Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

August 14

Category:American sex offenders

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 no consensus. Conscious 10:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The criteria are vague, the purpose unclear. Orange Mike 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to instead consider looking at Category:Sex offenders and all subcategories I notice that this is actually just part of a scheme to divide Category:Sex offenders by nationality. So if there is a problem with the term "sex offender" being vague, it lies in the parent category, not here. My advice would be to withdraw this nomination and instead nominate Category:Sex offenders and all its by-nation subcategories for deletion. That way you're handling them all consistently one way or another. Dugwiki 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Dugwiki, since all of the categories in Category:Sex offenders have the same problems. I'd support the deletion of them. Crazysuit 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, I don't know how to do that. --Orange Mike 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic. How else are people primarily known as sex offenders supposed to be adequately categorised? Greg Grahame 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People become known as "sex offenders" after having been convicted of any of a wide variety of crimes, so they can be categorized by the actual crime(s) they committed, rather than lumping peeping toms and flashers in with pedophiles and rapist/murderers. Xtifr _tälk 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a hold all category for each country, with a subcategory for rapists, is more practical than having subcategories for every narrowly defined sex crime, as differently defined in each country and era, which would be the logical consequence of following
Craig.Scott 00:40, 19 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.

Category:People imprisoned for terrorism

Propose renaming Category:People imprisoned for terrorism to Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism

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. Conscious 10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Proposed after lengthy discussion

here and here. Briefly, the change is to reflect a more neutral tone, in that the proposed title records the charges made rather than acknowledging the legitimacy of those charges. Rockpocket 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Support rename - good thinking; better from POV angle. --Orange Mike 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename - Per Nom and Orangemike. Guliolopez 01:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this should be renamed as Category:People imprisoned on charges of political offences, terrorism is a very partisan term and very POV.--padraig 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it is an objective fact as to whether someone was charged with terrorism, even if the charge itself were POV. That is the precise reason for this rename, support. Jdcooper 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But people aren't charged for terrorism, they might be charged for procession of firearms or explosives etc, or membership of certain organisations, or conspiracy.--padraig 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People were charged under specific terrorism legislation (Prevention of Terrorism Acts) and charged with committing an illegal act for a terror group. This is the meaning of "charges of terrorism". Rockpocket 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, per nom. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. Scolaire 08:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this cat would be a better one to use if you say they are criminals it could be argued they were not and if you say they were fighting in a war and were POW's it too could be argued so this seems like a fair middle ground Category:People imprisoned on charges of political offences BigDunc 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It somewhat alleviates the problems associated with the Justical incorporation of loaded political terms. But Padraig's suggestion is much better if the practicalities could be addressed. (Sarah777 10:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment -- I notice this category was the subject of a {{cfd}} back in 2005. Can someone figure out the wikilink to the earlier discussion? Geo Swan 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I think that the criteria for inclusion for this category should be clarified, and that the renaming should be postponed until after the inclusion criteria are clarified. People who were never charged or convicted have ended up in this category. Was this by design, or an oversight?
- I was going to initially support the name Rockpocket suggested, as more neutral, but then I noticed that many of the names on the list are former or current Guantanamo captives who were never officially charged with any crimes whatsoever.
- David Hicks did eventually face terrorism-related charges -- but he wasn't imprisoned because of those charges. He was imprisoned for two and a half years prior to any charges being laid.
  - On second thought, even if Hicks didn't merit inclusion here prior to his guilty pleas last winter, he did agree to a nine-month sentence. So he would merit inclusion since then. Geo Swan 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Canadian
  Ahmad Abou El-Maati was a victim of the USA's infamous extraordinary rendition
  program. He was imprisoned, and tortured, but was never charged, never convicted.
- Bosnian Guantanamo captive
  extrajudicial detention. He did face charges in Bosnia, in late 2001, together with the five other Bosnians known as the Algerian Six
  . They were acquitted by the Bosnian Supreme Court in January 2002, only to be subjected to extraordinary rendition upon their release.
- Guantanamo captives were not charged, ever,
  Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i, Said Bezan Ashek Shayban
- If the Guantanamo captives, and other captives who haven't been granted the presumption of innocence, are going to remain in this category, then the framing criteria have to be updated. Geo Swan 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- All fair points, Geo Swan. I would only argue that the proposed renaming would clarify that those examples do not belong in this parent category. I don't know why they are there in the first place, but the fact that they are highlights the need to rename this to be more precise and specific. The criteria, as I see it, would be to have been convicted of charges under
    interned, or held without trial in relation to the Northern Irish conflict (here). I would propose that similar cats be used for the people you describe above. On renaming, I will be happy to go through every article and check the appropriateness of the category against the sources provided. Rockpocket 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment -- I have no problem with those articles being removed from this article, and having it merely contain individuals sentenced upon conviction for terrorism-related offenses. If the consensus is to go with your suggested name, I would be happy to divide up the remaining articles between us and other interested parties, and do a sanity check on whether my share really belong in the category.

How clear do we have to be as to what "terrorism" is? One of the allegations Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri faced concerned information about hydrogen cyanide:

"The highly technical information found on al-Marri's laptop computer far exceeds the interests of a merely curious individual."

So, would that be a terrorism charge? A related to terrorism charge?

Regarding those interned due to suspicion arising from the Northern Ireland conflict... There is a set of categories under
black sites. Maybe there should be a super-catogory, Catetgory:Extrajudicial prisoners, which holds Category Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, and similar categories for other countries? Would you be satisfied if there were a complementary super-category Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United Kingdom which contained all the extrajudicial categories mentioned in the discussion you linked to above? Would 19th Century fenians
, detained outside the UK, merit inclusion in the categories of detained Irish Republicans?

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we have to resolve the question of what is terrorism at the legislative level. If the person was charged and convicted of crimes described as a scheduled offence in terrorism legislation (many are described in
SHAC 7 animal rights activists charged under the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act could be included, even though they would not be considered "terrorists" by most people. In contrast the widely accepted implication that someone was a terrorist, although only charged with simple criminal offenses, would not be sufficient. Regarding your suggestion about the extrajudicial categories: Most certainly. There are other supercats that I have not mentioned in the schedule that would be appropriate. This is one of them. I couldn't comment about the fenians without further research, but if there is verifiable information they were held without trial, then I see no reason why not. Rockpocket 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: It is proposed that the re-named cat will have sub-cats related to the Northern Ireland conflict. I would hope that it would also have sub-cats relating to the current East-West conflict, whatever you want to call it, and I think now is a good time for people to be thinking about category names. I would also support the creation of the "Extrajudicial prisoners" parent cat. Scolaire 09:52, 16 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.

Category:Hollywood film studios

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 to Category:Film production companies of the United States. Conscious 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hollywood film studios to Category:American film studios

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Paramount Pictures is really the only film studio headquartered in Hollywood today. (trogga) 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This category should either be merged into the existing parent Category:Film production companies of the United States or kept. There is a distinction between Hollywood and other film production in the U.S., but the line may be too fuzzy for it to be viable to separate Hollywood out. In any case, "Hollywood" is an industry, and the city limits of the place are not an important factor in its modern identity. Greg Grahame 01:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Film production companies of the United States per Greg Grahame, but it might be desirable to make the current name into a category redirect. I think there is a distinction between "Hollywood studios" and "indie studios", but it has to do with size and/or attitude, and it's really too fuzzy and too subjective for categorization, and may not be visible outside the US. In any case, nom's suggested target seems redundant to the existing category. although his argument does rule out the only other possibility I see (limiting this to companies in the city of Hollywood). Xtifr _tälk 11:19, 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.

Category:Lists of films by location

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. the wub "?!" 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of films by location to Category:Lists of films by setting

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Lists of films by location is ambiguous Since the name can be either for shooting or being set in. The introduction explains that it is for by setting, but the title still needs fixing. A longer, and perhaps better rename target, might be Lists of films by location setting or Lists of films by setting location. Vegaswikian 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the name change would reduce confusion for both editors and readers. I think the shortest proposed version "Category:List of films by setting" is best because the word "setting" is widely and easily understood and makes the word "location" superfluous. No confusion should result by leaving out the word "location", therefore shorter is better. Noroton 23:40, 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.

Category:Lists of films shot by location

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. the wub "?!" 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of films shot by location to Category:Lists of films by shooting location

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better English. Vegaswikian 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename because it definitely would be much better English (and I created the category). Would've been nice to have been informed about the suggested name change. Noroton 23:14, 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.

Category:Articles with unsourced statements since April 2006

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 speedily deleted by

Bencherlite^Talk 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nominator's rationale: Now empty 52 Pickup 20:49, 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.

Category:American Gladiators

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 no consensus. ×Meegs 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show in addition to being

small with little potential for growth. Everything here is easily interlinked through the main article and each other. Otto4711 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep This is the best available category for
American Gladiators events, which cannot otherwise by appropriately categorised, and a useful one for the other articles. Greg Grahame 20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the AG article states that there's a revival attempt, if that's not potential for growth... should be nominated after the revival attempt fails, not before. 132.205.44.5 22:15, 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.

Category:24 Hour Design

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. ×Meegs 03:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of eponymous TV series. 1 article in this cat, not foreseeably expandable. Andrew c ^[talk] 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent, also because it's an article in category space and the article already exists. Otto4711 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Hiberniantears 18:40, 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.

Category:5 th century BC Greek architects

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 to Category:Ancient Greek architects ×Meegs 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Besides the typo in the heading, this category is overcategorization. While we do have Category:Ancient Greek architects, we don't have Category:5th century BC Greek architecture, so this intersection is overcategorization. I believe the who created this cat was trying to mimic Category:5th century BC Greek sculptors, however the tree for architecture is nowhere near as complete. Andrew c ^[talk] 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Ancient Greek architects is pretty small at the moment, and is not in need of such specific categories at this time. Hiberniantears 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hiberniantears. Noroton 23:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 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.

Category:Exile

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, but move individual biographies to Category:Exiles. ×Meegs 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Exile to Category:Exiles

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The category is a list of people who are exiles from their native country. The normal naming convention of categories of biographies would be to use the plural "Exiles". Dugwiki 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportHiberniantears 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, instead create a subcategory to contain individuals, called Category:Exiles, as the current category umbrellas other things besides people. 132.205.44.5 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support because "Exiles" is much more exact and reduces possible confusion as to what might be included in the category (although anyone looking for "Category:Exiles" would probably figure out that "Category:Exile" is likely to lead there — nevertheless, it's better to save readers from any distracting confusion). "User 132's objection can easily be overcome. There are two subcategories, Category:Exile organizations and Category:Russian White Emigration. Both of these categories can be made subcategories of Category:Forced migration, although it might be useful to keep Category:Exile organizations as a subcategory of Category:Exiles. Noroton 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 132.205.44.5. Category:Exile should remain for overview of exile and related topics. Category:Exiles should instead be created as a subcategory for people and groups who have been exiled. -Sean Curtin 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move the individuals to
Banishment in the Bible would fit under Exiles or Forced migration. I think Category:Governments in exile would be better as a subcategory of Exile than of Exile organizations where it is currently. For that matter, I think Exile organizations would be better as a subcategory of this than of Exiles. The result, if we move all the articles on individuals to Exiles, will be small, but I think it will have plenty of room for growth. Xtifr _tälk 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok with creating Category:Exiles as a subcategory, but... I'm ok with the suggestion to make Category:Exiles a subcategory of Category:Exile so that articles which have to do with Exile but aren't biographies can be separated out. However, if that is done you'll need to remember to change the category description of Category:Exile which currently reads "This is a list of people that have been Exiled by their country as a form of punishment". Also remember to make Category:Exiles part of Category:People by status. Dugwiki 15:25, 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.

Orphaned year cats

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 Category:2007 Summer Universiade, delete the rest. ×Meegs 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. I saw these at the end of Special:Uncategorizedcategories. These are all orphaned categories that don't fit into any established hierarchy or tree. The Guild awards by year seems redundant with Category:Film awards by year, and I see no reason to split up the cats just for 1-5 articles. Seems like over cat. Hopefully the rest are self explanatory. Andrew c ^[talk] 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I don't see the use of any of these cats. --musicpvm 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:2007 Summer Universiade. No more orphan. The category has already three entries and more will follow likely once the games are over. Julius Sahara 15:43, 18 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.

Category:Steve Hackett songs

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. ×Meegs 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, and this isn't even a Steve Hackett song. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The category size isn't relevant because it is part of the broader scheme of Category:Songs by artist by sorts all song articles by artist. Under such complete subdivision schemes it's acceptable to have a category with only one song article to maintain completeness. Dugwiki 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are song articles lurking out there for Steve. The only content is Steve Hackett discography which should go under Category:Discographies. Otto4711 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Otto. Discographies alone don't justify a songs category. One song does, though.--Mike Selinker 05:37, 16 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.

Category:Pakastini communists

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, the author has now speedy requested this spelling error be deleted. Carlossuarez46 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Pakistani communists. Soman 16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hiberniantears 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - obvious typo. Otto4711 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Greg Grahame 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment my mistake which I just corrected and changed this category to db-author. Thanks

Hmains 02:47, 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.

Category:Australian heavy metal music

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

The result of the debate was delete per nom and

WP:ALBUM --Kbdank71 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nominator's rationale: First of all, I want to admit that yesterday I partially depopulated this category. My intentions were to clean it up and remove all the articles that were included in the subcats (Australian metal groups, Australian metal musicians, etc were all included in this parent cat, which I removed). That said, what is left over are mostly albums by Australian metal groups. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, grouping albums based on geography is not an established conventions. Furthermore, it appears that by browsing other countries, that no other country has a parent cat to group all the metal related subcats (no category:American heavy metal music). Andrew c ^[talk] 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your argument, I say fair enough. BrianFG 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep and create similar categories for other relevant countries. I'm surprised they don't exist already. Music by country and style categories are quite common. Australia also has categories for jazz, hip hop, pop and country.
Oliver Han 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: this appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to create
WP:MUSCAT guidelines before this category was created. Oh, and there's a record label article. Which belongs in a record label category. If there were articles about the music, rather than about musicians, albums and labels, then this might be a valid category, but there isn't even one such article here. Contrast with Category:Music of Louisiana, which is a valid category, with content that actually belongs there, for the most part. Xtifr _tälk 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Nationality and genre are both important in music, and due to the number of articles, cross-categorisation is the best way to incorporate both into the system. As
Craig.Scott 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
That would be fine if we had even a single article that properly belonged in the category. As I pointed out above, we don't. A category containing every heavy metal album ever released in or on the Australian continent would be beyond useless, especially if they were intermixed with a handful of random articles about record labels and the like. Everything in the category is already categorized by both nationality and genre, so this category adds nothing except confusion and category clutter. The existence of other categories is irrelevant per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those categories may be justified by actually having articles about music, or they may be good deletion candidates as well, but they're irrelevant to this category, which should be deleted unless and until articles are created that require it. Xtifr _tälk 08:40, 21 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.

Category:Steve Hackett

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 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't have enough scope for a category of its own. -h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete eponymous category. Wryspy 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per
WP:OC#Eponymous categories for people. This does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline as the coverage of Hackett's life is not divided into multiple sub-articles that are not easily interlinked or categorized. Contents of the category are all easily interlinked through Hackett's article and each other. Otto4711 16:28, 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.

Category:Murdered Roman Catholic priests

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent CFD discussion, many people suggested that this category be renamed, but no well-accepted new name was found yet. I'm relisting this to find a suitable name that explains its scope best. >Radiant< 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the link on the category page was not updated to link to this discussion until 17 August. When it comes to closure, perhaps the admin might allow additional time for discussion. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that anyone on this list should probably be sifted into either or both of the following (or some sub-cat therein):

Category:Martyred priests

Category:Murder victims

Otherwise, Category:Roman Catholic clergy murder victims might be a little more sedate a way of saying this. Hiberniantears 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current name is fine. Category:Martyred priests has different connotations (for one thing not all priests are Roman Catholic), and Category:Murder victims is too broad to be used for individual articles. Dominictimms 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sift into those two categories as per Hiberniantears, although I'd prefer that the "Martyred priests" category be more specific (something like "Martyred Roman Catholic priests" as the category name or name of a subcategory of it) -- that should meet all or some of Dominictimms' objections. I don't see a value in a category that combines priests who are killed for their religion (martyred) and those who may have been killed in a robbery or in other circumstances where religious persecution was not the motive. People study martyrs as martyrs, and I think it's probably reasonable to categorize priests as a particular subset of martyrs, but not as a particular subset of murder victims. Noroton 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (sig. added later)[reply]
Keep and considered deleting Category:Martyred priests instead due to POV concerns. The first person in the category currently under-consideration that I looked at was hardly a martyr, as he was simply murdered by a rival for power. Greg Grahame 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be retitled to limit it to those killed because they were priests - not priests killed in robberies, power rivalries or because they were convicted of sex crimes, so how about Category:People killed for being Roman Catholic priests. (and yes, I know that People=Men only in the Church's view on ordination, but custom is to use "people" unless we are going to divide by sex) Carlossuarez46 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a triple intersection. I suppose that if the category was renamed so that it was clear that clergy are included in this category only if they were murdered for being in the clergy then I could take a different position. Are there so many clergy that would fit this broader category that we need to subdivide by religion? Vegaswikian 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful sub-cat of Category:Murder victims. There is also Category:Murdered Hindu priests; consider adding head category:Murdered priests and, above that, category:Murder victims by occupation into which about 18 sub-cats can go immediately.
For priests killed for their faith, also keep Category:Martyred priests separately, but consider renaming it as Category:Martyred Roman Catholic priests which I think all of them are. I am familiar with the martyrs articles as I did a massive amount of work sub-categorising Category:Christian martyrs (with discussions at CFD) at the start of this year. Fayenatic london (talk) 20:15, 17 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.

Category:People from Suriname

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 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Suriname to Category:Surinamese people

Nominator's rationale: Merge, No sense duplicate with Surinamese people, possibly he want to create Category:People of Surinamese descent. Matthew_hk t c 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As per the nom. the duplicate makes it redundant merge em'.Elmo 14:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Hiberniantears 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Merge - I proposed this page User: David A. Victor so I obviously support it as a separate category.

This is my rationale.

Surinamese people includes people from other nations -- notably the Netherlands -- who are of Surinamese descent but are not born in Suriname. In fact, many of the best-known Dutch footballers of Surinamese descent have never been to Suriname.

Several people born in Suriname who are of ethnic Asian background also do not show up in the category of Surinamese people.

For this reason, I believe that the category of Surinamese people should be separate from the category of People from Suriname.

Comment That's the function of Category:People of Surinamese descent and its sub-cat. Matthew_hk t c 12:23, 16 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.

Category:Articles with broken citations

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles with broken citations to Category:Articles with broken citation templates

Nominator's rationale: "Broken citations" can mean a lot of things, e.g. citations with links to non-existent websites. This category is specifically for articles with citation templates that have broken parameters. It should also be distinguished from

saran 13:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

~~Comment~~: I proposed this category [1], so I obviously think the name is OK, but I have no problem with a reasonable name change. But I'm not convinced that Category:Articles with broken citation templates is different enough from Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations, since we seem to use "broken" to mean "no longer accessible" (e.g., 404'ed). FYI, the category is currently only used by {{cite web}}, but if it proves useful I hope to expand its use to other templates as well. RossPatterson 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: On second thought, I don't think the rename is warranted. RossPatterson 02:33, 18 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.

Category:Christian folklore

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 19:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Religious categories breed mythology-type sub-categories as people want to find ways to prevent mythological elements of their religion which they take to be non-fictional being listed alongside openly fictional elements, and so we end up with category:Christian_Mythology,Christian_Fiction,Christian_Legends,Christian_Folklore and so on. However, we currently have categories for both "Category:Christian_folklore" and also "Category:Christian_legend_and_folklore", the latter contains most of the links included in the former and is by far a more inclusive and complete category. I would suggest that the distinction between "christian legend" and "christian folklore" is so small as to make the smaller more exclusive article redundant in the presence of the more inclusive category and should therefore be deleted. Elmo 13:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Elmo's logic. Hiberniantears 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator, the broader category is sufficient.PelleSmith 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge: Changed to this option as per below.PelleSmith 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge (preferred) or Merge both to Category:Christian legends and folklore. There's definitely redundancy here, but, while we have Category:Folklore, there is no Category:Legend and folklore, so Category:Christian folklore has a proper parent, while Category:Christian legend and folklore doesn't. In fact, Category:Legends is a subcategory of Category:Folklore, so folklore is not exclusive of legends, any more than "musicians" is exclusive of its subcategory "singers" (in fact, Category:California musicians includes many singers, but nobody is insisting that it be renamed Category;California singers and musicians, even though we don't have Category:California singers). "Legend and folklore" simply seems redundant; folklore is the catchall term here. However, if the "legend and folklore" category is kept, it should be renamed to "legends and folklore" to match Category:Legends. Xtifr _tälk 10:40, 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.

Category:Films by shooting location and Category:Films shot in Poland

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 19:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since many films are shot in multiple locations (sometimes as many as ten) this category system would mean adding a large number of tags to most film articles. That seems impractical. In addition to that, for many films their shooting location is hardly a defining characteristic; films often use a city shot for atmosphere followed by a lot of indoors filming that could have been anywhere (and often indeed is some place else); and for many story-driven films it is quite irrelevant which generic city they play in. Perhaps a list would be a better way of handling this. >Radiant< 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and begin list in place of these categories. Hiberniantears 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this category was deleted back in July, and then restored via a deletion review. The only problem is that only the top level cat was restored, and neither the sub-cats or the articles were replaced/repopulated! The key points on the restoration of deletion where 1. It is a defining characteristic and 2. It does not generally contribute to problematic overcategorization because few films are shot in a plethora of locations. Lugnuts 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof by assertion really isn't. Could you give examples of films that are defined by their shooting location? Clicking on some films at random gives me none that are actually so defined, and a few that have a story taking place in a different location than they were actually shot at. >Radiant< 09:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Quite often a defining characteristic. Films don't suffer from category clutter. Dominictimms 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not defining: some film is shot in a studio in Foo, if it's so defining everyone will anyone say "gosh this was filmed in Foo, and if its shot in several studios more cats on the film. Even on-location, it's often not defining: even famous scenes on-location aren't, Montreal and Prague double for Paris and Moscow to save money. Inclusion of stock footage of a pan in a film of the NYC skyline with the world trade center to put us perhaps in a pre-2001 mindset makes the film shot in NY? more cats. And many films are shot so many identifiable and not identifiable places that it will produce no end of cat clutter on all film articles. I recently saw Michael Moore's
Koyanasqatsi and Powaqqatsi which might have 100s of locations each - which they are will be often-times someone's OR. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per previous discussions. Based on the last discussion, the setting and shooting location categories should be kept since it does not make sense to combine these into a single category. Vegaswikian 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man. Nobody is saying that these should be combined into a single category. People are saying that one is important (the setting) and the other is not. >Radiant< 08:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussions. For anyone interested in cinematography, both the choice of shooting location and the way that location is utilized/presented are very definitely defining features of a film. For those living in frequently-used film settings, the way those locations are portrayed is also significant. These cats are the only Wikipedia way to examine these issues. Pitamakan 13:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the result of this is keep, can a admin/bot restore all the old sub-categories and the categories on the articles they were removed from?Lugnuts 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it may be useful information for some films I am sure that under current structure of WP the category would quickly degenerate as feared by people above. If such a categorisation is really needed use "films shot in studio" which makes more sense than structuring by country. Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we leave aside artistic considerations, choice of shooting location is an important aspect of the film industry both globally and in individual countries, from a commercial point of view.
Craig.Scott 00:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- So is catering. We don't categorize films by what commercial decisions were made on them. If it's important, it is better to use clarification in the article, not a tag on the bottom. >Radiant< 09:38, 20 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.

Category:Tables

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 Category:Tables to Category:Wikipedia tables; leave Category:Tables as a cat redirect to category:Tables (furniture) --Kbdank71 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tables to Category:Wikipedia tables and category:Tables (furniture) to Category:Tables

Nominator's rationale: The primary name should be given to the most obvious usage, wikipedia's own tables used for formatting are of interest only to editors.

Kappa 09:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Support per nom and
sa ran 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Support as per above. Hiberniantears 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~, although I might suggest Category:Table templates for the first, for consistency with other categories of templates like Category:Redirect templates. But mainspace categories should definitely have first dibs on primary names. Xtifr _tälk 12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Rename first, keep second per Vegaswikian below. Xtifr _tälk 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reaname only Category:Tables, either Category:Wikipedia tables or Category:Table templates are OK. Leave Category:Tables (furniture) so that it matches the main article Table (furniture). Vegaswikian 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So there would be nothing at
  Kappa 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Correct. A cat redirect to Category:Tables (furniture) would be the most logical if being empty is an issue. Vegaswikian 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? Do you foresee the need to cat:Tables (SomethingElse)? - Nabla 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support first rename. Neutral, so far, about the second. - Nabla 19:43, 20 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.

Category:Marvin, the Paranoid Android songs

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 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Recently created to hold four trivial songs. I will be nominating the songs for deletion also. SilkTork 08:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin (song) - Nabla 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending the outcome of the AFDs. If any songs remain then the category is required as a subcat of Category:Songs by artist. Otto4711 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Marvin is not in fact an artist. >Radiant< 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be the entity named as having performed the songs in the category. I'm not seeing any difference between a category for the fictional Marvin's songs and Category:Alvin and the Chipmunks songs. Otto4711 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons To Be Miserable" include images of the single covers, so you can see this for yourself. HairyWombat 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all the articles. They are well verified, and the only argument for deletion is notability. Well, I run a website with these songs on it and have lost count of the number of e-mails received thanking me for making them available. They are a niche interest, but within that niche there is no argument about notability. They are notable++. I guess the person proposing the deletion of the category and all its members is not an Inclusionist. Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, so there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a Britannica must. It therefore can and should cater to niche interests. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that can do this; it is one of Wikipedia's great strengths. I created most of the articles. HairyWombat 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the articles are not under discussion here. You may want to visit the appropriate AFD listings if you haven't already. Otto4711 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mole: This is not SilkTork's Wikipedia, this is the world's Wikipedia and therefore, I don't think one person should decide what is right or not for Wikipedia. As a big fan of Douglas Adam's masterpiece, The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I must protest at the deletion of these articles. I didn't even know the Marvin songs existed until I read about them on Wilkipedia.

I consider them part of the cult BBC series as sung by the original actor that played Marvin on the BBC. I now have the tracks myself. It would be scandilous if Marvin, is only remembered as the dreadful round thing in the film with Martin Freeman.

Marvin, I love you! :)

Keep if articles are kept. Delete if all songs credited to Marvin are deleted As Otto mentioned above, if the song articles aren't deleted then this category needs to be kept since it's part of the Category:Songs by artist scheme and Marvin is the credited artist (fictional artists are perfectly acceptable, such as Alvin the chipmonk). If all the articles are deleted in afd, though, then obviously the category will be empty and can be deleted at that point. Dugwiki 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge with Category:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Regardless of how lovable the character is, they are finite and can be handled quite well in a list. However I was surprised that there was no category linking them to H2G2. Ephebi 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is not a viable option here because all songs need to be included under Category:Songs by artist. So if the credited artist is Marvin, then that is how they need to be categorized under that scheme. Dugwiki 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification - Keep in that case - though they still should be identified within H2G2 cat. Ephebi 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: songs should be credited to their actual composers, not to fictional characters based on fictional references. I'm sure that
ASCAP does not list these as songs by Marvin. The current category has a highly inappropriate in-universe perspective. And no, not all songs need to be included under Songs by artist. Only those songs for whom the artist is known should be included there. If the actual songwriter(s) cannot be tracked down, then these should simply not be categorized by songwriter. (Though they should be in a HGG category.) Xtifr _tälk 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The guidelines over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs state that the category should be for the credited artist, not songwriter. Marvin, the Paranoid Android is the credited artist, as you can see for yourself by looking at the sleeve covers. Songwriters are listed in the {{Infobox Single}}. If you disagree with the guidelines over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs, and similar projects, then you should take it up with them. There are currently 2000 such categories. HairyWombat 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider it from the reader's perspective. If I wanted to find a song or album performed by a fictional musician or group like
The Chipmunks or The Wiggles or The Partridge Family sung by The Simpsons, and I was using either Category:Songs by artist or Category:Albums by artist to find it, I would expect to find it listed under that fictional name. I probably wouldn't have a clue where to look if I needed to find a song by The Banana Splits or The Wiggles if they were listed under the actor's names. So songs are indexed by the most easily identified credited name of the performing artist, even if that name is a stage name or the name of a character. Dugwiki 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Change to Weak keep per the replies. I still have strong reservations about crediting real things to fictitious characters as if they were real; I think it undermines Wikipedia's credibility. But I agree that a broader discussion is probably called for before making specific changes to an established category (Songs by artist). Xtifr _tälk 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any, think of it as crediting it to someone's stage name or pen name. It's a similar situation. Dugwiki 14:48, 17 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.

Category:Star Wars companies

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 - Nabla 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Articles previously tagged with this cat have either been deleted, or the cat removed as inappropriate. Category currently is empty and, given tighter focus on

WP:FICT among Star Wars-related article editors, not likely to be repopulated. EEMeltonIV 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. If article deletion emptied the category, then it's obviously a useless category now. Wryspy 07:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely to be used again. Hiberniantears 15:43, 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.

Category:Alternative metal groups

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 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Alternative metal musical groups, convention of Category:Heavy metal musical groups by genre. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Wryspy 07:23, 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.

Category:Russian accusations of Nazism in Estonia

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 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inherently POVed, FORKy and WP:POINTy cat created by the user with the notoriously disruptive edit pattern. --Irpen 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's POVed, FORKy and WP:POINTy about it, has there never been Russian accusations of Nazism in Estonia? It is certainly true that all the articles listed in the category have a section called "Controversy" which mentions accusations of Estonian Nazism in the Russian press. Therefore it would be useful for a Wikipedia user to see what other articles have similar sections, hence the need for the category.
Martintg 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, inheritently POV category, reduces serious problem to propaganda accusations. Also does not fit into the general category scheme of Wikipedia. Do we have Category:Accusations of Nazism in Estonia by the originator, Category:Israeli accusations of Nazism in Estonia, Category:Accusations of Nazism in Estonia by Estonian citizens, etc? Do we have Category:Accusation of Nazism? Do we at least have Category:Accusations? I noticed that there are no parent category to this one. It is because similar categories were rejected as POV or unusable Alex Bakharev 04:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like apartheid and cult, "Nazi" is something we should
avoid outside its historical context, and accusations is basically allegations and an encyclopedia shouldn't be titling articles or categories that way. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I would like to point out that category's description is so misleading that Carlossuarez46 did not understand that Russian accusations was about historical revisionism of Nazi collaboration, not about Nazism in today's Estonia. That means accusations are perefectly within "historical context" but category description make them look as if they aren't. RJ CG 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The accusations are real, so out of historic context use is a fact of life. These accusations are a major characteristic of Russia's official position against Estonia, and thus worthy of its own cat. The deletion nomination seems to be motivated mainly out of dislike against the editor who created this cat, after all putting down the creator takes up most of the rationale...--Alexia Death 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my vote to delete, because I now believe that the same purpose would be better served by a wider category of "Russian accusations of Nazism in Baltic states" per Pēters J. Vecrumba.--Alexia Death the Grey 05:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per
WP:NPOV. I would also like to point out that Alex Bakharev's concerns regarding missing supercategories have been addressed. Digwuren 06:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - As per the above, there's nothing POV about it, and it's obviously a useful categorization. Elmo 12:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if at all, you should create an article about this, not a category. That makes no sense at all, and is far from informative. Just create an article summarising the various accusations and controversies with a link to the main article, using
saran 13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep and add brief description of Russian accusations, not Estonian interpretation of it. Russian deserves to speak for themselves, as Estonians and every other group do. I can't believe I side with Korps! Estonia on any topic, but this category is wonderful summary of Estonian revisionism, as soon as we allow both Russian and Estonian POVs be present on relevant pages. In my opinion it should be Korps! who should vote to speedely delete category which bands together official greetings to Waffen SS vets, building memorials to Nazi collaborators, calling Simon Wiesenthal Center bunch of liars and digging of war graves.RJ CG 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a relatively recent development which appears to be tied to internal Russian political debate, and loss of Russian hegemony over Estonia. I think that over time (on the order of years beyond the current Russian election cycle) this has the potential to develop into a component of anti-Estonian sentiment in Russia which could be compared to what we find in Category:Francophobia. However, I do not believe this issue has evolved that far just yet. Hiberniantears 15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's probably a bit too specific. "Russian accusations of Nazism in Baltic states" might be more useful. "Russian accusations of Nazism in former Soviet and Warsaw Pact territories" might be even better, but that's getting a bit long. I would disagree with Hiberniantears's characterization as "recent development." Russia has been officially denouncing the Baltic Waffen SS units as being "convicted at Nuremberg" (an outright lie) and their commemoration as "Nazi glorification" for years. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "recent", I mean the 1990's, wherein current Russian political leadership is still dominated by individuals who held positions of authority in the Soviet Union. I don't mean to trivialize this category, but I think it is part of something larger (which I can't quite put my finger on) pertaining to former Soviet officials leading a modern Russian state, and utilizing a nationalistic rhetoric which diminishes respect for former Soviet/Russian dominated states. As this regards Estonia specifically, I think all of the articles in this category could be grouped with other articles in a more NPOV category on "Russian government policy toward Estonia" or something to that accord. Hiberniantears 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "larger" is "Neo-Stalinism in Russian foreign policy" or "Russian rehabilitation of Stalinism" but those titles would be POV, while "Russian accusations of Nazism..." is, in fact, quite cut and dried as one can point to a slew of such official pronouncements regarding Baltic incidents and policies which are exactly as the category describes. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to rain on your parade, but statement "Russia has been officially denouncing the Baltic Waffen SS units as being "convicted at Nuremberg" (an outright lie)" is bigger lie than the Russian claim. Nuremberg excluded conscripts only from responsibility in SS crimes. Since (1) Baltic SS units included number of volunteers and (2) both Latvia and Estonia fail to make a distinction between volunteers and conscripts in their recognition of Waffen SS vets as "fighters for liberation", Russia is not lying. On the flip side, ones who call "all" Baltic SS units "freedom fighters", do. RJ CG 13:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow, it's not just the category that's POV, it is whats put inside of it. Poorly defined. per nom essentially. Bulldog123 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category has served its purpose in calling attention to some articles much in need of editing. DGG (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the appearance of neutrality, quite the opposite. It collaborates with Russian mud-slinging. The word "accusations" has no place in category names as it suggests a partial motivation. A neutral category would be something like Category:Russian-Estonian relations. Dominictimms 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an inherently POV name, ie it is derogatory, when it would have been perfectly easy to come up with a non-POV name, creating a very strong suspicion that it was not created in a neutral spirit. Even if no harm was intended, it was very clumsy to choose such a name, as Wikipedia should use terms that do not create reasonable suspicion of non-neutrality. Greg Grahame 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll open the can of worms. Name suggestions for what the NPOV category should be then, as it relates to the phenomenon of Russia denouncing any negative portrayals of the Soviet legacy, and any former resistance to Soviet might, as Nazist? — Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about "Russia denouncing any resistance to Soviet might, as Nazist" is pretty far from reality. Educate yourself on

Armia Krajowa. Inherently Anti-Soviet and involved in armed struggle against Reds (regular army units and guerillas) from 1943 to mid-1950 it had never been called "Nazi collaborators" by modern Russian historians. Poles (and, to much lesser extent, Lithuanians) somehow managed to make a pretty clear distinction between serving Nazi masters and fighting Soviets, thing that Balts could never achieve. RJ CG 13:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not misinterpret my comments. The Russian foreign ministry regularly denounces Baltic Waffen SS--whose only crime was fighting the Red Army (the Eastern European units being formed after Hitler had already inflicted the Holocaust)--as "convicted at Nuremeberg", etc. Charaterizations of deporations as criminal, characterizations of the Soviet presence in the Baltics as an "invasion" are called a "politically motivated rewritings (often Nazist) of history". There are reputable Russian historians who disagree with these official Russian pronouncements, however they are not on the Kremlin's payroll.

To your contention: as far as I have seen, Soviet historiography has pretty much ignored anti-Soviet guerilla movements from the end of WWII into the early 50's. Not good for publicity. To indicate these guerilla fighters in particular have not been denounced as "Nazi collaborators" and therefore to generalize that my characterization is apparently ignorant (requiring education on my part) ignores simple facts that can be gleaned from any press report. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not misinterpret my comments." I would not dare to do such a thing. "The Russian foreign ministry regularly denounces Baltic Waffen SS--whose only crime was fighting the Red Army (the Eastern European units being formed after Hitler had already inflicted the Holocaust)--as "convicted at Nuremeberg", etc." And Russain FM is pretty correct about it. Re-read Nuremberg papres. Waffen SS had been convicted not based on battleground but based on the war crimes whole structure had been involved in. Only distinction made by Nuremberg was between volunteers and conscripts (who were excluded on the basis of the involuntarily mode of their service). Since Batlic units included both volunteers and conscripts and Baltic countries fail to make a distinction between vets who volunteered and ones who had been conscripted, Russian accusations are at least partially valid. The rest of your statement is pretty much non-informative, so I'll ignore it. Sorry attempts to ram "sole and uniquely truthful interpretation" of rather controversial string of events in the world's history and thinly weiled accusations of ones who dare to disagree as being marionettes on Evil Empire's payroll speaks more of your inability to grasp an idea of democracy and freedom of speech than about validity or invalidity of views of certain Russian historians. And repeated switching between "Russian" and "Soviet" in description of your ideological opponents jst show how deep you stuck in Cold War's menthality. RJ CG 12:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was found that the Eastern European Waffen SS units were not Nazis. Your contention that all units, without exception, of the "Waffen SS" were convicted at Nuremburg (as Nazi war criminals) is inaccurate.

My use of Soviet and Russian (official) is precise. Where accusations date from Soviet historiography, I use that term. Where I discuss statements by the post-Soviet/current Russian governmental authorities, I state Russian (and clarified as official). I have not made any statements on the work of current Russian historians, nor have I cast any aspersions on that work. Rather, it is you who are doing the inappropriate mixing, specifically of Hitler's elite and murderous "SS" with Eastern European "SS" who only fought against the Red Army. And those Eastern Europeans who "volunteered" to fight against the Red Army did so because they had already experienced the fruits of one Soviet occupation. Again, not because, as you indicate, they volunteered in support of the Nazi cause and were accordingly convicted for Nazi war crimes. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It was found that the Eastern European Waffen SS units were not Nazis." I'm not sure that you wanted to convey this message, but it sounds like "it was found recently". Which is precisely the truth and accidentally is the core accusation made by Russian authorities. I dare you to find any line in original Nurmeberg saying that "the Eastern European Waffen SS units were not Nazis". Nuremberg only made a distinction between volunteers and conscripts, and Baltic units were not totally conscript-based, to say the least. Subsequent American comments that this and that Waffen SS unit (accidentally, core of some anti-Communist guerilla Americans actively supported at this time) had to be excluded must be viewed in the context of the Cold War. They undoubtedly were "Revisions of Nuremberg", plain and simple (how else can you call amendments to original decision made by one of parties without explicit concent of other parties). That's it. By the way, statement "it is you who are doing the inappropriate mixing, specifically of Hitler's elite and murderous "SS" with Eastern European "SS" " is incorrect. It was Nuremberg. I don't want to appropriate decisions which belong to others. RJ CG 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but create "Russian accusations of Nazism in Baltic states" or "Russian accusations of Fascism in Baltic states". Phenomenon is real and very probably those silly accusations will continue. Will be a nice category to get a quick overview of those. Sander Säde 06:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds like material that would be more appropriate for an article. As a category, I think it fails badly. "X accusations of Y in Z" has too many variables to be a good template for category names, and could quickly lead to serious overcategorization. Not enough content here to really justify the category either, and I have some questions about whether some of the articles actually belong here, or are only tangentially related. Most of the debate above seems focused on the viability of the topic, which to me is secondary to the question of whether this should be a category. I don't think it should. Xtifr _tälk 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there isn't enough substance in the subject to have the category at
Craig.Scott 00:49, 19 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.

Category:Gotham City Police Department members

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 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Procedural/clean-up Three different entries were created for this category on this page. I'm replacing them with a single entry. Nomination was made by Brian Boru is awesome saying "WE should get rid of this since we got rid of the other team member categories" and "It's like Category; Justice League memmbers." Otto4711 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like all the superteam membership categories. Wryspy 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Elmo 12:22, 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.

Category:Georgia culture and subcats

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,

CSD G7 by creator request. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nominator's rationale: Empty, ambiguously named categories, redundant to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) culture and its subcategories. AJR | Talk 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I agree here? I think I defined at least one of these before someone added the necessary "US State" in two new categories. Just recategorizing one article to one of these new ones should do the trick. No problem. Thanks for pointing that out! If this comment is out of place, please delete it. Thanks. Student7 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody empty these categories? For all I know, they were supposed to be about Soviet Georgia, not the U.S. state. Oppose deletion for improper emptying of categories and therefore improper nomination process. Do not empty categories because if you do, you make it impossible for people to evaluate them. Wryspy 03:40, 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.