Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 10

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miley Cyrus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete -

overcategorization as both an unnecessary eponymous category and as performer by performance. Most of the content isn't specific to the person but is instead related to her involvement with Hannah Montana. The album and song subcats for Cyrus herself are in the appropriate "...by artist" category structures and the contents are all extensively interlinked through her article and each other. Otto4711 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Kbdank71 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs

Nominator's rationale: According to the article Lake, artificial lakes and reservoirs refer to the same type of lake. Category:Artificial lakes only contains one article at the moment, and in the article, it states that the lake is a reservoir. musicpvm 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Man-made lakes. Since all man made lakes are not reservoirs, these two should not be combined. If renamed, Category:Reservoirs should include this as a parent. Vegaswikian 00:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Man made lakes. Not all man made lakes are reservoirs. RegRCN 14:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger and suggested rename - according to the article Lake, "Many lakes are artificial and are constructed for hydro-electric power supply, recreational purposes, industrial use, agricultural use, or domestic water supply." All artificial lakes are not reservoirs. "Man-made" is not gender-neutral and "artificial" is. Otto4711 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Websters '1 : humanly contrived often on a natural model : MAN-MADE <an artificial limb> <artificial diamonds> and for man-made ': manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings; specifically : SYNTHETIC <man-made fibers>'. So man made seems to be an accepted common usage here since it is constructed. Vegaswikian 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "man-made" means the same thing as "artificial" then why make a change that makes no difference? Otto4711 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Man-made is clear about how it was made. Artificial implies that it is not real. In this case, man-made seems to be the more accurate name that is not ambiguous. Vegaswikian 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "The opposite of "real" is not "artificial." The opposite of "real" is "fictional." Otto4711 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger and oppose suggested rename per Otto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but - as pointed out without comment in Vegaswikian's note above, the term is man-made, NOT man made. As such, the title should be
  Man-made lake redirects to reservoir. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose merger and oppose suggested rename per Otto. Carlossuarez46 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The argument for creation of Category:Journalism scandals has merit, but people are not "scandals". Whatever Category:Journalism scandals might contain, it should not contain biographical articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename - fabrication and plagiarism are very different issues so I question the utility of lumping them together for categorization purposes. It also seems contrary to standard practice to categorize on the basis of allegations for BLP concerns. If retained, perhaps split into Category:Journalists accused of fabrication and Category:Journalists accused of plagiarism, or maybe Category:Fabrication scandals in journalism and Category:Plagiarism scandals in journalism and restrict to articles about the fabrication or plagiarism rather than the people? Otto4711 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Journalists accused of breaching professional ethics - plagiarism and fabrication are not the only kinds of journalistic fraud but we also don't want to overcategorize too narrowly. Wl219 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the
  WP:BLP concerns? Otto4711 03:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Journalists always get away with calling people not yet convicted of crimes "alleged" this or "accused" that to avoid defamation charges. Turnabout is fair play. Wl219 05:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow BLP standards in the articles, then placement will be justified here. DGG (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete altogether. Mere accusation does not justify encyclopedic categorization. Furthermore, "accused" is excessively broad. Who had to make the accusation, how loudly, and how formally? Wryspy 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are independent
    WP:RS. See for comparison Category:Corporate scandals, Category:Scientific misconduct, etc. If you're still worried about the term "accused" then rename to Category:Journalism scandals. Wl219 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment this is a tough one which surprisingly hasn't generated the amount of debate that the murdering doctors did. It is the breach of trust that is paramount here like doctors who kill patients (rather than kill strangers) but unlike a murders, plagiarism and fabrication are rarely tried in the courts of law, so we have BLP, V, OR, RS issues. I don't like "accused" categories because they are too apt to be general and subjective and hence fall into the various policy problems. For example, we have whole slews of journalists working in totalitarian societies who could all be accused of fabrication at some level or another. I think that the cats may be valuable in keeping, but their maintenance and likelihood of BLP (and other) problems probably outweighs keeping them, so count me Neutral if someone has to count me. :-) Carlossuarez46 01:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right but are no-name hacks writing the party line in a totalitarian country notable enough for an article? Doubt it. And as I said before, if there are V/RS's then it's not OR and no BLP problem. Wl219 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the accusation is insufficient. People who were actually found guilty of plagiarism, that's something we should cover. >Radiant< 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except that people have plagiarized but it's not usually a crime tried in court so convictions in the judicial sense are rare. Jayson Blair was never prosecuted. Wl219 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not say "convicted in the judicial sense". I said "found guilty", as in, reasonable evidence exists. >Radiant< 07:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do believe that there needs to be a category of this sort, but it has to be restricted to journalists who have actually been found to have committed plagiarism or fabrication. I don't see any real problem with lumping them together in one category, since they are the two most egregious breaches of journalistic ethics. But I haven't yet come up with an elegant name for the category. There's got to be something better than Category:Journalists found to have committed plagiarism or fabrication. Unfortunately (for us), we don't get to use the term "convicted of", which sure make things simpler. Here's another possibility: Category:Journalists who fabricated or plagiarized (with a clear, restrictive definition on the page). I guess we could do worse.

In any event, as it stands, this category is far too broadly named, and invites all sorts of inappropriate and/or POV listings. I've just spent more than half an hour looking through the articles in this category, along with the "main article" for the category,

The remedy as I see it is two-fold: rename this category, restricting it as I outlined above; and create a new Category:Journalistic controversies, for all those other articles which editors would otherwise be tempted to label as fraud or fabrication.

We deleted all kinds of "controversies" categories because of the vague, subjective, arbitrary nature of the term. Wryspy 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would prefer Category:Journalism scandals over Category:Journalists who fabricated or plagiarized. "Scandals" is the title of the main article so we should be consistent, and it avoids the question of whether anyone needs to be "convicted" of anything. Also, it's broad enough to cover virtually all breaches of journalistic ethics. Plagiarism and fabrication might be the 2 worst sins, but there are others (payments to sources, conflicts of interest, etc.) Wl219 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Historic English Festivals to Category:Festivals in England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic English Festivals to Category:Festivals in England

Nominator's rationale: Merge, It is not particularly useful to divide festivals up into modern and historic. Tim! 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, but for different reasons, the assignment of 'Historic' seems messed up here. Many of the entries in Category:Festivals in England came about because of some historic event. Yet many entries in Category:Historic English Festivals had no secific origin, & are still celebrated/recognised today to a lesser or greater extent. Additionally their historic significance is sometimes not well explained in the article. (Note that categories that use the term 'historic' seem to cause a lot of probles in WP: there is a difference in Brit. English between 'Historic' (=connected to a significant event in the past) and 'Historical' (=old) which can trap the unwary. In American English both words just mean 'old'. From the number of these historic categories that have cropped up in the recent past, the setting of clear criteria to separate historic, historical & other entries appears to cause problems for many editors.) Ephebi 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legacy characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete undefined category. Even if defined, inclusion criteria would be either ambiguous or arbitrary. Also, a category is not a list. More importantly, a previous article about legacy characters got deleted as OR.Wryspy 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Here's the AFD for the article on the topic. Otto4711 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Its best application is as an in-universe relationship, and even there the inter-linking of the "lineage" articles better serves the purpose than a cat collecting unrelated articles that happen to be "legacies" in unrelated "lineages". - J Greb 06:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Smallville characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete the category and season-based subcategories as non-defining to almost all of these characters. It is impractical to categorize Superman by every single program or film in which he has appeared. Likewise for Lois Lane, Green Arrow, etc. Green Arrow's appearance on Smallville is not a defining quality for him. Wryspy 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what about the other characters created specifically for Smallville, then? 132.205.44.5 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restrict only to those articles about series-specific characters. Otto4711 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restrict as Otto describes. If the list of characters borrowed from the comic books is not too large, perhaps they could be listed in the cat's preamble. ×Meegs 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wryspy. Restricting it is impractical to the way Wikipedia works; enthusiastic but ignorant editors will try to populate it with every character that has appeared. Same reasoning as behind deleting Category:Batman actors. 24.6.65.83 06:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an actor category, it's a character category. 70.51.10.227 07:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, restrict, and rename to Category:Smallville (TV series)-specific characters. 70.51.10.227 07:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restrict. There are at least a dozen articles here that are series-specific. This show has been on long enough that it probably deserves Clark Kent (Smallville) and Lana Lang (Smallville) articles as well.--Mike Selinker 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right that those article are inevitable, and warranted. ×Meegs 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But those articles do not exist yet, so don't crystal ball a category. Wryspy 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I strongly suggest those new articles be created NOW, with all Smallville television information and categories from the original DC Comics articles being transferred into the new Smallville TV articles, before taking that final step of removing Smallville info or cats from the already existing, crowded articles. Also place a note at the top of every article, explaining where to go for each character's counterpart. TheOuterLimits 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and then transfer category from the DC Comics articles to new and defined Smallville character counterpart articles, disambiguation notices placed at the top of each. TheOuterLimits 22:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice for recreation if there comes a point where there are the character articles that stand by themselves. If the articles are so small that they should either be folded back into the comic book character article or "Characters of...", either for the show as a whole or for each season, then the cat cannot be justified. - J Greb 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International Hockey Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is redundant, the only article in it is the main article of the same name, there are no other articles relevant to the topic which would not be better suited in another category. No reason for this to be here. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any articles added to this category would be a stretch and would probably be considered over-categorization. -- JamesTeterenko 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Causes of death specific to women --Kbdank71 19:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Women by cause of death to Category:Deaths by cause

Nominator's rationale: Merge -

overcategorization by sex. Otto4711 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename, not sure about deletion In reading the category description I think the category is probably misnamed. It's really supposed to be something like "Causes of death specific to women", not biographies of women who died. However, I don't know that this is an invalid category idea since it is taking causes of death that only apply to women and grouping them together, making it something that isn't a random intersection. I'd recommend renaming the category to Category:Causes of death specific to women but probably keeping the category. Dugwiki 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The content consists of subcategories, so it doesn't support Dugwiki's contention in the slightest. Beorhtric 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some confusion then. The title "Women by cause of death" implies that it is supposed to contain all dead women in the category. But the category description says that this is not the case, and the category is instead supposed to be only for "categories of death which are applicable only to women, such as death in childbirth or death from uterine cancer." So my suggestion would be to rename it to Category:Causes of death specific to women to better fit the intended purpose.

Now as far as whether to delete or keep the category, I'm still up in the air. The main reason I'd lean against deletion is that it the category is well defined and the intersection isn't random. Either way, if it's kept I'd recommend the new name. Dugwiki 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but rename) as a useful container category for female-only causes of death. I would not support a general division by sex, but the nominator is wrong to claim that
  death in childbirth, but not for this container category for biographical articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Point taken on the difference of the names. I'm ok with any new name that makes clearer what the category is actually for. The current name unfortunately is ambiguous. Dugwiki 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Either rename or delete as suggested above. As presently worded, this category is unworkable. >Radiant< 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists by how they died (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - everything in the category is already appropriately categorized elsewhere. This category offers no navigational utility. Otto4711 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Death-by-occupation categories are largely random intersections unless you're looking specifically at something like deaths-by-occupational-hazard. Everybody dies, and most deaths aren't related to your occupation in life. Dugwiki 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a caveat although certain professions may get one killed: journalists, priests are a couple that we have either kept or will likely be kept in some fashion. However, unless I've missed something, artists aren't among them. If more an a random few artists can be shown to have been killed because of their art, then a Category:Artists killed because of their art may be appropriate. Carlossuarez46 17:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not clear, Otto, whether you are suggesting the deletion the cat's three subcategories or not. Dugwiki and Carlos seem to think so. Note that one of the children, Category:Artists who committed suicide, was soundly kept on 2006 March 23 and kept again just last week. ×Meegs 02:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't nominated in Professions who committed suicide. It was left out. Bulldog123 04:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I am not suggesting the deletion of the subcategories and they are not tagged or nominated. Otto4711 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename to Category:Artists by causes of death. Keep as a container category, unless and until the subcats are deleted. Otto is wrong to say that "everything in the category is already appropriately categorized elsewhere", because the sub-cats of this category ought to be subcats of Category:Artists, and it is very useful to have a container category to group them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply I suppose I should clarify something. The category title and description, as it stands, implies that it should contain all dead artists and be sorted by their cause of death. I understandably don't like the idea of the category being used to sort artists by all causes of death that have nothing to do with being an artist (eg. "Artists who died of cancer"). It's possible there might be justification for some of all of the three particular subcategories that currently exist, but I'm not yet convinced this parent category is needed to house them. Dugwiki 15:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, this category is impractical. Unless there are certain ways of death specific to artists (as there are for women, in the previous nom) I'd suggest deletion. >Radiant< 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holocaust in Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete -

small category with little or no potential for growth. Otto4711 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Part of anti-Estonian crusade raging on WP last few months. Pavel Vozenilek 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see it as objective. There was such a thing, and I see removing it as a sort of denial. There is, unfortunately, room for expansion. DGG (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not small, category now contains eight articles and two redirects with possibilities. In fact, the Holocaust is an important part of the
  disruptive edits by Estonian denialists and POV-pushers. -- Petri Krohn 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - The
  Martintg 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per
  WP:OR. Sander Säde 05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, a very strange nomination. Valid cat if not spread around to articles were it does not belong. --Irpen 04:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per original nomination, as well as additional arguments by
  Martintg and Sander Säde. Digwuren 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not going to grow much, unless based on someones fantasies. Suva 05:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and substitute where used with Holocaust category per
  Martintg. The keep voters accusations of denial show clearly how POV this category really is. It is also UNDUE, because holocaust in Estonia was not a phenomena on its own, but only a small part of The Holocaust. Estonian Jewish population was small to begin with, a lot of them fled, so holocaust among Jews in Estonia, tho even one death is a tragedy, with it's below 1000 dead does not measure in any way up to the three million deaths(3,000,000) attributed to holocaust. Even if we include those who Germans brought here to be killed from elsewhere, this number stays so small that making a separate category for it is a overkill by any measure. --Alexia Death 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It is sad that a group of one-purpose accounts denies the Holocaust crimes of Estonians. As could have been expected, they proceeded to the heroization of fascism in a number of articles which have nothing to do with Estonia (e.g., Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya). These activities bring the entire project into disrepute. Holocaust denial is a crime. Need I say more? --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would actually read the discussion(s), instead of racist bashing, you would notice that no one tries to deny anything. Also, your comment very clearly violates
    WP:CIVIL guideline. It is sad, that a group of one-purpose accounts tries to blame all Holocaust crimes on Estonians. Sander Säde 08:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Would be sad indeed. Any xenophobia is shameful, but going as far as being in the member of the "group of one-purpose accounts [who] tries to blame all Holocaust crimes on Estonians" is disgraceful, at least as much as to be a member of the "group of one-purpose accounts who denies the Holocaust in Estonia." Could you identify the members of this one purpose anti-Estonian group among those who voted keep here? Or you meant in general? Because if DGG, Petri, Ghirla and myself are indeed "one-purpose anti-Estonian accounts" this needs to be exposed conclusively to a wider audience. --Irpen 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with you in your expression of disgust regarding calling you, Petri, Ghirla one-purpose accounts. On the flip side, this accusation (together with your edit histories) can be good addition to your Request for arbitration as undeiable proof that aforementioned group is involved in the deliberate spreading of falsehoods and smear campaigns. RJ CG 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I was thinking mostly of you, as I don't think that you have even ten mainspace contributions that are not bashing of Estonia or Estonians. But as for Ghirla, all my "meetings" with him have been either promoting Russia (to the point of inserting falsehood to the articles, [1]) or trying to bash Estonian users - badmouthing and name-calling. When asked for a proof for his blatant lies, he replies that "don't feed the trolls" and refuses to reply. I think his actions speak for themselves clearly enough. Now, as for my edit history (please learn to copy-paste my name correctly, same goes for "Ulo Ogi", I presume you mean Ülo Jõgi), what don't you like about it? I am perfectly willing to have my edit history reviewed - in fact, I've already asked an administrator to do it some time ago. He saw nothing wrong with it. Also, Petri Krohn asked others to "dig up skeletons" from my edit history - and came up with nil as well. Either tell me what you mean or stop personal attacks and apologize. In any case, CfD is not a place for those discussions. Sander Säde 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, that was pretty self-incriminating message. Before continuing about it, I'd like to apologize for misspelling. I've used scripts (Cyrillic and "English" Latin) with minimum number of tildas, umlauts and such for my whole life and concept of four "a"s may be hard to grasp for me. On the flip side, I know that ppl can get pretty upset about misspelling, so I apologize (On the side note, what's the point of using non-English letters for nicks on English Wikipedia? It is almost as inconvenient for fellow wikipedians to use as Cyrillic or Tamil scripts). Now to the substance of your explanations and accusations. 1st, WP is not known as gathering of mind-readers. So you should not hope that your hidden thoughts will be read by other participants. As it reads, you accused group of wikipedians with long and diverse histories of being single-purpose accounts. That is distortion of the truth. My contribution here is completely out of scope of your little chat with Ghirla and Irpen, as I chimed in this vote after you wrote your original message and you could not be responding to me. 2nd, acccusing Ghirla of "inserting falsehoods" based on [2] is pretty tall too. Wealth of sources say that town's name was initially recorded as Kolyvan and it had been done based on the Russian sources, so Ghirla's crime may be wrong wording at most. Calling it "falsehoods" smacks of smear campaign. 3rd, history of your encounters with Ghirla confirms that your interests are different. It isn't a crime. Calling him "one-purpose account" on the ground of having different interests smacks of smear campaign too. 4th, nobody questioned your edit history here, so offering it for check and bragging that it had been checked before is pretty pointless. 5th, you resorted to personal attack in edit summary, calling me an "Estophobe". So, you've made 2 attempts to smear and tried to switch topics twice in a single comment on behaviour of editors you're in "conflict resolution" with. Sounds like an honest attempt of conflict resolution, doesn't it? Would I be Irpen, I would probably add your statement to a list of evidence of disruptive behaviour by "Tartu accounts" RJ CG 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Holocaust-related events in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus or Latvia (to name a few off the top of my head) had been much bigger both in terms of victims and (in many cases) in terms of involvement of local non-Jewish population. Either WP should have sub-categories for almost all European countries plus Nazi-occupied areas in the North Africa (idea worth looking into), or shouldn't have country-related (sub-)categories at all. Let's use consistent approach. RJ CG 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Holocaust was an event that marked nearly every European country; are we to have categories created for all of them? I see no potential for growth of this category, unless free reign is given to particular editors who have a habit of editing articles merely to push anti-Estonian POV. The creation of this category seems to me to be another blatant, anti-Estonian POV created to paint Estonia and Estonian people in the worst light possible. Several editors seem intent on habitual bashing and revising to push anti-Estonian propaganda. I would also like to add that I am by no means a "one purpose account", as my edit history will clearly show. ExRat 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heralds of Galactus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this was considered for deletion previously but it's not linked on the talk page. I don't recall why this was kept when every other supervillain team was deleted. Given that all of the other supervillain teams have been deleted and since there's a comprehensive list in the article

Herald of Galactus there seems to be no need for this category. Otto4711 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Here's why: It's not a team, it's an occupation. In fact, only one being can hold this occupation at a time. So it doesn't fit the definitions used in the team debate.--Mike Selinker 08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think they deleted the Green Lantern Corps, even though, that too, is an occupation. 132.205.44.5 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by the same rationale as all other team categories, several of which qualify as "occupations" as much as this does. Also, there have been multiple simultaneous Heralds before. -Sean Curtin 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs about queer issues to Category:LGBT-related songs

Propose renaming/merging Category:Songs with gay themes to Category:LGBT-related songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with other categories like Category:LGBT-related films. "LGBT" looks to be the more standard term and there is no need for two categories for the same basic subject matter. Otto4711 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Wryspy 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Holocaust in popular culture to Category:The Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: Merge - leaving aside for the moment the visceral disgust I feel at the notion of linking "The Holocaust" and "popular culture," the category is small and the likelihood of expansion isn't terribly great, and everything in it can be housed in the parent cat (and some of it already is). The extra layer of categorization is unnecessary. Otto4711 00:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agreed. Plus the category is barely used anyway and doesn't seem likely to be of interest. Wikidemo 13:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree the 2 subcats are already there, the 3 articles can be merged there. This category does demonstrate how useless a moniker "popular culture" is, what's pop culture in Iran isn't necessarily elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Holocaust Cartoon Competition was improperly categorized. I've moved it to Category:Holocaust denial. Cgingold 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This category is tasteless. Beorhtric 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep but rename - There is unquestionably a need for an umbrella category to cover all of the varied forms of cultural depictions of the Holocaust. I will come back later and spell this out in greater detail as I do not have time to elaborate on it right now. In the meantime, I would like for people to focus on coming up with a better name for the category. Cgingold 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The best umbrella category would be Category:The Holocaust which already holds a great deal of the material in the small subcategory. There is no reason why for example Category:Holocaust films has to be separated from Category:The Holocaust by this intermediate layer. Otto4711 03:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, under the proper name, this category will serve a very useful function by grouping together all of the subcategories and miscellaneous articles pertaining to cultural depictions of the Holocaust -- which may well be the name we settle on for the category.

Not only are there two additional existing categories (Category:Holocaust literature and Category:Songs dealing with The Holocaust) and possibly a third (Category:Holocaust museums) that can be added as subcats to the two subcats already in the category — there should also be subcats for other genres, such as theater, visual arts, classical music, etc. as the need arises.

In addition, I've already identified 7 or 8 existing articles that should be placed in this category:

Fear and Misery in the Third Reich

by Bertold Brecht. And on the basis of a quick look through newspaper/magazine articles I've saved over the last decade, there have been exhibits of Holocaust-related works of art as well as a number of additional theater pieces — in other words, real potential for more articles to be written on such topics.

As I suggested above, Category:Cultural depictions of the Holocaust is probably the right name for the category. My only concern is the word "depictions", which might possibly appear to suggest "visual arts". So I want to throw this open for comment and suggestions for other possible names. Cgingold 03:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. There are already categories for films & music depicting/interpreting the holocaust - by adding an extra layer between these categories and the top one I don't see that it adds any value. However there may be worth in adding a few extra categories below the top one, for plays & novels, which all help to address the multi-media historiography of the subject. Ephebi 21:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I honestly don't understand the concern about "adding an extra layer". Not only does this category (properly renamed) serve the useful function of grouping together clearly-related sub-cats and articles, it also has the virtue of reducing subcategory clutter in Category:The Holocaust. Not to mention properly grouping 7 or 8 articles that are currently scattered among the 169 in the main category. What a bargain! Cgingold 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Cgingold to Category:Cultural depictions of the Holocaust or perhaps Category:Cultural influence of the Holocaust. Category:Holocaust just doesn't do it, from an organization and navigation point of view. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe CaveatLector really means "Rename per Cgingold", not "merge". Cgingold 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alternative high schools to Category:Alternative schools

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Alternative schools is the more neutral term. It includes alternative schools at the elementary school level. Alternative high schools is only for high schools. 167.206.128.33 00:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emergency Rooms in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not created properly and not likely to be populated the usual way. ... discospinster _talk 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pointless category. Wryspy 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an article that has been created in category space. It's pretty dubious as an article as well. Brandon97 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine you are one of the 8M people in New York City, or one of the millions of tourists who visits every year, you become ill, and you have no idea where to go. Yes, all of the hospitals are listed under Hospitals In New York, but that would take time and a concerted effort to search; and there is no background that gives one any idea of where they should go for what problem. So it's not a pointless category when you want this info; and this is the biggest healthcare market in the world. As far as the article being dubious: if you are so unfortunate as to have a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in midtown, a difference of one block can mean you are taken to a hospital with no on call vascular surgery; that hospital would have to transfer you to another hospital nearby, taking up the two hours that could have saved your life. This is potentially very useful info to get out to people. If there are suggestions on setting up the category more appropriately, please add.

• If you are in New York City and are suddenly taken ill or injured, you should most likely be calling 911 instead of browsing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not in the business of providing emergency medical assistance. Otto4711 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are many people who like to look these things up in advance to know what is available; also, travelers sometimes want to know what is around and available, or people that have newly migrated to The City. It is not about providing medical or emergency advice. There are lists of hospitals on Wiki; lists of restaurants; how are emergency departments any different that they should be excluded and this information not readily available? Most ER's in New York City are seeing 50,000-120,000 patients a year each x 50. This is a category about an entity that affects millions of people annually just in the New York Area and deserves its own space. Historically there is significant force as well with stories to be told from the experiences at St. Vincents ER after Sept 11th, to John Lennon's death in the Roosevelt ER, etc... There is a culture and history here, as well as useful information that is unique to emergency rooms and not represented adequately on the hospitals in New York category. mastahgee 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article on Emergency healthcare in New York City could be a legitimate topic if reliable sources found. A List of Emergency departments in New York City could potentially be a legitimate list, so long as it's clear there is no overlap with List of hospitals in New York City. But a category is unlikely to be needed until Wikipedia articles actually exist on the individual ERs (and not the hospitals that they are part of). I woudn't oppose a Move to an article on the topic, provided that the creator pledges to source it and clean it up. Canuckle 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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