Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20

< May 19	May 21 >

May 20

Category:Ernst Haeckel

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

The result of the debate was Dekete. Vegaswikian 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category only has one article (stub) in it. Unlikely to grow. Recommend deletion. DarthVad e r 23:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection.Comment: Quite a few of Haeckel's images have recently been added and the category is now fairly populated. On a somewhat unrelated note, a number of these images are featured picture quality. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've populated the category a little more, although mostly with pictures. The pictures are from a series, and wikipedia's copy of them seems to be far from complete - if the rest of the images are used as well, the category will grow further. There may be some more articles as well, I only did a quick scan. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is what the commons is for.--Peta 05:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
move all images to commons, where they can be shared and delete the category. `'mikka (t) 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, regretfully, delete images. Haeckel is notorious for having made his illustrations prettier, neater, and more supportive of his theories than Nature's actual evidence; we should avoid using them where at all possible. Septentrionalis 02:41, 26 May 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 page.

Category:Jewish Moroccans to Category:Moroccan Jews

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty; merge. Marcus 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Choalbaton 07:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge duplicate categories. Olve 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, quit emptying categories and then bringing them here for merging into similar categories you just created. If you want to rename a category, then nominate it. - EurekaLott 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and listify, discussion later on page. --William Allen Simpson 09:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes no sense. What does "listify" mean? IZAK 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in this case. IZAK 19:26, 24 May 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 page.

Category: Comic Book Mythology to Category: Mythology-based comic book characters

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Mythology in comics. Vegaswikian 21:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better name, with proper capitalization, is needed here. --FuriousFreddy 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, although possibly Category: Mythology-based comic books would be better. We could include the characters in that, and it would be more general. Possibly split them off later, but size isn't a problem at the moment. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Changed opinion, see below. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category: Mythology-based comic books to include more pages Palendrom 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom CovenantD 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mythology in comics to make the category more comprehensive than the other proposed names. -Sean Curtin 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mythology in comics per Sean Curtin. Even more general! I am resisting the urge to suggest "Comical mythology" :) SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mythology in comics. --Mike Selinker 21:30, 28 May 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 page.

Category:Killer games

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An very POV category. Just because a game sold a lot doesn't make it "killer" and not everyone agrees if a game is "killer". Thunderbrand 19:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thunderbrand makes a good point. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how do you tell a "killer" game from a "non-killer" game? Lankiveil 05:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 07:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A category ought not be a slang term or colloquialism. Fluit 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Vic Vipr 08:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to agree, anything could be a killer game. 156.34.219.162 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per al above; poor category name. David Kernow 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 'Killer game' is described as a game that's popular or good enough to sell a console. Any game could fill that role depending on the person - it's subjective based on personal taste and what have you. It may be why the Killer game article lists few examples. But I'm just reiterating what's arleady been said. Ojaxis 19:34, 26 May 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 page.

Category:Swiss people by ethnicity

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently was renamed to Category:Swiss people by ethnic or national origin, despite the fact that the related cfr resulted in no consensus. Conscious 19:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as the new name is preferable. Choalbaton 08:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and listify, discussion later on page. --William Allen Simpson 09:45, 24 May 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 page.

Category:User Queen to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queen

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories. Conscious 19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Remember to update User:UBX/Queen and Template:User Queen champion also update the link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Queen - 69.72.82.175 11:31, 22 May 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 page.

Category:Spouses of U.S. State Governors to Category:Spouses of governors of the United States

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Looks like 2D and 1K. My opinion would be to delete. Vegaswikian 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fix capitalization & abbreviation. --dm ^(talk) 04:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection There is no such thing as a "Governor of the United States" and even if there was this wouldn't be eligible for speedy. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless there is a case for categories for all spouses of all governors (or their equivalent) worldwide. Note that in some cases, these are notable only because their spouse ran for higher office than governor, or they ran for office themselves. In which case, this category is demeaning. --William Allen Simpson 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a rename to Category:Spouses of state governors of the United States, to match Category:State governors of the United States. It's a bit awkard, but I can't see a way of shortening it without having "United States state" somewhere, which is a horrible phrase. Other suggestiong welcome. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone not otherwise categorisable can be placed in category:American socialites. If not deleted rename Category:Spouses of state governors of the United States, Choalbaton 08:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Acronyms and abbreviations should never, ever appear in article or category titles, unless the abbreviation in question is "U.S." when used in "U.S. state." Paul 04:23, 23 May 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 page.

Category:Filipino law to Category:Philippine law

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inline with proper adjectival naming form of countries (Filipino refers usually to the people, society and/or language, while Philippine usually refers to the country itself, geography and government). --Akira123323 ^{Say what? |} ^{Track record} 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection This is a complex area and should not be listed as a speedy. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Philippine law. Filipino refers to strictly people (Filpino boxers, Filipino Scientologists, Filipino priests, etc.). --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the cat of Philippine law. --Noypi380 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the cat of Philippine law. --Jondel 03:58, 22 May 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 page.

Category:Scindia dynasty of Gwalior to Category:Princely Gwalior

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Vegaswikian 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) As an anon IP, I created the category that I now request renamed. A number of related articles can be categorised, and unnecessary proliferation of categories avoided. ImpuMozhi 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection Ineligible for the speedy section. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category is for the dynasty and should be categorised in category:Indian families. Category:Princely Gwalior may be created as a parent category. Choalbaton 08:04, 21 May 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 page.

Category:Computing comparison to Category:Computing comparisons

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

The result of the debate was Rename including the 3 below. Vegaswikian 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(plural) Remy B 08:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is topic area so it should not be pluralised. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the preceding argument also applies to:

Conscious 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. If these were articles about comparison, I'd agree with Bhoeble. However, they primarily are comparisons and, as such, the plural is proper. -- JLaTondre 21:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per above. Lankiveil 05:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose JLaTondre raises a good point about how to decide, but I think these types articles should be about comparison, with some actual comparisons included. I did a lot of work on Comparison of programming languages, and I include more than a comparison chart. And I'm considering renaming the article with the singular "language." -Barry- 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you as to what they should be, but that's not going to happen. The precedent has been set that comparison articles are part of Wikipedia. We should be categorizing these based upon that. Even if we had some articles on the process of comparisions, they would still be swamped by the large number of actual comparisons (Category:Software comparison has 70 articles, all of which are comparisons and not about comparisons). -- JLaTondre 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- and the subcategories, too. The parent is Category:Comparisons --William Allen Simpson 09:30, 24 May 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 page.

Category:Presidents of Romanian Academy to Category:Presidents of the Romanian Academy

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was tagged for speedy deletion, with reason "Missing the "the"; should be renamed Category:Presidents of the Romanian Academy". Since it doesn't seem to match the speedy renaming criteria, I've changed to a cfr. No vote, but the original delete request probably counts as one. cesarb 17:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as requested. Choalbaton 08:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 10:26, 22 May 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 page.

Category:Judahism in Germany to Category:Judaism in Germany

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and using incorrect spelling; merge. Marcus 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename as a typo. I see no reason why a speedy rename should be blocked because the target exists, i.e. it is a merge. Perhaps we should make this obvious somewhere? SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to speedy; not sure why it doesn't/wouldn't qualify...? David Kernow 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete of this typo. IZAK 19:28, 24 May 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 page.

Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews to Category:Sephardi Jews

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty; merge. Marcus 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore entries ASAP and let it stay. This is a clear-cut category and is an academic field with ample literature. The topic has already been discussed on its discussion page. -- Olve 05:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic rant I'm beginning to think that an empty or nearly empty category should be disallowed as a reason to delete. The way categories work the category may have been emptied just before it was nominated and it would be very difficult to discover that. The only criteria should be if the category makes sense, not whether its being used. --JeffW 05:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. In fact, by checking Marcus2’s edit history, you’ll find that he emptied the category himself... (!!) I say we repair the damage he has done, and if anyone can come up with valid reasons to delete this category that outweigh the weighty reasons to keep this actually well-founded, precisely defined and academically well-established category (Edwin Seroussi is one of the researchers who have worked specifically with this culture from a musical point of view), then we can re-assess the need to delete it. -- Olve 05:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this request is a circumvention of the existing discussion on Category talk:Spanish and Portuguese Jews as well as on Talk:Spanish and Portuguese Jews. The article Spanish and Portuguese Jews is also on its way towards more contents. The fact that some people don’t happen to know their Sephardi geography/history can NOT be used as an excuse to delete justified contents/structures. And especially not in ways that completely violate the process. What part of “Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.” did Marcus2 not understand? -- Olve 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, repopulate and slap nominator's wrist. Osomec 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and listify, discussion later on page. --William Allen Simpson 09:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your view and your grounds for it. -- Olve 16:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's "listify"? Never heard of that before. IZAK
  - It means "turn into a "List of..." article" – at least, that's what I understand it to mean! Regards, David Kernow 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although it never actualy happens, does it? At least I don't believe the closing admin is under any obligation to create the list article. --JeffW 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re obligation, I hope not. Following a "listify" result, I'd say listing a category's members in a "List of..." article stub (then deleting the category) sounds like something a bot could be programmed to perform...? Regards, David 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Olve. IZAK 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not all Sephardi Jews are Spanish and Portuguese Jews. --Newport 17:14, 29 May 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 page.

Category:Water deities

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete G7 (author request). - EurekaLott 17:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Water deities. My bad, I was hasty and didn't realize that under Category:Deities by association we had "Sea and river deities" (with subs of "Sea and river gods" and "Sea and river goddesses"). Bookgrrl 17:00, 20 May 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 page.

Lists of ministers

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

The result of the debate was rename to "of". Conscious 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Political_office-holders, categories regarding political office-holders are named by country, not by nationality. However, categories of lists of government ministers as provided below have been named by nationality, which is inconsistent with the above and I am proposing to be renamed.

In regard to by country naming conventions, it is my understanding that as per guidelines "in country" is the appropriate wording to be used here. At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Political_office-holders, it is said that in country should be used "for those that group offices of a certain type, operating within said country". As the following categories are all grouping offices of the ministerial level that operate within single countries, I believe using this naming convention is the appropriate choice. Additionally, the category of Category:Government ministers by country, which involves political office-holders of the same level, ministers, uses "in country" for its sub-cats.

Lastly, the word "ministers" in the category titles below is proposed to be changed to "government ministers" to follow the wording of Category:Government ministers. The article of Minister itself is a dab article, linking to three possible meanings, Minister (government), Minister (religion), and Minister (diplomacy). Currently Category:Ministers exists, but is only used for religious ministers. The above reasons make the proposed category name disambiguation useful and needed.

--Kurieeto 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Proposal was ammended on May 21 to provide a formally available option for "of country", given the preference for that shown in voting so far. Kurieeto 13:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"ministers in the United Kingdom" sounds a bit strange. How about "of"? The current solutions is much more concise though. -- User:Docu

Comment Category:Government ministers in the United Kingdom already exists, so this proposal only brings things in line. Moreover, the current naming is highly ambiguous, and eventually Category:Ministers (religous ministers) could easily be broken down by country, so disambiguation is needed. Kurieeto 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government ministers in the United Kingdom is nearly empty, that is it holds 3 subcategories all of which are named with "of" rather than "in". -- Cheers. -- User:Docu

Rename all preferring "of country" form. Several of the Category:Government ministers by country already use "of" (Sweden, Singapore, New Zealand). But I'll note this is against the large number of other category renames that have taken place lately, claiming that people should be "fooian title", as in Category:Scottish musicians, so then it should be Category:Lists of Scottish government ministers, etc. --William Allen Simpson 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "Fooian government ministers" is people like Patricia Hewitt - she was born in Australia, and as such could be considered an Australian British government minister. I'd prefer "of country" to "in country", since they are members of the government of a country, rather than members of a government, in a (possibly different) country. Hope that made sense. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, using “of” rather than “in” for the sake of clarity. -- Olve 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reasons for in rather than of in the other categories is that of connotes jurisdiction over the object modified by it, and quite frequently this isn't the case. For example, the minister in charge of public works or whatever as part of the Welsh Assembly Government should not be described as a minister of the United Kingdom because that would imply the post exercises authority over the whole UK, when in fact it's a quasi-federal setup with limited competence. Am I making sense? The Tom 03:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, The Tom... Is there a consensus somewhere for this view: "of connotes jurisdiction over the object modified by it"...? I'd say reading "a minister of Fooland" as "a Fooland minister" – in the sense of "to be associated with" or "belonging to"/"accountable to" Fooland – is just as likely (if not more so) as reading it as "a minister with jurisdication over Fooland".

"The Fooland minister Jane Doe said today that..." reads to me as equivalent to:

"Jane Doe, a minister of Fooland, said today that...".

I think "in" appears in statements such as:

"Jane Doe, a minister in Smith's government, said today...".

So I guess I'd go with "of" a country and "in" a government (or governmental organization). Hope all that in turn makes some sense and/or I haven't misunderstood your point. Regards, David Kernow 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A possible conflict is that a Category:Lists of ministers of Germany couldn't be used for a list of member of German Laender minister presidents. As in general, one would hardly want to group them together with the ones of the Federal government, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

BTW as the category is for lists, I doubt one could come up with a list of German ministers for another country, but Germany, thus we might as well stay with the current name. -- User:Docu

Keep as is (see comments above). -- User:Docu

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

Category:Transnational companies headquartered in Hong Kong

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to rename Category:Transnational companies headquartered in Hong Kong to Category:Multinational companies headquartered in Hong Kong. This category is a child of Category:Multinational companies, and its renaming is proposed for reasons of consistency of wording. Kurieeto 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've heard the two words used, multinational is for a company which operates in more than one country and transnational is for companies which are beyond being based in any country above others. I'm not sure how widespread that usage is though. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Multinational is by far the more common term, and the other one is rather POV. Choalbaton 08:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:19, 22 May 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 page.

Category:Jewish South Africans to Category:South African Jews

Category:Jewish Mexicans to Category:Mexican Jews

Category:Jewish Guatemalans to Category:Guatemalan Jews

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

The result of the debate was Merge for all three. Vegaswikian 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication; merge. Marcus 15:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [all] Hawkestone 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and listify, discussion later on page. --William Allen Simpson 09:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "listify" mean? Makes no sense.
  - See above. Regards, David Kernow 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all IZAK 19:30, 24 May 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 page.

Category:Leaders of cities in Nevada

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

The result of the debate was no consensus whether to keep or rename. Conscious 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, "leaders of cities" is not a good alternative to "mayors". Second, there are only 56 named individuals in Category:Mayors. So even if "leaders of cities" was changed to "mayors", there is no need for this category, because there is no need to create subcategories (Mayors in Nevada, Mayors in California, Mayors in South Dakota, etc.) for the Mayors category. John Broughton 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several similar subcategories of Category:Leaders of cities in the United States, logically you'd need to delete all others as well. The individuals in Category:Mayors are mainly of countries or cities without their own subcategory. -- User:Docu

Keep. As Docu points out, this is part of a series of categories. Also, "leaders of cities" is perfectly reasonable nomenclature, as it allows for the inclusion of city managers in the category. - EurekaLott 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see several problems with these categories. Are they for current leaders? Since these include city managers, are city managers now notable? How about members of the local development agency or the convention board or the school board? The categories could be of value if they were focused and it was clear what is the intended inclusion criteria for these categories. Vegaswikian 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that these categories are intended for current and former municipal chief executives. A few states have "local politicians" categories for other notable politicians who don't fit in the other categories. - EurekaLott 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- City managers are notable in notable cities without Mayors, or where the "Mayor" title is an honorific carried by the leader of the city council (legislative) instead of the actual city executive. There is a lot of variation, so a nice generic category name makes sense. --William Allen Simpson 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem creating a Category:City managers if the need arises. Vegaswikian 17:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Agreed that "leaders of cities" is an awful title, when their official title is, in the large majority of cases, "mayor." For city managers, who perform a related (but very different) role than mayors, there should be a separate category. Same for other local politicos, when of course they meet notability standards. Categories for mayors by U.S. state should absolutely be created/kept. If for some reason a state has mayors and, say, "generalissimos" heading up cities, then two subcategories would be in order. Paul 04:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:Mayors of cities in Nevada. If you look at entries in many of these categories you will find articles like George Baer, Jr. not a city leader from the article. Most of the other entries clearly cover mayors so simply avoid the confusion and rename to mayors. This would cover everything with the same form. Vegaswikian 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that in Category:Mayors by country a parent category, this is the only category that does not contain the word mayor. So the form would appear to be non standard. Vegaswikian 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mayors of cities in Nevada (if those for other US states are renamed as well). -- User:Docu

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

All ethnicity category pages

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Closer note: Between this debate and the one over here, which have large areas of overlap to each other, I see strong opposition to the deletion. But beyond that, those that protest the lack of complete tagging are correct. For a proposal of this scope, every category affected should be tagged, and all should be listed here so that anyone wishing to debate the proposal can see exactly what is being proposed. - TexasAndroid 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by ethnic or national descent
Category:People by ethnic or national origin
Category:People by race or ethnicity
delete all, the result of discussion recently in voting on category deletion made of pages on the topic of ethnicity. the point s been effectively made (as i now see it) that maintaining such cat pages requires both too much POV consideration given how open-ended description of the term "ethnicity" is and doing so would require a form of original research in that it seems necessary to declare at the top of such cat pages how many generations back and/or what percentage of descent one considers appropriate where such description does not (of course) exist in literature on the topic.

(the nomination here is not meant to effect emigrants/immigrants per se category pages as description of this activity does not violate categorisation policy) will tag sub-cat pages once voting takes shape Mayumashu 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Whis is this comment in parenthesis supposed to mean? Thanks Hmains 20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The ideal Wikipedia would not have these, but the only way to remove them all permanently will be to create thousands of banned categories, as many users like them and they will keep blocking up unless a massive effort is made to stop it. I don't know whether it is worth attempting that. CalJW 16:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories should remain and not be deleted. I believe these are something of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Lots of people want to know about 'origins', be they ethnic or national, however defined. The prime consideration should be 'what is useful to readers', not 'what is the work involved for editors'. Thanks Hmains 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't need to do origional research to categorise like that. Find a source stating the ethnicity of a person, put it in the article, and then categorise. If there is no source or the information is too tangential to be put in the article, don't categorise. Simple enough, although it does mean occasionaly checking the categorise to see who has been recently added. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all because the categories are impossible to define. Inclusion is entirely subjective and the need to do so is misguided. Maybe a category for people that have immigrated to other countries would be more appropriate. Category:Italian-Americans is a great example of the ethinc category gone bad. Cacophony 02:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore a 'consideration for delete' notice needs to be added each and every one of the categories that is proposed for deletion, not just a one or a couple of the categories. Each category also needs to be listed here so everyone will know what exactly is being talked about. Thanks Hmains 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, useful categorization when used properly, if we delete these on the basis of the nomination, we would delete all religion categories and most occupation categories (which are mostly POV, but a consensus POV). Carlossuarez46 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I am not a fan of these categories for the reasons that they will always be ill-defined and subjective. (It is certainly my impression that they are vastly over-used by that segment of Wikipedians whose main interest is the biographies of celebrities)! However, I have to recognise my own POV in this - which is that I find all such descriptions applied to anyone other than oneself to be potentially limiting and misdefining - and not overplay this. Clearly, not all "ethnicities" are equal. Some are widely recognised within their own countries; however much I might consider the term Italian American to be ultimately of questionable use, it is clearly a term that has meaning and which is used by people to refer to themselves and to refer to others. My main objection has always been to terms that attempt to sandwich two nationalities together and claim this as an ethnicity, rather than alluding to a genuinely existing community of people. As far as I can see, you can't be French-British; you're either French, British, simultaneously both wholly French and wholly British (i.e. have dual nationality) or you're British and happen to have a (great) (grand)parent who had French nationality; this is because nationality is a definable legal concept. The reasonable exception to this might be where there exists a community in one country who all originate from another country and continue to intermarry largely within their own community and continue to maintain a culture that differs significantly from the culture of the "host" country. This might be termed the "Italian-American exception" (though it seems to me a lot easier to make this argument about Americans at the start of the last century than it does today); there is an Italian-American community in a way that there isn't a French-British one (or indeed a French-American one!). However, there are also ethnic groups distinct from national origin. For example, there are Jews of many different nationalities and "Jewish" is not a legal nationality. I am in two minds if it is useful to have cats of Polish Jews, Spanish Jews, Welsh Jews etc. - I note that when such cats have come up before, a number of people who said they were Jewish were strongly in favour and a number who said they were Jewish were strongly opposed - but Jews are clearly an "ethnic" group. On this basis I can't support a total removal of all ethnicity cats which, as CalJW says, would constantly be re-created in any case; I will continue to grudgingly support ethnic cats that refer to real communities of people and seek to delete those that are spurious co-incidences of ancestry. Valiantis 15:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps categorization for this subject could be performed exclusively on the basis of verifiable self-identification to an ethnicity? Kurieeto 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this hornet's nest. There is already plenty revert warring because of these cats. I advise their author to find something more useful to do. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete because of real risks of OR and POV on these cats (there are already plenty of edit wars going on 'em too...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and listify -- better maintained as lists, as they often need considerable annotation. The lists should be limited to verified self-identification. This decision should be well documented. --William Allen Simpson 09:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - listify if anyone really can be bothered.--Smerus 10:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and listify as per William Allen Simpson, re: self-identification and annotation. Kurieeto 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Several such CfD votings run at this moment - these should be merged into single section. Pavel Vozenilek 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very much opposed. Proponents of this change have still failed to properly advise editors of this proposed change. Posting a notice of deletion only on the topmost category and saying it is a mass deletion [of the hundreds of categories below it] is insufficient, if not a violation of process. It will certainly also be a surprise to all the editors of articles who have placed their bio articles into these categories and who will have no notice that the categories they use are about to disappear. This whole proposal should be set aside until, and if, an adequate notification system for mass category deletes is determined and implemented. Thanks Hmains 20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator notice -- Second vote above. At this point, the debate is 80% (8d:2k), and this page was listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working#Discussions completed Closing in progress. Hmains began contacting users, resulting in vote stacking out of the sight of the regular CfD discussion. --William Allen Simpson 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one was not approached bu Hmain sor anyone else - I found about this by accident. As it potentially affects categories I have been dealing with, I should have been notified.--Newport 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them all If there is a lot of edit warring then the product of the wars will be a compromise between the differing opinions, resulting in a distilled article. A lot of arcticles are subjective on Wiki, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. We'll get citations for the articles. This won't be a problem. -- Dark Tichondrias
Delete all. Categories are binary. You're in or out. You can't explain what source is used or if the matter is contested. These categories are inevitable misused by editors who don't bother explaining or sourcing the designation in the article. Don't listify. In theory a list could do a much better job, because you could give annotation, and proper citations. But that won't every happen. We know how such lists work. They'ld only compound the problem, with uncited redlinks. --Rob 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all These categories are very popular; it would be a major change of policy to delete them, and should be discussed in a wider forum after notifying every editor who has created these categories or added many names to them. --Newport 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in one cat. it's a useful cat.--Dangerous-Boy 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are useful. --Lukobe 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this cfd is quite ridiculously void as virtually none of the categories in question have been tagged (including all those in Category:Black people and Category:African Americans) and even those that have don't link to this discussion. If someone wants to do this they will have to tag every sub category. Arniep 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and I can guarantee that if these hundreds of categories are deleted, hundreds of identical categories will be created by hundreds of the same sorts of people who created them originally. Rmhermen 19:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify as above. Popularity and chances of recreation are not valid reasons to keep: popular doesn't mean well-thought-out, and recreation doesn't preclude subsequent deletion. The problem, as noted as above, is that people's ethnicity is not generally binary and often needs substantial annotation and referencing. Substantial need not mean extensive: but even one sentence on ethnicity is too much for the category system to handle. A sentence in "List of Heffleburgian Americans" saying "Florgius van Hinkmix: singer and actress. Mother born in Heffleburg, father born in the United States to a Pandorian mother and Hefflburgian father (source:Florgius van Hinkmix: Life of a Star, Yetanovver Celebbiobasher, Ritzy Press (1995), ISBN 0-306-40615-2, p. 20)" says a lot more about Hinkmix's Heffleburgian status than simply including the Hinkmix article under Category:Heffleburgian Americans and having a row over whether it belongs in Category:Pandorian Americans too. TheGrappler 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note this nomination was invalid as the relevant categories were not tagged for deletion.Arniep 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly suggest that this CfD nomination be declared invalid since, as stated by User:Arniep, proper procedure was not followed. These three categories include numerous sub-categories which should have been tagged before putting them up for CfD. Tony the Marine 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the present. I haven't worked out all the ins and outs of this, but it's clearly absurd to try to settle a major issue like this in a hole in a corner with no proper discussion. A full-scale debate on its own page is needed. --Brownlee 11:56, 31 May 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 page.

Botanical gardens in the United States

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to rename the following sub-cats of Category:Botanical gardens in the United States to follow the "in" wording intended by the name of its parent. This will also conform nicely to the "in" wording of Category:Landmarks in the United States, and the "in" wording of other permanently located man-made entities outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (catgories).

--Kurieeto 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but it bothers me that these categories exclude non-Botanical gardens. CalJW 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make Category:Botanical gardens in/of the United States a subcategory within a more general Category:Gardens in/of the United States that also carries the non-botanical gardens...?

Yup, we've got Category:Gardens in the United States by state that has one sub-cat, Category:Florida gardens, which in turn has only Category:Florida botanical gardens as a sub-cat. I'll pop in a CFR for Florida gardens later today. Kurieeto 09:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Sulfur 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Olve 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. David Kernow 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Even though changing the first word makes finding the differentiator more difficult, in a similar manner to the Wikipedian practice of putting a person's first name first. Bejnar 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. I added the U.S. state designation to the Georgia category. LeRoi 13:34, 26 May 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 page.

Category:Headphones albums

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One-entry band promo Femto 10:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band is non notable. Afonso Silva 11:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, get the article deleted first, then the category can go away. Not the other way around. If the article stays, the category has to stay.--Mike Selinker 17:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category and remove from article. Even if the article stays it doesn't need its own category. Sulfur 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Keep until after AfD, per Mike Selinker's comment below. Why are albums getting this treatment? Sulfur 05:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All albums are categorized under Category:Albums by artist in a category just like this one. Doesn't matter how many. I've added a header to the category to reflect this.--Mike Selinker 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since we always categorise albums this way. If the article disappears we can get rid of the category, but not before.
Keep, as per above. Lankiveil 06:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories, and Category:Albums by artist. But of course. -- Mattbrundage 13:10, 21 May 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 page.

Category:Storyscape

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles in this category have been deleted. *evil grin* Conscious 07:24, 20 May 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 page.

Category:Top 8

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than and makes duplicate with Category:Top 10. Puzzlet Chung 04:36, 20 May 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 page.

Category:Top 10

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 21:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Also now nominated. Bhoeble 07:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I agree that we can't have both. Since there was just a no-consensus vote, I say delete this one until consensus can be reached.--Mike Selinker 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment refers to the first nominated category:Top 8 only. Bhoeble 07:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both As this is the better of the two and the attempt to get the other deleted failed, they should both go. Bhoeble 07:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Ironically, they don't contain 8 and 10 entries, respectively. Use Category:Fundamental if you wish. Conscious 07:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this kind of thing has been deleted going back to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Main page. --William Allen Simpson 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Top 10 did have 10 until whoever created Top 8 messed it up. In any case I believe these are supposed to be fundamental categories that have no parents, so Merge to Category:Fundamental. --JeffW 02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Conscious and JeffW are missing the point. Everything is supposed to go back to Category:Categories - all other categories should be categorized. These are designed to make it easy to find things, while Category:Fundamental is supposed to be a starting place for categorizing everything. Brian Jason Drake 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. Now, what should be in the Top8/10 category? Most important things? Mathematics? Society? Why not history, or art, or politics? This is too subjective, IMO. Conscious 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably Top 8/10 and Fundamental are all too subjective. Brian Jason Drake 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I've never used them anyway and I can't see many people typing either into the search box or otherwise looking for such a start point. It is more natural to dive in somewhere in the middle of the category hierarchy. Choalbaton 08:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I think the original idea was to have a category that mirrored the categories on the main page (now we have portals instead). It seems pretty stupid. Brian Jason Drake 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, although the main 8 current portals on the main page totally leave out philosophy and religion and are definitely not a full replacement for what Top 10 was intended to do.--ragesoss 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per above. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 02:55, 27 May 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 page.

Category:Islamophobia

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Conscious 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is based upon a neologism that is currently in the process of fully entering the English lexicon (see Islamophobia AfD #2) about which Wikipedia has an Islamophobia article . This neologism is highly disputed and as such to have a category using it greatly reduces Wikipedia's neutrality about it and its development. This term is sooner divisive and inflammatory and as such so is a category based upon it. Netscott 04:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I neglected to mention that this word is frequently used to pejoratively inhibit very valid criticism of Islam. This too is a significant part of the reason that for neutrality reasons this category should be deleted or renamed to Anti-Islam sentiment or Anti-Muslim sentiment. Netscott 09:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This neologism only entered into the English language in 1991 and then it only started to become known after 2001, it behooves Wikipedia for neutrality reasons to delete or rename this cat with haste. Netscott 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Wikipedia's own guidelines address the issue of neologisms see: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, further reasoning for removal of this category. Netscott 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even this category's own creator admitted that the term isn't solidified, "when the term is solidified the cat can be renamed". Categories using terms that aren't solidified is bad, please speedy delete/rename. Netscott 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right I said below that that "if Islamophobia is a neologism subject to change, as Netscott claims, its associated category can be renamed as necessary" -- I am trying to accept your position that it is indispute at face value in order to achieve consensus. Also this doesn't qualify as speedy since it is clearly disputed. Also I note that you lost your AfD on the Islamophobia article 30 to 5, which is a huge margin. --Ben Houston 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting choice of words, "your", since when does anyone own anything here on Wikipedia? I'm wondering if your mentioning of the AfD vote (to support your making of this cat?) is another example of a false analogy logical fallacy. What was the point you were trying to make by citing that vote result? Netscott 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is filled with recently coined terms such as podcast (coined in 2004) and bling-bling (1999). There are more than a million references to the term Islamophobia in Google at this moment -- thus metaphorically it is a bit late to be closing the barn door. And frankly, I strongly believe Netscott is overestimating the influence of a Wikipedia category -- especially in the face of over 1 million Google hits on the term. Also, if he does want to rename this category, can he suggest a more appropriate name? --Ben Houston 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhouston's terminology comparisions are irrelevant due to the fact that they are a prime example of a false analogy logical fallacy. The terms he's cited are neither related to social commentary nor disputed and as such do not compare to the highly disputed term islamophobia. Netscott 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete/rename as nom. Netscott 07:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep/Rename - As the creator of the category (as well as about dozen other accepted categories) I can not understand the argument of Netscott for its non-existence. Even if the term "Islamophobia" is a neologism, Netscott does not deny that the underlying concept is valid. The underlying concept of anti-Islamism or Islamophobia or whatever you want to call it is discussed and is directly relevant to numerous articles within Wikipedia. As such, the concept is deserving of a category -- much like the categories Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Anti-Catholicism. If Islamophobia is a neologism subject to change, as Netscott claims, its associated category can be renamed as necessary. Just because the term Islamophobia is subject to change does not mean all work in Wikipedia associated with the concept must halt -- to make that claim, as it seems implicit in Netscotts request to delete this category, seems POV from my non-involved viewpoint. If Netscott wanted to show good faith I propose that he suggests that the category be renamed rather than deleted. --Ben Houston 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I tried populating this category but Netscott followed me around depopulating it. IMO Netscott is a little too passionate about his belief that this category should not exist -- I am not sure what is up but there is clearly more to the matter than he is letting on. --Ben Houston 05:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not depopulating undisputed articles (ie: Annual Islamophobia Awards) but merely articles whose events/individuals have not been determined to be examples of islamophobia by a significant body of neutral points of view. With the exception of 2005 Cronulla riots (which merely has a see also link to Islamophobia), the articles I depopulated didn't even mention islamophobia in them... hello?! Netscott 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, you are not being fully truthful. Those articles did mentioned the terms anti-Islamic or Muslim xenophobia or Islamophobic -- just not the full term "Islamophobia". --Ben Houston 06:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those articles specifically utilize the term islamophobia (particularly as determined by a body of neutral points of view on thier issues) they do not merit being a part of any category labeled with that term. And remember this cat is marked for deletion due to neutrality concerns as well. Netscott 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia == anti-Islamism == Muslim-xenophobia == hatred of Muslims simply because of their religion -- to claim otherwise is disingenuous. --Ben Houston 06:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Houston, If you're agreeing with User:Jitse Niesen below, you're agreeing with me here. It's all the same point. I don't imagine it is your intention to have the appearance of confliction in your statements? Any editor that wants to include a given article in this disputed category is obligated to do so without relying upon original research. Netscott 06:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, you have engaged in multiple counter arguments against this category, shifting arguments as you see fit. And no, I do not think that my agreement with Jitse Niesen is agreeing with you. Your threats to me that I am entering into a "hornet's nest" on my personal talk page by proceeding are uncalled for. --Ben Houston 06:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I didn't say that you were entering into a hornet's nest relative to myself but relative to the whole issue of the islamophobia term. One need only look at the reams and reams of talk (Including the 7 archives) on the Talk:Islamophobia page to know that my statement is just that a statement... not a threat. You also said that I accused you of committing a logical fallacy... I didn't accuse you of anything, I argued that your statement (comparison) was a logical fallacy. Sorry but I'm getting the impression that our argumentation skills are not evenly matched. Netscott 06:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott wrote Sorry but I'm getting the impression that our argumentation skills are not evenly matched. Please read WP:NPA. If this continues I will be reporting your behavior. --Ben Houston 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the personal attack? Seriously... Netscott 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, with all due respect, I agree that that sentence was uncalled for, and I hope you will refrain from similar remarks in the future. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do no such thing. My statement was perfectly neutral. Netscott 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it (the "argumentation skills" statement) was a comment on Ben Houston, which should be avoided. Secondly, the statement is not neutral because of the context, specifically by its juxtaposition with remarks pointing out several mistakes in Ben's argumentation. On the other hand, the "hornet's nest" comment seems fine to me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about Ben Houston but in fact was talking about his argumentation skills, big difference. For example, if I had said that Ben Houston was (or is) an idiot then indeed I'd concur with you but such was not the case. Also it is up to the reader to decide for themselves whether or not my statement means that Ben Houston's skills were any less or more than my own..which you independently did. All that has occurred is that I've been repeatedly falsely accused of doing things that I have not done by Ben Houston (which you're confirming). So I will in the future tend to continue to make such statements. Netscott 12:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said above, but I am not interested in pursuing this discussion any longer as it does not seem to contribute to our goal of writing an encyclopaedia. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before deciding on whether the category should be kept, could somebody first clarify what it's supposed to contain? For instance, I saw you added Srebrenica massacre to it, and I'm wondering what your motivation for that is. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Screbrenica massacre involved the killing of ~8,106 Muslims males (Bosniak), ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly by the Catholic Serbian army. It is linked from the main Islamophobia page -- I just didn't make up the association. My motivations are simple, I am trying to make a category similar in nature to the anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism categories. I started off realizing there was an anti-Catholicism page and category which was similar to the anti-Semitism category -- thus I added some appropriate supercats to the anti-Catholicism category. I then noticed there was also an anti-Protestantism page and figured that might as well make that into a category which I did. I think thought it would be good to be consistent and moved onto anti-Islamism but then noticed it is usually termed as Islamophobia. All the articles I added to the category that Netscott removed did mention anti-Islamic or Islamophobia or anti-Muslim, etc. --Ben Houston 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Houston is talking from a standpoint of original research. Wikipedia isn't labeling those events/invidivuals with the moniker islamophobia but they are referenced in the Islamophobia article because they've been mentioned in public discourse. I appreciate the bold nature in which Bhouston is editing but unfortunately it appears to be from a less than fully aware standpoint. Netscott 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any episode in which a large number of Muslims are called, should be included in a category Islamophobia. Nor should any episode which according to some is due to Islamophobia be included. If there are any events for which there is a consensus that they are due to Islamophobia - and there probably are - then they can be included, and then I can also see the use of the category (though the danger is very obvious). By the way, I removed the reference to Srebrenica from the Islamophobia page because it is not mentioned in the source listed on that page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning. --Ben Houston 06:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Needlessly controversial and helplessly vulnerable to POV pushing. Bhoeble 07:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar already existing categories (anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism) can be abused as well but just like driving a car, one should be conscientious about it. I take it this is one of those areas where Wikipedia quality suffers because it is part of a cultural battle. --Ben Houston 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism denote a viewpoint, Islamophobia does so too *and* denounces the holder as ill (cf. Phobia, -phob-). I'd had less trouble with anti-Islamic (or worse: anti-Islamicism), but that's not used widely (or at all), and we're not supposed to coin terms. anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism are both used and accepted as categories in historical and sociological terminology since more than a century, Islamophobia is not - so far it's a rhetorical device, fit for political battle, not for encyclopedical classification. --tickle me 11:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First there is Anti-Christian_prejudice#Christianophobia as well and secondly the term Islamophobia is already in use for 15 years. Raphael1 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reality its usage was very minor prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks so the 15 years argument is sooner false. Netscott 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bhoeble. --tickle me 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ben Houston. Raphael1 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely POV and original research. Pecher ^Talk 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. POV and OR magnet. -- Karl Meier 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, unless a category for every suffix in the English language appended to each of the three Abrahamic religions will be created. ("Judeophagia?!?") Paul 04:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, Incorrect 12:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Szvest 12:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]
Strong Keep Significant Amibidhrohi 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as the above debate demonstrates there is no OBJECTIVE criteria for what belongs and what does not. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it may be relatively new, the word Islamophobia is in common use (The Guardian, The Independent, Christian Science Monitor etc). --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, though I may change my vote one way or the other. I am deeply suspicious of use of the term "Islamophobia", and it seems pretty obvious to me that many of the people pushing this concept are the kind of people who want to tar any and all criticism of Islam or Islamism with the stain of racism. In some countries, that actually would enable them to punish their critics under broad "hate speech" laws. That said, unlike Netscott, I was not for the deletion of the Islamophobia article - the term is noteworthy and controversial and therefore deserving of an article. And that said, the existing article on Islamophobia is in definite need of cleanup so that can meet the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR criteria demanded of Wikipedia articles. This AfD is about "Category:Islamophobia", however. A category listing seems to be a minor thing to be arguing about, however, I have strong reservations as to how this category will be used. For example, will we see this tag show up articles like Harry's Place, Peter Tatchell, Johann Hari, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and whoever or whatever else is out of favor with Islamophobia Watch? If so, this is just a ploy to tag certain writers as "racist", is blatant POV pushing, and constitutes a kind of blacklist. In that case, I'm dead set against this category. If its simply to group related articles about the concept of "Islamophobia" and perhaps articles on actual examples of anti-Muslim violence, then I have no problem with the category per se. Peter G Werner 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Anti-Islamic prejudice" or something like that and make it subcategory of Category:Religious persecution, as per FairNBalanced.

Peter G Werner was recruited by Netscott (who supports deletion) to vote on this page here [1]. --Ben Houston 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep/rename. IMO category:Anti-Muslim sentiment would be appropriate, because the issue in question is not anti-religious sentiment, but rather a sentiment against certain ethnicities and states. The distinction was discussed, elsewhere e.g., which term is correct: "islamic scholar" or "Muslim scholar"? In google, "Anti-Muslim sentiment" vs "anti-Islamic sentiment" is 5:1 `'mikka (t) 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Inherently POVed neologisms are the poster child for bad category subjects. Categories are by nature simplistic; it's impossible to provide a reference in the category to justify including something there. It is therefore usually a terrible idea to put disputable or borderline topics in category format; simply link to such items on the Islamophobia page instead. If we don't have a category for Category:Homophobia, then this category is certainly blatantly off-limits. However, I wouldn't necessarily oppose a new subcategory of Category:Religious persecution for "Anti-Islamic sentiment" or the sort. -Silence 09:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename Of course the term itself is noteworthy and shouldn't be deleted, but as a category is inherenly POV, as the term was created as a way to negatively label anyone who speaks negatively of Islam. Per above, another category such as "Anti-Islamic sentiment" or "Critics of Islam" (i.e. there is a "Critics of Scientology" category) --FairNBalanced 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott (who supports deletion) contacted FairNBalanced to vote here [2]. --Ben Houston 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You actually might have had the courtesy of also explaining how I came to have contact with User:FairNBalanced so that others could have the full picutre on my suggesting he join this discussion. Netscott 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Rename- “Islamophobia” is a logical fallacy. Islam is a doctrine and one can’t become “phobic” of a doctrine. An interesting discussion about Islamophobia is made by Ali Sina here. So I think the term Islamophobia is completely inappropriate. It is an insult to both Muslims (for making them look less than intelligent) and an insult at the critics of Islam (for attacking their character rather than their thesis). Instead of this demeaning term, we could keep the article and rename it to “anti-Islamism” or something like that. OceanSplash 06:43 27, May 2006

FairNBalanced (who was recruited by Netscott above) contacted OceanSplash here to vote on this CfD [3]. --Ben Houston 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Rename- “Islamophobia” This term should be deleted, as it kills debate, we are currently debating the term. The term was created to kill any debate on Islam. It states that anyone that is critical of islam is an islamophobe, well then we should double the size of dictionaires by taking every noun and adding phobe to the end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.206.82.48 (talk • contribs) .

This user has 1 other edit besides this one and that edit was reverted almost immediately, see [4]. --Ben Houston 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The term “Islamophobia” seems to be an expression of a propaganda method not completely dissimilar to the one used in the old Soviet Union, labeling critics as mental patient - i.e. the special case of the ad hominem argument poisoning the well, the presentation of adverse facts or factoids about someone to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that that someone has to say. --Nux
Delete- This is a neologism that fails to appear in any major dictionary yet. Deciding what constitutes Islamophobia is an extremely contentious issue, and is beyond the scope of Wikipedia at this point. Otherwise, every use of this category would result in original research concerns. Maybe in a few years, when this becomes a more accepted term, akin to anti-semitism. Until then, this category is just asking for trouble. Bibigon 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Netscott (who supports deletion) identify this user and asked him to vote here [5].~~(Too hasty, incorrect) --Ben Houston 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Houston, is there a particular reason that you have to resort to false statements? Did you even read what I posted on User:Bibigon's talk page and follow the link to see where it led to? Why don't you cease from trying to demonize me and actually assume good faith for once and know that my reasons for calling for deletion/renaming of this category are legitimate. Also your calling attention to the vote outcome on the AfD I mention at the outset of this CfD is bad when in fact my reasoning for that was also based upon good faith reasoning. Wikipedia is becoming the defacto source for defining the term "islamophobia" which runs counter to this section of WP:NOR that specifically says that edits to be excluded include ones if "it defines new terms;" or "it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source;" as the Islamophobia article was particularly doing at the time I submitted the AfD. Netscott 09:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Houston, your lack of an apology in regards to what you accused me of doing in relation to User:Bibigon is rather indicative of what brand of faith you're demonstrating. Netscott 16:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needlessly devisive. -- Cjensen 06:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Term is questionable in itself. Inclusion in this category will manifest non-NPOV attitude. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:23, 30 May 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 page.

Category:Grail

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Holy Grail. Vegaswikian 00:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mere collection of articles with the name "grail" included. Non-encyclopedic category. Zpb52 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inference that it is random is patently incorrect. Rename category:Holy Grail to match the lead article Holy Grail and remove any inappropriate items. Bhoeble 07:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - This should be renamed to "Holy Grail". Afonso Silva 11:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Category:Holy Grail Lady Aleena 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Bhoeble. Sulfur 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as i'm french, we say "Graal" in general (Perceval, the Story of the Grail) not Perceval, the Story of the Holy Grail and "Saint Graal" came later with Robert de Boron : it's the Grail used by Jesus but not all "grails" are The "Holy Grail"... Articles in french and italian are called "Graal", "Grial" in spanish, I don't know why in english the article is called Holy Grail instead of just Grail

(as the article Perceval, the Story of the Grail) is not called Perceval, the Story of the Holy Grail) Michel BUZE 09:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Because Holy Grail is modern English idiom; efforts to rationalize idiom should be deprecated. Septentrionalis 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Holy Grail]Palendrom 21:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Holy Grail per folks above. David Kernow 03:56, 23 May 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 page.