptable to me, and deletion seems the only solution. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a last ditch effort to argue for deletion before the debate is closed, let me restate the case for deletion and address the concerns of those supporting a keep. Some of the keep supporters in this debate have brought different and often valid points. As best as I can summarize them they are:

The category is useful because there is no alternative, meaningful categorization.
The category is not POV because it gives a precise objective definition.
It's already been agreed that the category deserves to be kept.

(In passing, I can't resist pointing out that a number of keep votes have also failed to bring any sort of justification to the table, my favorites being the early "keep per nom" opinion or the facetious claim that deletion would clog the terrorism category.) But getting back to the other arguments, I think a number of people have proposed an alternative by categorizing according to organizations, which has the advantage of getting more information across and in a completely neutral way. It should be pointed out that the always excellent German wiki does not have a "terrorists" category and classifies the same people under their respective organizations. The argument about an objective definition being used is fairly solid but as I argued before (using a perhaps less convincing example) it's not solid enough. Would we accept to keep category:Idiots even if we said "This is a category for people who have scored under 60 in an IQ test"? Despite this being an objective definition, the fact remains that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes an idiot and this hampers the usefulness of the category no matter how much we try to make it NPOV. Finally, there has never been any consensus on keeping the category and this deserves to be repeated. Time and again, the result has essentially been "no consensus" and as long as we keep this category, the debate will pop up every now and then because editors have strong concerns about it. The new guideline WP:WTA, while (correctly) not proscribing the use of the term, also urges care. Those of us arguing for deletion don't want to give people currently categorized as terrorists a free pass or categorize them as freedom fighters. We just think that there's a better alternative to it which won't get periodically bogged down by this debate. I'm not sure anyone's still keeping track of this debate but maybe, just maybe, I can still change someone's mind... Pascal.Tesson 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing "Keep", and it's distressing...

Nevertheless, Delete, if only to illustrate a point. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep category lists simple, neutral and verifiable conditions for inclusion. The use of the word by celebrities as noted above in the Belafonte quote are irrelevant, because use for shock value is not the same as meeting the category conditions. If someone can clearly enumerate how Bush himself is a terrorist, then he can be listed. He may meet the definitions for State Terror sponsor, but that one's a whole other ball of wax, since national perspectives come into play. Such clear catergory delineation makes citation for inclusion easily possible for most cases. ThuranX 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional cynics

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cynics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subjective character trait. A well crafted character will show a range of reactions to life, and this could logically include any fictional character who's ever been cynical of any situation. CovenantD 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overly vague, open to POV. Harr o5 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category clearly suffers from a POV problem. (I cynically expect articles to be inappropriately listed in such a category.) George J. Bendo 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inherently subjective. Postdlf 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomBalloonman 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too nebulous/ambiguous. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest problem that categories like this suffer from (which the "fictional promiscuous characters" category made me think about) is that it intrinsically requires a baseline against which the trait can be compared as significant, yet doesn't provide one. Even assuming you can identify within a given fictional work which character is "the cynical one" by contrast with the other characters, from one work to another all the characters may seem cynical because of the differing writers, time period, conventions of the medium, etc. So the category could either include those who can be judged "cynical" across a comparison of works (compare all of the characters in Seinfeld to all of the characters in Little House on the Prairie), or only those who can be judged "cynical" in the context of a particular work (compare the Olsens to the Ingalls within Little House). That kind of context requires explanation. Postdlf 07:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ThuranX 21:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Criterion Collection infoboxes

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

The result of the debate was this is the wrong place try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Whisp e ring 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I know that this is not the correct spot for this notice but in my search through the various help pages I could not find anything that seemed appropriate. One of the pages on my watchlist is The Seven Samurai, I have noticed that in the last year, on two seperate occasions (Jan 29th and Sept 28th) the category "Criterion Collection films" were deleted. On Oct 22nd User: Cop 633 went around the category designation by creating an info box listing the CC's films in the order of their original release and began applying it to the films in question. On Nov 8th an anonymous user began removing them and today User: Doctor Sunshine began putting thm back in. I am simply trying to get an administrator to take a look at this situation so that we can avoid an edit war. I understood the reasoning about taking the categories out but, I have to say that they were less obtrusive than these boxes and they gave one a chance of seeing all of their releases on one page. Again my apologies for not going through the proper channels to bring this to your attention and please feel free to let me know where I should have posted this. Thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:AN? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raising the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films may also be productive. Postdlf 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former New Orleans Saints players

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:New Orleans Saints players per Wikipedia policy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Duh, we should follow the conventions... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Just do not merge the team's former reputation with the team's current reputation. George J. Bendo 14:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MergeBalloonman 18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Female drummers

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Drummers per Wikipedia conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, neutrality. (Radiant) 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Gender is not a useful defining characteristic for drummers. George J. Bendo 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per George J. Bendo Olborne 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - jc37 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Covington, Virginia

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

The result of the debate was upmerge with People from Virginia, David Kernow (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Covington, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Very small town that doesn't merit its own category (believe me, I've been there). Currently consists of one person, who seems to be the person who created the category in the first place. --BDD 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:People from Virginia. These sub-national, overly-local people categories are really a problem; they're typically applied whenever any locale is mentioned within a biography, so that an individual may be categorized as a person "from North Carolina" if he went to school there but spent no other part of his life there, or a "Montana artist" even he only lived there as a child and conducted his entire artistic career elsewhere. Sometimes it's a significant and relevant relationship (Stephen King as a Maine writer, for example), often it's trivia and local vanity (attempts to claim "hometown heroes"). Postdlf 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per postdlfBalloonman 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is still growing. As more notable people from Covington, Virginia are added, the list will grow. There is no harm in being more precise with the category. Mactabbed 19:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per postdlf. The one person in the category seems to have created both the category and his page. roundhouse 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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