Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 22: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:15, 28 February 2008

< February 21	February 23 >

February 22

Category:UMTS

Propose renaming Category:UMTS to Category:Universal Mobile Telecommunications System

Category:UMTS mobile phones to Category:Universal Mobile Telecommunications System mobile phones

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VartanM (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rape cover-ups

Category:Rape cover-ups - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Current articles in the category are not clear-cut, well-established cover-ups of rape and I doubt that this category can ever be in-line with our policies of neutrality. "Cover-up" is not an easy term to define and putting an article in this category will always be difficult since it involves a judgement call. I suppose that there are cases where, for instance, people were formally convicted of perjury or obstruction of justice in cases of rape but I don't know of any high-profile cases and it's probably more meaningful in such cases to use Category:Perjurors. Pichpich (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can point me to an article that's about a rape cover-up. All that's in the article now are articles for two people, and people are not rape cover-ups. Otto4711 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The real problem is not that people are not rape cover-ups (in which case we could just rename the category). The real problem is that these two people were never formally convicted for rape cover-ups. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the legal system and we don't categorize people by allegations. Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If kept, rename to Category:Rape cover-uppers Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and especially per Johnbod's correct name, "Rape cover-uppers". What is with these allegation categories? --Lquilter (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Maralia (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemporary public figures opposed to lowering the voting age to 18

Nominator's rationale: Delete, we don't need to categorize people based on their opinions on what the law should be, do we? Only one article in the category. VegaDark (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCAT - categorisation by opinion. I take it we are dealing with the You Ess Ay only here? Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category could probably be expanded. We ought not delete stubs before they can grow into better pieces, so we oughtn't delete small categories either. SteveSims (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not because it is small. It is because of many other reasons. WP:CAT requires categories to be "defining", for one. --Lquilter (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OCAT by opinion, per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorization by opinion is rarely meaningful. Now categorizing people by a political issue as insignificant as the lowering of the voting age? well now that's just silly. Pichpich (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, isn't 18 already the voting age in the United States anyway, making a person's opinion on this question utterly irrelevant? Or am I missing something somewhere? Regardless, delete as OCAT by opinion. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization by a non-defining trait and subjective criteria ("public figures") -- WP:CAT.--Lquilter (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorisation, subjective. EJF (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain or arrogant

Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain or arrogant - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Arguably POV and the amount of fictional characters that could be considered arrogant is practically limitless. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is supposed to be funny. That's why it's in the category of Wikipedia: Humour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Illustrious One (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia humor and any subcategories should be used to categorize only Wikipedia project pages, not regular articles. Also, "appearing somewhat vain or arrogant" would count as original research. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Not only is this a likely recreation, and an obviously silly category, it is applicable to probably more than half the fictional characters out there. It's a common ploy to show someone as appearing vain or arrogant and then reveal their hidden depths. --Lquilter (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not even close....Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOW no offense, but this is the most ridiculous category I've seen yet. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I said that recently and another editor added a long list of categories that were even more ridiculous than I could have imagined. It's dangerous to imagine the depths of ridiculousness to which wikipedia categories might descend. --Lquilter (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless I get to add this to my userpage. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Even if intended as humour, I don't think I get the joke. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious Okay, so it has to go. But cheers to the person who put Voldemort in this category Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nomeskedasticity, that would be me. Do you mind if I ask why you find the addition of Voldemort particularly amusing? No Relata, if anyone's going to add the category to their user page it's going to be me seeing as I created it. Sesshomaru, clearly you have never heard of the category Chief Dark Lords. Oh and Pichpich it's humorous because it's intentionally ridiculous. I created this category because I think Wikipedia takes itself a bit too seriously these days. Right, I'm off to add Stewie Griffin to the cat before it gets deleted. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thedarxide (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Criteria is clearly subjective and easily open to dispute.--JustJimDandy (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only reason I can give is LOL. EJF (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FightingStreet (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I personally find it quite amusing but it's got to go sadly. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roller coasters in Greater Orlando

Propose renaming Category:Roller coasters in Greater Orlando to Category:Roller coasters in Orlando, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Restore this to where it was to match the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Roller coasters in Florida, if renamed as proposed, remove those in suburban areas like Lake Buena Vista, FL (Disneyworld). Makes more sense not to break these out by city. Perhaps by county would work to encompass all the greater Orlando parks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As currently used, Category:Orlando, Florida covers the general area in some aspects. If you say you are going to Disneyworld you say you are going to Orlando and not Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista but maybe Kissimmee. If someone really wants to create a category structure for the area I'm not opposed. But upmerging to Florida is going too far. If there is a need for an area category then that can be created based on the discussions here and it affects more then this one category. I would not support grouping by county in this case since it would be an obscure grouping. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with you people? Why was Category: xxx in Greater Orlando deleted? What's wrong with calling it Greater Orlando? This would solve everything. Idiots.

Category:People accused of plagiarism

Category:People accused of plagiarism - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: As the creator of this category points out there was previously-existent category Category:Plagiarists, which was deleted at CfD in July 2006. The only difference between that category and this one is the creator's claim that "accusation" can be objectively verified. I'd even question that. What counts as a notable accusation? Anything that has been published in a newspaper? On a TV program? WP:BLP say "Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation." This category certainly does that, indeed it seems to be its primary purpose. Other reasons given at the previous CfD also apply. agr (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a "plagiarist" is not defining, and being "accused of being a plagiarist" is even less so. --Lquilter (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As creator of this category, a few points:
- Being accused of plagiarism does not suggest a poor reputation. Helen Keller, for example, who is in this category, was exonerated, and was thereafter not believed to have actually committed plagiarism (i.e. the article doesn't suggest that anyone then or now still thinks she was lying; see Plagiarism#Literature). That she was accused is an objective fact, and while I'm sure it wasn't pleasant, it doesn't reflect negatively on her -- perhaps, only on the people who falsely accused her.
- Yes, just like anything else on Wikipedia, a "notable" accusation is one that can be verified in a reliable source. I don't see why this is different from anything else. If the sentence in the person's biography article "He was accused of plagiarism..." ends with a reliable citation, how is that different than putting the same person in Category:1956 births, if there's a reliable citation for that as well? My point is that if someone just yelled at Barack Obama on the street that he plagiarized a college paper, that wouldn't find its way into a reliable source, because it wasn't a reasonable or credible allegation, and so he wouldn't be includable in this list. The very nature of WP:V ensures that only notable and reliable examples find their way in.
- Being accused of plagiarism is indeed defining, and many of the people in this category -- Blair Hornstine, Kaavya Viswanathan, Dănuţ Marcu, James A. Mackay, and the list goes on -- are notable only (or primarily) for that alleged plagiarism. This category is extremely well-defining as it categorizes people based on their primary reason for notability.
- As I've pointed out, the problem with Category:Plagiarists was that it outright asserts that these people were plagiarists, even though many of them were not admitted plagiarists. That's a BLP nightmare. In contrast, I defy you to find an example where it's unable to tell whether or not someone fits the criteria to be in Category:People accused of plagiarism. I don't see the "other reasons" in that discussion that you're alluding to; in fact, several commenters suggested shifting the scope of that category to "accused". Dylan (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:BLP sets a much higher bar for contentious allegations, unlike factual matters such as year of birth. While the title says "accused," the take home message is very negative. What if the allegation comes from a political opponent? The Clinton campaign has accused Barak Obama of plagiarism and this has been widely reported in the press. Should he be in this category? What if the accusation came from Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge? What if a scurrilous accusation is reported in the mainstream press accompanied by a strong rebuttal, is that enough for this category? Two of the people in the category (whose articles I have been editing for BLP issues) were minors when the unattributed uses occurred. Does this define them forever? As editors pointed out in the previous CfD: "Plagiarism is not a black and white issue" and "It is too serious and complicated an issue for a category, where there is no opportunity to give context or explanation for an individual's inclusion." There is already an annotated list in the Plagiarism article. This category is harmful and unnecessary--agr (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - To the category creator: If your argument is that the "accusations ..." category is not "negative" because it was sometimes refuted, sometimes false, etc., can you please then explain how it is "defining" per WP:CAT. To me the use you propose ("accused of...") is clearly "trivia" and not "defining". How would you prevent Helen Keller, Obama, Ann Coulter, J. K. Rowling, and MLK, who are clearly not "defined" by the various plagiarism accusations that have been levied at them, from being added to the category? --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep While I agree that care is required here, it seems clear to me that WP:BLP does not specify that criticising living people is prohibited - only that a higher standard of care is required. This issue should be addressed in the editing process, not via deletion of the category. To quote BLP: "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." The category usefully captures - and points readers to - a form of criticism that is entirely legitimate, as long as it is sourced properly and handled sensitively in the articles in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining and another allegations-of category which serves no purpose: who makes the allegations, how believable must they be, etc. Lots of POV & OR & BLP opportunities here, with no offsetting benefit for the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining and another allegations-of category which serves no purpose: who makes the allegations, how believable must they be, etc. Lots of POV & OR & BLP opportunities here, with no offsetting benefit for the encyclopedia. (I stole this from Carlos) Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a defining characteristic, not even close. I somehow suspect that the category (created two days ago) was tailor-made to include Barack Obama. To those supporting keeping: even if we do find a way to resolve the POV and BLP concerns, this remains a dumb way of categorizing people. People in the spotlight are accused of a lot of things: being a terrorist, being antisemitic, being a chauvinist pig, being an extremist, being stupid, being a liar, being a sell-out, being pro-this or anti-that, being a self-hating Jew, being a traitor, being a criminal. If we had these categories, you'd find about 50 new categories for George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, even Sean Penn and Chuck Norris. The problem is not in maintaining this category, it is simply an absurd way of categorizing people. Pichpich (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before assuming that the category was created without good faith as a POV item meant to slam Obama, perhaps you should check to see if he is even in the category, which he is not and has not ever been. Dylan (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as I asked before, how would the definition of this category keep him out? Because he is clearly not "defined" per CAT by such allegations. If a category begs inclusion of people who are not defined by the category, then it's a bad category. --Lquilter (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I'd even argue that nobody is defined by accusations of plagiarism. If I write a book which is blatant plagiarism of Moby Dick and sell 100 copies to friends and family, I won't get sued. Accusations like these are only brought against people who are already considered important enough for the charge to be meaningful. Of the category, I think only Jayson Blair might fit the "known primarily as a plagiarist" criterion. But even in that case, it's safe to say he would not have made headline news had it not been for his fabrication of news. Pichpich (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think only Jayson Blair might fit the "known primarily as a plagiarist" criterion -- that's simply outright wrong. Blair Hornstine, Ben Domenech, Ward Churchill, Dănuţ Marcu, Michael Olesker, and Kaavya Viswanathan all mention plagiarism within the first two paragraphs of the biography. Madonna Constantine, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Alex Haley, Monica Crowley, Stephen Ambrose, James A. Mackay, William H. Swanson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Timbaland all mention the issue as a significant segment of the article's body (the latter two have articles of their own). Having populated the category myself and personally examined each article to make sure I was not miscategorizing people, I would say that only a few people in the category (like Vladimir Putin or Helen Keller) have had plagiarism be a truly minor part of the article. Dylan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying that Blair Hornstine, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Timbaland are public persona because they have been accused of plagiarism? The question is not whether or not the article contains a section on the topic (imagine a Category:People for which there exists trivia-like information, enough so to have a trivia section on Wikipedia). Pichpich (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course not, but since when were people categorized solely on the reason they are a public persona? Is MLK famous because he's born in 1929 or was killed by a gun? Obviously not. I'm just saying that plagiarism has been a significant aspect of their life, and therefore something to categorize by. Dylan (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what I was talking about; I was pointing out that Pichpich was essentially accusing me of POV editing without even looking into the facts. I populated that category myself, with 25 articles; Obama wasn't one of the articles I added, and if I had created the category with an ax to grind against him, surely he would have been the 26th. I didn't appreciate the implication of Pichpich's comment, to wit, that I was letting ideology get in the way of Wikipedia editing. I appreciated even less that s/he made the accusation without even a cursory glance at the evidence at hand. That is all that comment was meant to point out. Dylan (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding Obama -- he wasn't listed on the Plagiarism article from which I populated the list, but, yes, I suppose he would be included. I agree that plagiarism isn't the one thing he's best known for, but then again, neither is being a polyglot or working at the University of Chicago. When it comes down to it, "defining" is a judgment call. For many of the articles in this category it is the sole or primary defining characteristic; for others, it's a more minor aspect. Either way, I think the category is a useful and policy-adhering tool for grouping people together, and in my opinion, is defining. Dylan (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry if I offended you with the Obama thing. It's not like this was my primary concern anyways. The two examples you give though are pretty interesting. Category:University of Chicago faculty is the prototypical example of a sound category. Being a professor in University X defines you: not in a "now that you know this, you know everything" way of course. But this is a key component of your life: you're a professor, you live in (or lived in) the corresponding city, this university is a place where you've had an impact. Moreover, the category is also a unique signature of the university itself. Now Category:Polyglots on the other hand is awful. Criteria for inclusion are vague (How many languages do you have to speak? What does it mean to be known for their multilingualism?), characteristic is not defining. Not so surprisingly, the category has quickly become idiotic and lists people like William James Sidis (well known as a polyglot) next to the likes of Julie Gonzalo (who was born in Argentina and raised in Miami and, surprise, surprise, is a fluent Spanish speaker). This is exactly what this category will become and I'd be more than happy to submit the polyglot category for deletion if that soothes your pain. Pichpich (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't mean to go for an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument because I'm sure we both know that it's not a sound argument, but what I'm trying to demonstrate is that for any category, there are some people who fit it perfectly and robustly, and others who happen to meet the criteria but who look a little odd in there. Obama's also in Category:American spoken word artists. Is he? Yes, he recorded an audio edition of his book. But Jello Biafra has spent half of his adult career doing that, releasing about eight or ten albums. For this plagiarism category, as I noted above, most of the people in it fit it perfectly -- they are either primarily or significantly known for plagiarism. The fact that Obama and Keller and Putin fit the criteria may seem somewhat askew, but I don't think that that problem is something unique to solely this category. Dylan (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I do feel like you're playing the "other crap exists" card. Putting Obama in Category:American spoken word artists is absurd, putting Philip K. Dick in Category:Christian writers is absurd, Truman Capote in Category:Christian LGBT people is absurd. Yet nobody does much about it because the task is so daunting and because two weeks after the cleanup it would have to be done again. The last thing we need is another vague category for a minor aspect of people's lives. Pichpich (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I deleted obama & bill clinton from spoken word artists. i'm off to handle dick right now. --Lquilter (talk)
        Heh heh heh...you said "handle dick"... Otto4711 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        <g> Oh the myriad possible responses. Seriously I can't believe I missed that one. --15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Well, you can shoot down every example I offer if you like and write it all off to a Wikipedia conspiracy of widespread laziness and unwillingness to deal with the problem, but my point remains that some people fit categories perfectly, that others don't, that this is simply the nature of categorization, and that the majority of articles in Category:People accused of plagiarism fit it soundly as a defining characteristic, and only a handful have plagiarism as a relatively insignificant part of their lives. Dylan (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [undent] There are definitely large category trees that don't fit in well with the general principles developed at WP:CAT and WP:OCAT -- such as Category:1929 births and the various "death" categories. There's ongoing discussion about how to deal with them. Those types of categories are prime-violators of "categories are not for use as database fields", but, because they are, at present, the only way we have for that, and we do need some database functionality, we're living with them rather than deleting them, while we wait for mediawiki software enhancements and a better solution. That rationale does not apply to "People accused of plagiarism" or "People accused of X"-type categories. Year of birth, death-by-some-method, and place-lived-in are all obviously "universal biographical facts" that every biographical article will have. For good or for ill, the category system at present makes a place for them. But those kinds of universal biographical facts are clearly distinguished from things like "accused of plagiarism" or even "accused of something" which are hardly universal. For more specific types of facts, we typically require them to be "defining". We do not categorize people as "singers" even if they once verifiably sang and were recorded and were well-documented as having sung, as was John Ashcroft. Nor do we categorize people, such as Ann Coulter, by the fact that they were accused of plagiarism. A category creates an index, and there is absolutely no need for an index of people who were accused of plagiarism. You would be much better off writing an article about "accusations of plagiarism" that examines the social impact of such accusations: loss of career, academic respectability, and eventual use of such accusations to impeach people's credibility and try to harm their political or reputational standing. Then you could lard the article with numerous well-cited examples. (Avoiding WP:OR, of course, which would be a tricky matter in such an article -- you'd need cites about the use of the plagiarism accusations, not just cites to articles covering the plagiarism accusations.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that categories like Polyglot or year of death, whatever their merits, do no harm. As the one editor so far who agrees with the category's creator says, Category:People accused of plagiarism is a form of criticism. Criticism of any person, much less someone still alive, is best done in articles, where inline sourcing can be demanded and content can be balanced as appropriate, not by category tagging. Even worse, in this case the criticism is base on mere allegation, not some final judicial ruling. I can't see any place in Wikipedia for "Persons accused of XXXX" categories.--agr (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly -- so even taking the "death by strangulation" categories as an example, it's not harmful. I really don't see why anyone, ever, thinks "accusation of..." is a proper model of a category. It ought to go in under "overcat" right now. --Lquilter (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a suitable basis for categorisation. Relata refero (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV and is in no way a standard that we categorise by. EJF (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian Genocide deniers

Nominator's rationale This category is a useless category being used as a propaganda tool to promote a certain nationalistic POV. It is trying to label the Armenian Genocide as a fact rather than a historical research, and it is trying to label those who simply have opposing views with a bad connotation. This is like me creating a category called "Extremist Liberals in politics" and labeling Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama under this category, or adding a category like "People who oppose homosexuals" or "people who believe in Jesus" and putting that category on a number of Republican candidates etc. This is an encyclopedia, not an expression of propaganda or political labeling. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nom Tonywalton ^Talk —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I thought I was suppose to say that. Also to the idea that it is not politically motivated, I urge you to look at the history of [1] (Andranikpasha) which btw, is the name of a general who massacred many Turks and Kurds during 1915-1918, as leading general of the Armenian forces. This person has made the category and does several other POV-pushes in many other articles. Like I said though, the main reason I don't agree with the category is the fact that if this category is allowed, then we can have a category for every single political position in the planet. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not a user category. xenocidic (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (was subsequently moved)[reply]
Procedural listing; moved from incorrect forum. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Things happened during the last years of the Ottoman Empire can still be described as a black box of a plane which is waiting to be opened. We can't deny that lives were lost when the plane, namely the old empire, crush occurred. Of course many groups are eager to use these events in accordance with their political ambitions, like Democrats who are so close to accepting the Genocide in order to guarantee the votes of large Armenian communities of the West America, but these issues are still waiting for a lively academic discussion between the masters of the area. Therefore, creating a category named "Armenian Genocide deniers" is like putting it to the same line with the Nazi bloodshed during the WWII. Imho, Wikipedians must defend this website from such uncertain data. Deliogul (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the Deligul was Canvassed by the nom[2]. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that canvassing involves convincing a user to join a discussion with the same opinion as your own; I merely contacted editors and made them aware of the discussion, and if they thought that the category was fine, I would remove the nomination. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that you connected only Turkish editors, left a message in Turkish and gave them a link to this discussion. Thats called canvassing. Again, you're new, and this is you're first CFD, so I understand that you didn't know. But please be aware that next time you might get blocked. VartanM (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I didn't know informing people who may be interested in the subject wasn't allowed. However, at least I don't canvass secretly with friends via IM/email. But thanks for the threatening to block me, I appreciate the warning. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apart from the above the title is ambiguous. Is this "deniers of genocide who are Armenian" or "deniers of Armenian genocide" (in which case is that genocide by or of Armenians)? A title with such ambiguity looks like a hastily-made POV creation, I feel. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a category of people who openly deny that the Armenian Genocide constitutes to a genocide. Their denial is sourced in the respective articles. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Armenian Genocide is not a fact, it is a label attributed to mass killings of Armenians by the CUP party of the Ottoman Empire; no one has been able to prove the intent of the CUP government, and there is too many contradicting evidences on both sides to conclude genocide, and hence the UN has not recognized it. The Armenian archives are still closed even to genocide-label-supporters. Why would you want people to be labeled as "deniers" unless you are trying to attack their credibility to push your POV. Like I said I can then make a "Turkish Genocide Denier" or "Azeri Genocide Denier" so people that recognize the Armenian Genocide publicly can be labeled under those categories. So if you're fine with me adding those two categories, then I'll be fine with the your category. I'm sure now you will realize that this category should indeed be deleted and you should seek other ways to promote your genocide. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what they teach you in the Turkish schools, but in civilized counties like the ones in 40 US states, France, Argentina, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovaki, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City and Venezuela they teach that Armenian Genocide is a fact. VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never been to a Turkish school (please do not make assumptions on me to try to character-assassinate me), I've simply read books and articles from non-biased Western historians such as Dr. Guenther Lewy, Dr. Bernard Lewis, Dr. Stanfard Shaw, Dr. Justin McCarthy, and Dr. Norman Stone, most of whom are experts in Ottoman history and they do not deny the Armenian deaths as this category implies, they simply do not believe a genocide label is appropriate, it is not denial it is simply an opinion based on research. Hmm, "civilized countries", so you're saying Spain is not civilized? Brazil is not civilized? Some states in the United States are not civilized? Great Britain is not civilized? How insulting of you. Perhaps those countries that do recognize have a majority of Armenians in them, that would explain a lot as to why governments would need to pass bills on history, something that was unheard of until the efforts of the Armenian lobbies. Your arguments Vartan are amazing, they clearly convince people that politics decides history. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tonywalton's grammar lesson is well-spoken and I like that people are careful about such things. I disagree that this category is created to foster a POV or is politically motivated as some. But the bigger issue is that it is a category of people by opinion and people are not largely defined by the opinions they hold or express - even on sensitive issues. For instance we have categories for pro- & anti- activists for some really controversial things (abortion comes to mind), but we don't have a pro-choice & pro-life (US terminologies) categories and place all people who we can ascertain their position in one, or the other, or both - as would be the case here: some people assert that there were massacres of Armenians that took place but don't rise to the level of genocide, or that it was a relocation program that screwed up under pressures of fighting on 3 fronts by the Ottoman armies, and so it's not easy to fully categorize many people's opinions black or white without POV & OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats your opinion about Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a discussion about your denial of the Holocaust, VartanM. The Holocaust was proven with documents, the Armenian Genocide is still under dispute by world renowned historians one of whom actually survived the Holocaust (Dr. Guenther Lewy). — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This category is no different then the Holocaust denial. VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's completely different. Holocaust deniers are trying to bring antisemitism and and the Nazi party back to the world. People with differing views on the contexts of Armenian Genocide do not want the Young Turk (CUP) government back, they ruined many lives, and hurt a lot of innocent people. In fact, I don't even like the current Turkish government, since the current party continues to promote the freedom of head scarves in public institutions which is a violation of separation of church and state. If you believe it's the same, then you need to read more history books on the Holocaust and understand that the Jews didn't rebel, they didn't massacre any Germans, and the Nazi documents prove the intent of the Final Solution to eradicate Jews off the planet. Much different than the Armenian Genocide. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I support Arsenic99.--Absar (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that Absar was Canvassed by the nom[3]. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No there was no canvassing. I simply messaged them to be aware of the discussion and to provide their input, I didn't convince them to join with a specific bias or influence, they could have come here to Keep the category. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment already replied above. You don't have to reply to my every post, you're just gonna make a big mess out of this. VartanM (talk)

Comment You don't have to try so hard to discredit every single person that replies with a Delete either. You also don't have to resort to secret canvassing and then argue canvassing for supporters of the delete either. Perhaps you do want a big mess. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a rash of "denialism" article/cats all over WP, and that's a problem. Relata refero (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, whats your opinion about Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, this is not a discussion about your denial of the Holocaust, VartanM. The Holocaust was proven with documents, the Armenian Genocide is still under dispute by world renowned historians one of whom actually survived the Holocaust (Dr. Guenther Lewy). — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already answered above. VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no POV issue here, neither is it a propaganda. Armenian Genocide is a fact that is recognized by the International association of genocide scholars[4] and 22 countries. If one denies it in France or Switzerland they get fined. The category includes only those individuals who openly deny that Armenian Genocide constitutes to be a genocide. And before the category is added to an article a reliable source is presented in the article that proves their denial. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou cannot even spell the Armenian Genocide, and it isn't a fact, a genocide means that there was intent by the government to exterminate in whole or in part a certain ethnic group; there is no document proving the intent of the CUP to exterminate the Armenians. Thus it isn't a fact. A fact would be like "1+1 = 2", "That American soldier shot that Iraqi" is a fact, "That American soldier murdered that Iraqi" is an opinion, much like the meaning of genocide, which is a "law definition by the United Nations on whether there was intent to exterminate a group", it isn't a fact. If you think it is, I suggest you take some English classes. The 22 countries that recognize it are countries with a majority of Armenian voters. France and Switzerland are just showing their oppression of freedom of speech, this is the English Wikipedia, we don't care for POV in this wikipedia. If this category is allowed to exist, then I shall make an arsenal of categories describing Armenian historians and Armenian scholars who accept the Armenian Genocide based on simple circumstantial evidence. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is enough demonstration about ill intents of Arsenic99. VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What ill-intent? I have not presented any ill-intent about anything, I have simply told you the flaws of your argument that you cannot declare the Armenian Genocide as a fact. Just as you cannot declare "Evolution" or "creationism" as a fact, because these are ideas supported by people. With the case of "Evolution" it is supported by 99% of all Scientists, hence it's a well-accepted theory. However, you're denying that there isn't a significant number of historians still debating about whether the Armenian Genocide label is correct for Armenian massacres in the Ottoman Empire. You seem to have an ill-intent and now you have messaged your friends to come here as well, except you're a little more experienced than me so you used an instant messenger or telephone instead of "talk pages". [5] I would also like to remind you that I do not deny that Armenian massacres occurred with Turks participating in them, because Armenian massacres are indeed a fact, because they express the fact that Armenians did die by the hands of local authorities and Kurdish/Turkish locals who had high tensions with the Christians in the area. However, "genocide" means there was intent by the government to annihilate a whole ethnicity, which is still under dispute. It may be true, but it is not proven yet and thus it is wrong to automatically label people about something that is still being settled by historians (not politicians). — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep VartanM makes a fine argument.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is secret-canvassing, Wikibreak but yet somehow informed of this small CfD! [6]. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This shows up on my watchlist: [[7]]. Arsenic, see Wikipedia:AFG.-- Ευπάτωρ

^Talk!! 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Well maybe you should also link that to your VartanM friend too. I will take note of that next time. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with VartanM Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had created this category a few years ago. What happened to it? Arsenic's comments and insinuations are welcome. Hakob (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't made any insinuations, I've simply presented my view that if a category like this exist, then a category like "Azeri Genocide deniers" or "Turkish genocide deniers" or "Turkish Cypriotic Genocide deniers" or "Palestinian Genocide Deniers" category can exist as well. This is political labeling and POV-pushing, that's why I nominated it. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I believe that this category is another political labeling effort by nationalists. EXodus4real (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, this is a brand new account and this was the users first edit.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Eupator, see Wikipedia:AFG, maybe he's just new to wikipedia and? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Strong delete per WP:OC#OPINION and for the reasons that follow here and in comments below. This is an entirely inappropriate category designed only to promote the point of view of a special interest group regarding a disputed historical event. All of those listed in this category are expert academicians of Ottoman history, some of whom are the most esteemed professors and professionals in their field. Indeed, Bernard Lewis is considered the pre-eminant historian in this subject area. This is not a category, it is a label a special interest group is trying to impose to villify professional academicians who have researched primary sources and historical archives throughout the world, who have each authored well sourced publications that reach a conclusion different from those who are promoting this "category." Indeed, there are many more such published academicians who reach the same conclusion as those listed in this dubious "category." And in response to those who assert that there is a category for the Holocaust denial, there can be no comparison between this issue and the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is the denial of a crime against humanity that was proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt, the denial of which is based on racism and anti-semitism. Expert academicians, such as those listed cannot be "categorized" as such. Those promoting the category are invited to cite sources that prove those listed in this "category" have reached their conclusions based soley on racism, which is what this categroy imputes to those listed under it, rather than an extensive and studied research of the facts. This is an entirely inappropriate category and should be deleted. Note also that making statements that are not true about a person's professional work gives rise to legal liability for libel/slander per se. Pebblicious (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The user was inactive for 20 days and this was his first edit. It's hard for me to AGF. VartanM (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This user was also previously inactive for a period of 40 days (oh no, doubly damning!!) and is unaware of a requirement that users must post on a regularly defined schedule or be subject to the accusation of lack of AGF. This user would prefer to discuss the issues raised rather than read or respond to personal attacks. Pebblicious (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note What's your point? If you're making an accusation, state it plainly. Is there any user who has moved to delete you haven't impugned? Do you have some personal vested interest in this category? If you do, you are required to disclose it. Pebblicious (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Admin VartanM and Eupator who are known for editing Armenain-Genocide related articles, are continuously violating Wikipedia:AFG by calling into question the credibility of every single commenter who disagrees with their strong-held-beliefs. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of COI on both sides of this train wreck. Claiming that only one side is misbehaving here is unlikely to convince anyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, all I have done wrong is tell a few wikipedians who are interested that this category for discussion exists without convincing them to vote one way or another. VartanM found this wrong, and he pointed it out, he's right. However, he refuses to admit that he himself has been canvassing except without using Wikipedia Talkpages but more secretive methods of communication making it hard to Wikipedia:AGF. The only people voting to keep the article are Armenian descendants or people who are known for editing Armenian-Genocide related articles on a constant basis. I believe though I may have been wrong for canvassing 3-4 people, that VartanM has been doing much worse. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calling something a "disputed historical event", when the event in question is the Nazi Holocaust, makes someone a Holocaust denier. Some people believe the whole thing is a fiction --> i.e., disputed. So I think we would need a better argument as to what makes the Holocaust denial category different from the one at hand. The "proven in a court of law" argument seems quite weak in this regard; after all, Bernard Lewis was indeed convicted in a court of law on this issue.

Note that I'm not voting (for the moment, anyway) - and I'm a genuine outsider on this one. I find it very difficult to decide. This CfD is a disaster... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When a fact has been proven with credible evidence in a court of law, that fact has by force of law become undisputed. That is why the Holocuast is not a disputed event. That is not the case with Armenian genocide claims. People who dispute the Holocaust do so, not based on facts or evidence, or their own historical research, but due to their anti-semitism and racism. The academicians listed in this "category" have come to a conclusion based on years, if not a lifetime's worth of research in historical archives that most here have never even touched. They have published multiple works about this subject that have passed academic scrutiny. Due to that, and the fact there has been no verdict in a court of law, the events at issue are disputed. Still, there is an element that wants to place these esteemed academicians in the same category as the leader of a terrorist state and someone who has called for the dissolution of Israel: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is neither a scholar, nor is he a respected academician who is published in the field of Holocaust studies. Instead, he is a racist anti-semite. To classify the academicians who conclude no Armenian genocide occurred based on years of research and impute to them the same motivations that Ahmadinejad has is factually incorrect, defamatory and legally actionable. Wiki would be wise to consult its legal team on this one, because there are multiple academicians listed, and thus, the potential for multiple lawsuits.

As for Lewis, he is a world respected authority on the Middle East and in the Ottoman history. His works have been translated into 22 languages and he has lectured in Europe, Asia, North Africa and the United States. He was taken to court in France for the statements below, made during an interview with Le Monde:

Le Monde—Why do the Turks always refuse to admit the Armenian Genocide?

Bernard Lewis— You mean, the Armenian version of the history? There was an Armenian problem for the Turks created by the advance of the Russians, and also there was a population with an anti-Turkish sentiment in the Ottoman Empire who sought independence, and they overtly sympathized with the Russians advancing from the Caucasus. Also, there were Armenian bands, the Armenians bragged about their heroic exploits in resistance, and the Turks had trouble to maintain order under the prevailing war conditions. For the Turks it was necessary to take the punitive and preventive measure against a hostile population in a region threatened by foreign invasion. For the Armenians it was liberating their land. However, both parties agree that the repression was geographically limited; for example, those measures did not affect the Armenians who lived in the other parts of the Ottoman Empire.

No one has any doubt that terrible events took place; the Armenians, as well as the Turks suffered and perished in equal measure. Yet, no one will be able to tell what the circumstances were like, and how many people died. Consider, for instance, the case of Lebanon [Beirut] that took place recently and in full view of the entire world. During their [the Armenians] relocation to Syria [an Ottoman province at that time] hundred thousands of Armenians died on account of famine and epidemics. However, when you brought up the question of “genocide”, you imply that there was a deliberate policy of extermination, to annihilate systematically the Armenian nation. This is very doubtful. The Turkish documents prove an action of relocation, not extermination.

L.M.— Do the Turks accept what you say?

B.L.— It depends on what Turk you talk about. The authorities do not accept it. Some Turkish historians will give you an answer somewhat different.

Four law suits by Armenian organizations, and the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism were filed in Paris against Lewis. One of the cases was a criminal action brought under the French Gavssot Law, or “hate speech law.” The criminal case was dismissed because the law was not deemed applicable. Two of the civil cases were also dismissed and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay part of Lewis's attorneys' fees. In the third civil case, the court ruled that it was “in no way established” that Lewis “pursued a purpose alien to his mission as a historian.” Instead, the court held he was at fault for not having cited, during the interview, “elements contrary to his thesis.” For this Lewis was ordered to pay 1 franc (25 cents) in damages. Note, that while these proceedings were in progress, Lewis was honored by being elected a Correspondent of the Institute de France.

Those who brought suit against Lewis were not victorious and he fought back and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay him much much more money than he was ordered to pay. Thus, these historians do take legal action against those who defame them. Let's also not forget, that one of the historians listed in this "category" was also the victim of Armenian terrorists who planted a bomb at his Los Angeles home and continued in their efforts to injure or kill him. This defamatory and POV material is intended to vilify and silence the academicians listed, and serve as a warning to those who, after researching the issue, would conclude the same. It should be deleted. Pebblicious (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VartanM. The rational given to the deletion of this useful category amounts to nothing more than revisionism and genocide denial therefore there is no valid reason to delete it. There are very notable cases of Armenian Genocide denial and adding a category to them is harmless. - Fedayee (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Fedayee has frequent contact with VartanM even receiving several barn-star awards from him [8]. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a political label to me. Not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats your opinion about Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such categories should exist. But there's a difference between Holocaust and the events in Ottoman Turkey. Holocaust is generally acknowledged as genocide (which it was, since the Nazis pursued an official policy of extermination of Jewish people), and you don't see such notable scholars as Bernard Lewis questioning its classification. I don't think that scholars like Lewis should be labeled as deniers or whatever. Grandmaster (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People labeled as deniers of the holocaust are denying the deaths of Jews, video, photographic, and archival evidence written by the Nazi administration themselves that talk about the Final Solution. However, the Turkish-Ottoman archives are open, and they have no archival evidence suggesting that there were any orders to exterminate Armenians. So while the Armenian Genocide argument can be argued and debated (and it is by historians who do not deny the deaths and suffering of Armenians), it isn't 100% proven as the Holocaust, so there is a significant difference. Even the Turkish government and Turkish historians do not deny the suffering of Armenians and their death as excusable. They acknowledge it as a tragedy, but they simply disagree that it was a governmental policy to exterminate Armenians, when there has been so many telegrams, orders, and documents showing the efforts of the Ottoman CUP government at stopping the ethnic local violence that was causing massive death tolls of Armenians, Turks, and Kurds in the area. Like I said, if this category can stand here and mislabel and misrepresent views of respected historians, as a method of discrediting them because of their opposing views, is un-American, un-Democratic, and gives me the power to make an arsenal of my own categories to discredit people I don't agree with (this is wrong). — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keepAn objective, useful, and relevant category. Behemoth (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above and per Holocaust Denier precedent, no viable argument given to the contrary. The Myotis (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Another known editor of Armenian-Genocide related articles. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per deletion of Category:Genocide_deniers in Jan 2007. --A.Garnet (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thank you for the "Genocide Denier" category deleted link. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per VartanM & Fedayee. Shame that there seems to be no better term than "Deniers", but a useful category nonetheless. The contents (which, as well as individuals, should also include the Republic of Turkey) make for an interesting list. There seems to be no category for outspoken/persecuted advocates - the nearest seems to be Censorship in Turkey. Ephebi (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about a better term like "People with opposing views", why not just make a term for everyone who disagrees with someone on an issue (Oh you don't believe in the big-bang theory? You're a big-bang denier! Oh you don't believe in Creationism? You're a God-Denier), they didn't deny any facts of Armenian historians they simply disagreed with their arguments that their circumstantial and speculation can prove genocide. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete You can't simply claim someone is a denier without first proving the theory in court of law, the UN still has not declared the Armenian Genocide an actual genocide, because it doesn't fit the legal definition Trixter2004 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Note This was users first edit. VartanM (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Looks like denial of the genocide is alive and well. The participation of certain users constantly whining about how the genocide has yet to be "proven" is telling and a shameful act of revisionism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, putting to rest the "there is proof" argument More political labeling by another Armenian-Genocide addict. Let's go ahead and use words like "revisionist" or "denialist" to dismiss the arguments of normal people who just happen to disagree with the genocide label. It is yet to be proven, the only thing that was proven was that there were massacres of Armenians, which has been proven since World War I, by the Turks themselves who court-martialed Ottoman officials. However a massacre is not a genocide unless you prove the intent that the Ottomans tried to exterminate members of the Armenian ethnicity. One problem with that was without looking at what language they speak and where they live and what church they go to, it was very very difficult to tell who was an Armenian and who was a Kurd or a Turk or some other Muslim. In Nazi Germany, Jews had to wear the "Star of David", but something like that never happened to Armenians. In addition, Ottoman leaders never presented hate speeches or wrote publications that represent Anti-Armenian views. In addition to that, Talat Pasha (the supposed "mastermind" behind the Armenian Genocide according to Armenians and the forgeries of his telegrams) has sent out many real proven telegrams and made notes in his memoirs talking about the suffering of Armenians (how the tensions between Muslims and Christians in the area provoked by Armenian Revolutionary Federation, have continuously attempted counter-massacres or unprovoked or maybe unjustified massacres against the Armenian population. But these were all done locally, sometimes by religious leaders, sometimes by Kurdish tribal leaders, sometimes local authorities provoked by something rebellious the Armenians in the area had done) but Talat Pasha has made clear and direct orders to stop massacres of Christians and mentioned how brutal some local leaders have been when attacking Armenians and that it needed to stop. So I'll ask you, where is the proof of intent by the CUP government? Even Dr. Vahakn Dadrian's (The Armenian historian who wrote basically the bible on the Armenian Genocide) answer to this has been simply arguments that speculate on how it is "very likely" that there was an intent to destroy Armenians. So again, where is the proof? The fact is, there is no proof (which is why Turks and many others have not accepted it) and there is significant dispute on the subject. Again, if you believe this category should stand then you are giving me the power to create a massive arsenal of Categories that politically label Armenian historians who disagree with my views. If you believe in the labeling of genocide of Armenian massacres, you have your rights and freedom of speech to do so, but you don't have the right to blame and discredit each historian, scholar, or politician who disagrees with your views. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per nom. With all due respect to all victims of the massacres of World War I period, without regard to their ethnicity, those events are not considered as "Armenian genocide" by millions of people who also lost their ancestors in World War I battlefields. So labeling ordinary people or historians as deniers of genocide simply because they refuse to bow to certain nationalistic interpretation in this particular case, is not appropriate. Atabek (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Using your logic we should also delete the Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Using your logic we should create a thousand categories of deniers, since so many people deny and disagree with so many views. The reason there is a Holocaust Denier category is because usually people who disagree with the Holocaust are affiliated with Nazis or Neo-Nazis, some are affiliated with Anti-Judaism (Ahmedinejad), and they use it as a political tool to attack Jews in some way. However, no one is blaming Armenians for being massacred, and no one here is saying Armenians didn't die. Holocaust Deniers say there were no Jewish deaths and ignore all video evidence and Nazi documents that say they planned to exterminate Jews (It's basically like saying 1+1=55000). However, with the Armenian Genocide, no Turkish-Archival documents have been found to show there were any orders or encouragement of mass killings of any ethnicity and there is significant debate among historians, and a majority(~95%) of Ottoman historians agree that the genocide label is wrong, and many of whom are respected Western historians. I believe Dr. Guenther Lewy who writes about how the genocide label is wrong, is actually the son of Holocaust victims. And I'm sure Dr. Bernard Lewis has many relatives or friends that may have been exterminated by Nazi policy. There are complete lists of differences between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide Argument. Refer to my other arguments that clearly show that this category is POV and is being used to discredit authors and is a violation of Wikipedia:BLP, WP:OC#OPINION, WP:NPOV, and I also recommend you read this: Categorization of People by Association, this category clearly violates many Wikipedia policies and has a deep sense of profiling biographies in the context to discredit them. Again VartanM, if you want to talk about your Holocaust denialism, you're welcome to create a CfD about that but that is a completely different issue with very few similarities. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that the Genocide of the first Christian nation in the world did in fact happen. The denial of this is a very notable political movement staged by the Turkish propaganda machine. Hence, it deserves an article.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

Rename to: Deniers of the Armenian Genocide. Rationale, it's simple really, if a notable figure openly denies that the Armenian Genocide was a Genocide then they are eligible for that category. That category can be added to biographical articles based on the consensus of the editors of said articles. I believe the rename is warranted based on User:Tonywalton's concerns. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the renaming. Note that I have already voted to keep. VartanM (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Disapprove the renaming. Renaming it still does not fix the fact that this category is POV, it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:NPOV and it is called Political Labeling, and if you allow this category to stand, you are saying it is OK for me to make an arsenal of categories that discredit the biographies of many Armenian Historians and Scholars who agree with the genocide label. You know this category is wrong, use other ways to push your Armenian-Genocide-POV. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other ways to push my Armenian-Genocide-POV? Don't be a dick. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly support the renaming. But the original category should have been kept ages ago... Hakob (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I still do not understand how this renaming changes anything at all, it is still a violation of several wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:BLP, WP:Categorization of people,WP:OC#OPINION, and WP:NPOV), and just like deletion Category:Genocide Deniers, it should be removed. I think your strong belief in the genocide and your concern for Armenian victims is stopping you from seeing clearly that this is POV, but I'm sure you can find some other ways to push the genocide label without violating Wikipedia policies. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Since you deem anything you disagree with POV, how long is it going to be before you nominate every Armenian Genocide-related category or article for deletion? I don't think No Country for Old Men should have won Best Picture this year, but that doesn't mean I'm going to remove or nominate the categories which categorize it as such. There is an article for the Armenian Genocide and for Denial of the Armenian Genocide, so why shouldn't there be a category for Armenian genocide deniers? Hakob (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This category should be removed because it inaccurately labels preeminent and well respected independent academics who've reached a certain conclusion based on meticulous research of archives all over the world, whose conclusions have withstood academic & peer scrutiny, been published and whose multiple books are used in universities the world over as texts. This category implies that those labeled as such have reached their conclusions based on racism and prejudice, not due to studied research of the facts presented in archival material. See for example Holocaust Denial which states "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory." The proponents of this category have been invited to establish the people they want to include in the Armenian Genocide Denial category reach their conclusions based on racism, but have provided no such evidence. This label is therefore inaccurate and defames living people. See also [9] and [10] which cautions against adding categories that suggest a living person has a bad reputation.Pebblicious (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Hakob you haven't seen this[11] VartanM (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disapprove Disapprove per WP:OC#OPINION and as per deletion of Category:Genocide_deniers in Jan 2007. Pebblicious (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate your concerns however the way this category is being used is not overcategorization. WP:OC#OPINION would apply if say a category was created called category:people against the Iraqi War and it was applied to actor Sean Penn. However if you look at this category, it's being applied to people whom a significant amount of notability comes from denial of the Armenian Genocide. Also, it's not a fair comparison to look at the Jan 18 2007 Category for discussion on Genocide deniers as if you look at the comments made by user:Fadix it looks like the article Armenian Genocide Denial was still in it's formative stages and plus that other category was seriously misnamed. Also note that consensus can change. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly support the renaming. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roller coasters in Greater Tampa

Propose renaming Category:Roller coasters in Greater Tampa to Category:Roller coasters in the Tampa Bay Area

Nominator's rationale Same rationale as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 15#Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Tampa; it does not correctly identify the area by its common name. Eagles Fan In Tampa 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom or merge with the Statewide cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge per Carlossuarez46. VartanM (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game failures

Propose renaming Category:Video game failures to Category:Video game commercial failures

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current naming violates WP:NPOV. Another man's failure is another man's success. A video game that fails commercially can still have a very successful reception. MrStalker ^(talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is "commercial failure" a common, agreed-upon term? I'm not familiar with this area but I just want to make sure that designating something a "commercial failure" won't be a contentious, grey-area issue. Dylan (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to be a defining character of a game, even if it were possible to define it objectively. --Lquilter (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too subjective - I could argue that most games are failures for not being hits or most are not failures by virtue of their existence. The alternative suggested is little better. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Col. Warden. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visitor attractions in Bay Lake, Florida

Category:Visitor attractions in Bay Lake, Florida - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Too narrowly defined; only will contain venues at Walt Disney World Resort. Exists due to creator's edit-warring over categorizing Orlando-area attractions. See also Whoville (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore original "Orlando" category. also and Talk:Disney's_Hollywood_Studios#Orlando_attractions_vs_Florida_attractions SpikeJones (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - this perfectly coincides with other categories of specific cities in Florida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.223.240 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2008
Are these going to get deleted as well? Category:Visitor attractions in Key West, Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami, Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida, ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.223.240 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2008
DELETE - The Orlando categories specifically state in/around the city, and make no attempt to quantify what "Orlando" means (i.e., it doesn't say "within the city limits of"). Bay Lake is almost 100% within the Walt Disney World resort boundaries and is controlled by Disney. Way too specific for this purpose. Existing categories mentioned above are a veiled attempt at a slippery slope argument that simply doesn't work here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida where these were at the start of their travels. This category was for POV pushing and WP:POINT. Merging back to where they were reverts back to previous consensus and the results of a deletion review. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a county or statewide cat, we don't place the attractions of incorporated cities in nearby larger cities' attractions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Bay Lake, Florida is an INCORPORATED city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.219.204 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2008

Bay Lake's and Lake Buena Vista's sole residents are employees of Disney and their dependants. They aren't suburbs or satellite cities to Orlando, although technically they would be in Orlando's metropolitan statistical area, which by consensus it would be accurate to say they would be "in Orlando." The Orlando, Florida categories have never differentiated between "in the city limits of" or "in the vicinity of." They say "in or around" ... nothing more or less. That criterion works. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Technobadger (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is to delete and not merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amusement parks in Bay Lake, Florida

Category:Amusement parks in Bay Lake, Florida - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Too narrowly defined; it only will contain the theme parks of Walt Disney World Resort and was born as the result of the creator's edit-warring over categorizing Orlando-area attractions Whoville (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore original "Orlando" category. see also and Talk:Disney's_Hollywood_Studios#Orlando_attractions_vs_Florida_attractions SpikeJones SpikeJones (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this perfectly coincides with other categories of specific cities in Florida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.223.240 (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these going to get deleted as well? Category:Visitor attractions in Key West, Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami, Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida, ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.223.240 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - The Orlando categories specifically state in/around the city, and make no attempt to quantify what "Orlando" means (i.e., it doesn't say "within the city limits of"). Bay Lake is almost 100% within the Walt Disney World resort boundaries and is controlled by Disney. Way too specific for this purpose. Existing categories mentioned above are a veiled attempt at a slippery slope argument that simply doesn't work here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Amusement parks in Orlando, Florida. Can't be deleted since we would lose some of the parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to a county- or state-wide level cat so as to be technically accurate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically accurate is fine but do we need to use a location that effectively is obfuscation? While being valid, Category:Amusement parks in Orange County, Florida would make it obvious that these are for the Orlando area attractions. So maybe the bottom line questions is what is the top level category that covers all of the Orlando area attractions and supporting services? That would become the the answer here and would be used for the rest of the related categories. Greater Orlando could work and it covers the Orlando-Kissimmee, Florida, Metropolitan Statistical Area. Doing this would also fix an interesting arrangement where the Area is listed in the Orlando City cat when the city is only a piece of the two county area. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Bay Lake, Florida is an INCORPORATED city. It is NOT Orlando. It's like claiming the Bilmore Hotel in Coral Gables is in Miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.219.204 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (also applies to Visitor attractions in Bay Lake, Florida): I think categorizing tourist attractions by county is unwise. How many people are likely to know the counties that contain Mount Rushmore, Graceland, the Las Vegas strip casinos, the Statue of Liberty, Yosemite, etc.? I feel like this issue already has been settled by consensus and the only reason we're debating it again is because of one tendentious sock puppeteer who abusively demands an absolutist interpretation that an Orlando category means within the city limits. Consider that the Walt Disney World Resort article clearly states that the site is not within the city limits of Orlando and I believe that most of the individual articles for Disney's Florida venues don't state that they're in Orlando. Whoville (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've created a new Category:Amusement parks in Orlando, Florida, and made Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida‎ a child category of Category:Visitor attractions in Orange County, Florida‎, since Orlando is in Orange County (in fact it's the county seat). That puts stuff near Orlando in the parent category of Orange County, and stuff actually in Orlando in the the Orlando category, which is visible when you browse the Orange category. Some articles (like International Drive) will belong in both, if they are both inside and outside Orlando. But your average WP reader will be looking for info on Orlando, not Orange County, which few people will have heard of if they've not been to Orlando before. I hope this compromise will satisfy everyone. Technobadger (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Technobadger (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is to delete and not merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pyramid (TV game show series)

Category:Pyramid (TV game show series) - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, consists only of a page and two subpages, with little hope for expansion beyond that. Nothing would be lost if this category were deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no opinion really but at the very least, you should be aware that if the category is deleted then Pyramid (game show) broadcast history and Pyramid game and tournament play will become uncategorized articles. This needs to be fixed before deletion. Pichpich (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women writers by century

Suggest merging Category:Women writers by century to Category:Women writers by time period

Suggest merging Category:Women writers by historical period to Category:Women writers by time period

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename, Consistent with Category:Writers by time period. Both categories are mainly intended as holders of subcategories and since neither has too many subcats, merging them is simply more convenient. Note also that there's no loss of information by doing this merge. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a mess! Category:Women writers by century is a sub-cat of Category:People by century too. Presumably it should be merged there as well. What are the time periods going to be, when these are merged? You will need a very literate bot to work out whether to put C19 women in "early modern" or "modern" etc, or vice versa. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I guess the same reasoning would go for any Category:Foo occupation by century. After all a century is a pretty well-defined period so having separate categories for Category:Foo occupation by century and Category:Foo occupation by period just makes it very hard for people browsing categories to find what they're looking for. Keeping Category:People by century is not a problem so long as we keep it only as a holder for the subcats Category:xxth century people and not for things like Category:Foo occupation by century. Pichpich (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you haven't made it at all clear what categories would be left at the end, from these two different classifications. You want "to be consistent with Category:Writers by time period" but that is a complete mess too, with some centuries, but not others, periods like "Baroque", and so on. What do you actually want to end up with? Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't mind the overlapping characterization of "baroque", which is a period in the cultural sense, and xxth century, which is a period... in the century sense. I don't think there's much to lose by keeping both the "medieval writers" and the individual centuries, in part because "medieval writers" only makes sense for Europeans. Many writers will be categorized in more than one period and that's ok. I just don't see any added value to the extra layer of categorization. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as overcategorization by sex. Otto4711 (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge both per nom This will unconfuse the situation and is a good solution. Hmains (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm okay with WW by time period, but (a) it could be a parent category of both, or (b) possibly a parent category of "by era" and merger of "by century". Deletion is not an option. WW seriously needs to be subcatted, and historical eras is a very appropriate way to do it. In fact, the arguments that some editors make about categories based on gender/race/sexuality being overcat or non-defining are utterly mooted by historical periods. Whatever one might believe about the irrelevance of a gender category today, there is no question that the intersection was and is defining for historical personages. --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly agree with Lquilter concerning deletion. Women writers prior to the 20th century (even late 20th century) form a distinct group of tremendous interest. Deleting the category is nonsensical. As for having the category as a parent of both, I just don't see the point. It gives an extra level of categorization with little or no benefit. The merger would result in a category with 20 subcategories and 2 lists. In time, it may grow to include maybe a dozen extra lists or so, at most 10 other subcategories (and even that seems generous). So navigation will be smooth within the category. Pichpich (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary sex categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment say what? The guideline WP:CATGRS lists Category:Women composers, Category:Female Nazis, Category:Male porn stars as reasonable by-gender categories and you want to classify women writers of the 18th century as 18th century writers? The same guideline says a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, and you want to make the argument that George Sand's gender has nothing to do with how she wrote? That it's meaningless to find her in the same category as Mary Shelley? I don't think you've thought this through. Pichpich (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Women writers was previously deleted and reversed after considerable debate. The topic of "women writers" is exceedingly well studied and definitively meets WP:CATGRS. Nothing has changed in the intervening time to suggest any change in this category or reasoning. Deleting the category for overcategorization by gender is not on the table. The question is simply what to do with the "by years", "by time periods", and so on. Pointless "delete" comments don't really add to that discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. People seriously need to bury the hatchet over this and move on. Pichpich (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete per Lq. Merging two different half-full schemes into one cat seems like a recipe for a car-crash to me, so I won't comment. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm ambivalent about the merger right now -- I think it needs to be thought out very carefully and with more than the 5-day CFD period, and we should have the regular women writers contributors weigh in. --Lquilter (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian businesspeople

Category:Libertarian businesspeople - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection; makes no mention of how politics and business are related. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator. There's no serious evidence that businesspeople who are libertarians act in similar ways, nor is there any evidence that libertarians who happen to be businesspeople share specific beliefs related to business or form a distinct political subgroup among libertarians. Pichpich (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom after first making sure each article is categorized into the parents of Category:Libertarian businesspeople Hmains (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not defining per WP:CATGRS; I don't see any likelihood of an article being written about the fortunes or histories or unique experiences of self-identified "libertarian businesspeople" as opposed to simply "libertarians" or "businesspeople". --Lquilter (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT by intersection of politics & profession, what's next Category:Republican carpenters so that the religious right can add Jesus to it? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 *'''Merge''' to [[:Category:Roller coasters in Florida]], if renamed as proposed, remove those in suburban areas like Lake Buena Vista, FL (Disneyworld). Makes more sense not to break these out by city. Perhaps by county would work to encompass all the greater Orlando parks? [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 **As currently used, [[:Category:Orlando, Florida]] covers the general area in some aspects.  If you say you are going to Disneyworld you say you are going to Orlando and not Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista but maybe Kissimmee.  If someone really wants to create a category structure for the area I'm not opposed.  But upmerging to Florida is going too far.  If there is a need for an area category then that can be created based on the discussions here and it affects more then this one category. I would not support grouping by county in this case since it would be an obscure grouping. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
+::What's wrong with you people?  Why was Category:  xxx in Greater Orlando deleted?  What's wrong with calling it Greater Orlando?  This would solve everything.  Idiots.
 ==== Category:People accused of plagiarism ====