Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:51, 27 March 2007 editBladestorm (talk \| contribs)1,674 edits →Category:Anti-Semitic people ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:54, 27 March 2007 edit undoBladestorm (talk \| contribs)1,674 edits →Category:Anti-Semitic people Next edit →
Line 240:		Line 240:
	*'''Keep''' and '''Comment'''. First of all, I feel like I'm experiencing déjà vu, that we've been through this CfD before and yet I don't seem to see a record of the previous results (or maybe it was a similar CfD for another topic, I'm not sure but it is important to have that information when we are making this decision). I think this is an important category to have. At the same time we need to be very careful as this is likely to cause libel debates. --]] 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' and '''Comment'''. First of all, I feel like I'm experiencing déjà vu, that we've been through this CfD before and yet I don't seem to see a record of the previous results (or maybe it was a similar CfD for another topic, I'm not sure but it is important to have that information when we are making this decision). I think this is an important category to have. At the same time we need to be very careful as this is likely to cause libel debates. --]] 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I found the list on the talk page of the category - this is number 7. It is the only reason I have not supported deletion at this time. ] 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)		::I found the list on the talk page of the category - this is number 7. It is the only reason I have not supported deletion at this time. ] 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Comment'''-Mentioned above, in in a looong thread. ] was intentionally removed from the category, because nobody actually came up with cited references directly proving antisemitism. He's now added to the list by way of ]. That is, he wasn't allowed in the category because it was unsourced. Now, even though it's still unsourced, he's back into the category. Just thought that was significant. ] 21:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

	==== Category:Videogame's fighting women ====		==== Category:Videogame's fighting women ====

Revision as of 21:54, 27 March 2007

< March 26 March 28 >

March 27

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Beavis and Butt-head locations

Delete, Article contains but one entry. Even if "Highland (Beavis and Butt-Head)" was created I don't think it would be enough to warrant a category. Lenin and McCarthy

Delete - too narrow and specific, no room for growth, the sole entry is already appropriately parented in the fictional restaurants category. Otto4711 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who can shapeshift

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters who can shapeshift to Category:Fictional shapeshifters

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, A shapeshifter is one who can shapeshift. Simple, short and precise. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 19:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:ECAC Hockey League players

Propose renaming Category:ECAC Hockey League players to Category:ECAC Hockey players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, League changed name to simply "ECAC Hockey", effective March 17. ccwaters 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom. --Djsasso 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hockey families

Delete all - similar to the recently deleted Sports broadcasting families and its subcategories, categorizing family members by a shared occupation is overcategorization. The articles on specific family members are appropriately interlinked amongst themselves (and in one instance the family has its own article) and the main category is being used as a dumping ground for any hockey player who has a relative who plays hockey, creating the false impression of familial relationships far beyond those that exist. (edit: There is also a list article for family relations, which is a much better way to capture the information, although listification should not be required for deletion) Otto4711 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - At the moment, almost any professional hockey player who has a parent or a child in hockey is listed in Category:Hockey families, which simply does not make sense given the category's title. The category does not demonstrate how the people in the category are related to each other, and it could cause confusion if the category contains relatives with different surnames. Even if the category renamed more appropriately and used to indicate people with children or parents in hockey, this still does not seem appropriate. This type of categorization is not done for other professions (e.g. Category:Astronomer families) nor should it be done, as it simply contributes to category clutter. As for the individual family categories, they seem unnecessary. The small number of articles in each category could be linked through the text to show the familial relationships. Dr. Submillimeter 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This sort of thing is much better handled by lists. In a slightly different context, I started Families in the Oireachtas, and was delighted to find how it is much more useful showing relationships than a category would be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Newspapermen

Propose renaming Category:Newspapermen to Category:Newspaper people

Category:Newspapermen by newspaper to Category:Newspaper people by newspaper

Category:American newspapermen to Category:American newspaper people

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to neutralize unnecessary sex-specific language. Otto4711 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom. "Newspapermen" is a quaint old term, but unless it is being used for a male-only category, better to use the non-sexist alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pixar people

Delete - per strong precedent. The category seeks to capture anyone who worked for or with Pixar in any capacity, making it an improper performer by project categorization. Otto4711 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:University of Southern California athletes

Propose renaming Category:University of Southern California athletes to Category:University of Southern California sportspeople

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Misplaced Pages convention is to use "sportspeople" when not dealing with athletics (track and field). Punkmorten 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Category includes basketball and baseball players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Casperonline 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rename per the nominator. Acalamari 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic newspapers and magazines

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic newspapers and magazines to Category:Roman Catholic periodicals

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, More concise and in keeping with other subcats in the category. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose "newspapers and magazines" is clear and unambiguous, whereas "periodical" is often used to exclude daily publications, as per the Shorter OED: "Of magazines etc, published at regular intervals longer than a day, as monthly etc". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose There are separate hierarchies at Category:Newspapers and Category:Magazines. Splitting this category in two may be the best option. Casperonline 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Teenage Wikipedians

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

{{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
{{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
{{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
{{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

{{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.

Talk page notices

{{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.

Miscellaneous

{{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Misplaced Pages. moved to UFCD.--Mike Selinker 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Teenage Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in their teens

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, For consistency with the other age brackets, which follow this naming convention. See Category:Wikipedians in their 20s. — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Close and move to the appropriate discussion area for Wikipedian categories. Otherwise delete per previous discussions about categorizing children for privacy concerns. Otto4711 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pervert magnet. Casperonline 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Move to Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion ~ Bigr Tex 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Operas by Marc-Antoine Charpentier

Category:Operas by Marc-Antoine Charpentier to Category:Compositions by Marc-Antoine Charpentier

Upmerge as excessive sub-categorisation. Category:Operas by Marc-Antoine Charpentier contains only one article, and there are only 4 articles in Category:Compositions by Marc-Antoine Charpentier and its subcats. (see CFD for the other sub-category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Peak 11 Schools

Delete, Peak 11 is unexplained, and not mentioned in the member articles. -- Prove It 13:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a "learning Federation comprising all 11 secondary schools in the High Peak and Derbyshire Dales" in Derbyshire Peak district: see , --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete but open to change. I read the references, but they don't help. This appears to be a category for a NN school organization. Schools working together as part of an umbrella organization seems to be a common concept and most of these are not likely to be notable. Why is this one notable? Why is a category a better solution for this information as opposed to a list or a template? Bottom line, at this point I'm not convinced we need the category and I would suggest all that is needed is a template. Vegaswikian 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if this is a defining characteristic, why is this not mentioned in the school articles? Vegaswikian 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, use a template if desired. Changing my vote 'cos Vegaswikian is right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines

There were only 2 items in the category, and no chance of expansion. Jeffro77 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and repopulate. Useful subcategory of Category:Christian magazines. Haddiscoe 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and repopulate per Haddiscoe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Haddiscoe.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Acalamari 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Violin restorers and makers

Category:Violin restorers

Category:Violin makers

Renominating - see excellent previous discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 16#Violin restorers and makers for the discussions of the previous suggestions. Commentators are welcome to reiterate/clarify their previous comments in this new nomination. - jc37 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Violin restorers and makers Per some of the replies in the previous discussion, it sounds like not everyone who restores violins makes them, and vice versa. However, the two categories are so similar that I think it might work well to simply merge them together into a single combined category called "Violin restorers and makers". It would avoid a lot of redundancy and still accomplish the task of indexing people in the violin restoration/making industry as a whole. Dugwiki 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers because it suits my sense of aesthetics to have the two words in order both alphabetically and precedence (a violin must be made before it can be restored). Otto4711 16:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers per Otto4711. There is too much overlap to justify keeping separate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Violin makers and restorers per Otto4711 for the time being. It sounds like subcategories could be justified if populated, but let's get some population in here first. I believe this is consistent with the input from the luthiers and violinists who participated in the prior discussion. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sea

Category:Sea to Category:Seas

Merge, Redundant. The Sea category was just created by a newbies. — Indon (reply) — 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. I do wish we had a way of speedily merging such obvious duplicates: this sort of things should not have to be taken to CFD unless there are objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- We do: Speedy criteria number 3 is "Conversions from singular to plural, or back (such as, Steamship → Steamships)".--Mike Selinker 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - That criteria is for speedy renaming, not speedy merging. New criteria for speedy merging are needed. Dr. Submillimeter 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Sure it is. The header for that section is, "Criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging are strictly limited to:". No new criteria needed.--Mike Selinker 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Mike, that section is headed "Empty categories that have qualified for speedy renaming" (emphasis added by me). Neither of these categories is empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        I don't think you're reading the same section that I am, BHG. It's labeled "Speedy Renaming," and its criteria cover all categories, empty or otherwise. This can be merged under the Speedy Renaming criteria.--Mike Selinker 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        I was looking at WP:CSD#Categories, but now that I have checked again, I guess you must have been reading Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion policies#Speedy_criteria. The former has the empty criterion, but the latter doesn't ... and I dunno which takes precedence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        Ah, I see now. I think that means that if you've renamed something under the speedy criteria, you can delete the previous category immediately. In other words, that's the second action you take after you do the first action under the Speedy Renaming criteria. That make sense to you?--Mike Selinker 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I haven't nominated for so long time and honestly I was confused to choose which criteria and notices should I used when reading the complex guidelines of the CfD. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Merge - per above discussion. ~ Bigr Tex 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. "Sea" is redundant to "Seas" and also does not conform to naming conventions. ~~I should note, however, that all of the articles classified in "Sea" are already classified in "Seas". So ... maybe a redirect (as a plausible search term) is all that's needed?~~ -- Black Falcon 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, never mind; not all of them are in both categories. Some of them were in "Seas" but were later changed to "Sea" (e.g., Argentine Sea). -- Black Falcon 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:DOS games converted into Windows games

Propose renaming Category:DOS games converted into Windows games to Category:DOS games ported to Windows

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Ported" is the correct term to be used in this case. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
rename I agree, and the proposed name is also shorter. — brighterorange (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Famous thefts

Propose renaming Category:Famous thefts to Category:Individual thefts

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Eliminate "Famous" per WP:NCCAT. I considered just Category:Thefts, but that would result in a "dreaded" singular/plural categorization conflict with Category:Theft. After Midnight 05:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can't see anything to bad about the name famous thefts; perhaps notable thefts would be better - arguably only notable thefts should have encyclopedia articles. Individual thefts is awkward name and excludes thieving sprees that might be notable like the Danish Royal Library, which was many thefts over a period of time. --Peta 06:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Using notable or famous in a category name is redundant since any article is here only because it is notable. Vegaswikian 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Thefts. There is no obvious solution here which avoids the theft/thefts conflict, and I suggest that best option is to live with it and put a clear warning note on each category. "Famous" is clearly tautological per Vegaswikian, and "individual" is inaccurate per Peta, so Category:Thefts is best of a bad job. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Specific thefts As above "famous" isn't a necessary word. I agree that "Theft vs Thefts" might be confusing, and "Individual thefts" isn't quite right because some of the articles involve serial crimes. So how about "Specific thefts"? Dugwiki 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Specific thefts or category:Individual thefts. Casperonline 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:X executions

Propose renaming Category:X executions to Category:People executed in X

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, first we don't organized people by cause of death, so I don't think it'd be against categorization guidelines to delete these. However as they stand there is some ambiguity as to who should go in these categories, a fooian who was executed, a person who was executed in foo (this is the more encyclopedic of the two options and this seems to be the way it it being used) Peta 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Oppose renaming for now. This is a thoughtful nomination addressing an obvious ambiguity, but I don't think it solves the problem. Not all executions under the authority of a particular country will have taken place within the boundaries of the nation-state concerned. e.g. a British colonial execution in Kenya is an "execution by Britain", but not an "execution in Britain". If we want to focus on the state ordering the execution, "Executions by foo" is a better option.
However, I think that there may be a case for a parallel category of "Fooian people executed" for the likes of the Barlow and Chambers execution, which would have the advantage of fitting neatly into the "Fooian people" hierarchy, and probably be the most readily accessible category. My hesitancy is that it would cause a little clutter by adding a further execution category to individual articles (though most such articles are not heavily categorised): we would then have execution by method, execution by nationality of person, and execution by country imposing the death penalty. In most cases, the last two will be the same country.
Oh, keep because the death penalty is regarded by both its supporters and opponents as an important and notable issue, and individual executions are widely reported where the the media has access to the info. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Current Serie A players

This category should be deleted, as all of the articles are already included in the parent category Category:Serie A players. Every time a player moves in or out of Serie A he would need to be added to/removed from this category. Categories should be a matter of historical record, not of a current fluid position. Furthermore we don't have a Category:Current FA Premier League players. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Peta 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and past precedent. Qwghlm 07:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Serie A players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

This category is a clear violation of WP:OCAT (Subjective inclusion criterion) because it is impossible to define with precision who is and who is not an antisemite. It also violates WP:NPOV (and, for living individuals, WP:BLP) for the same reason, unless the people included have chosen to define themselves as antisemites (which most haven't). This category has been the subject of serious strife for years. It was created by User:Battlefield, a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. We deleted categories like Category:Fictional racists, and certainly having similar categories which apply to real people is even more problematic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete massive BLP issues. --Peta 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but rename into Category:Antisemites - for consistency with Category:Antisemitism, Category:Antisemitic canards, Category:Antisemitic forgeries, etc. Unlike Fictional racists, antisemites are not fictional. Antisemitism was (and still is) a real life phenomenon, see History of antisemitism. Unfortunately (my POV), human history is full of hatred, cruelty and violence - and it is not up to us to glamorize it. If reliable sources reliably designate someone an antisemite, his own denial should not cancel it. There were 6 unsuccessful attempts to sweep this cat under the rug. Of course, it should be watched and innocent people should not be added. The same goes for Category:Islamists, for example. ←Humus sapiens 05:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't address any of the concerns. The category is inherently POV, and no amount of monitoring will alleviate that. Furthermore, the WP:BLP concerns are far too serious for this category to be kept. Your argument above amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL. No one is questioning whether antisemitism exists. What is being questioned is whether it is at all consistent with NPOV to brand people antisemites over their denials. You have suggested this is exactly what you plan to do, which is a recipe for endless edit wars. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? The cat is problematic because certain users make it such. Do you have in mind someone who does not belong there? By far, not all of the listed there are living today, so BLP is not a good reason for CFD. We can work on a better criteria for inclusion, but I am against wholesale removal. ←Humus sapiens 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the category is impossible to police. Nothing stops individuals from slapping tags on whatever article they want, and if they contest removal, we've got constant edit wars on our hands. Secondly, the reason that Fictional Racists was deleted wasn't because it was fictional, but because it was inherently subjective. The majority of the individuals on this list do not call themselves antisemites. They have been called that by others - probably accurately, in most cases, but WP:NPOV says we can't make that determination. In the articles, we can qualify this by saying, for instance, that the ADL considers them antisemitic, or that they made specific statements that were considered by others to constitute antisemitism. (All this, of course, requires proper cites for any such claims.) But a category is not appropriate because it doesn't convey sufficient information for an accusation of this gravity. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course "we can't make that determination'". That is why we have reliable sources policy. ←Humus sapiens 06:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ←Humus sapiens 05:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Listify. As a list, no information would be lost. All the entries could be cited, and additional information could be added. The list would appear in the same categories that this category now resides. The list could be linked from all the articles. Nothing would be lost, but quite a bit could be added, NPOV concerns would be addressed, and best of all, there wouldn't be an 8th debate. Saying "Keep" does not address the serious problems that plagues this category (and categories like it), Saying "Delete" does not satisfy the need to seriously document this subject. "Listify" is a win-win possibility. -- Samuel Wantman 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that the proposed list will suffer from the same problems. ←Humus sapiens 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  - At least a list can provide cites explaining why these claims were made, and unsourced entries can be aggressively removed. If things get really bad, there's protection and semiprotection. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    - I can already hear screams "POV!" and impending AFDs. BTW, "cites explaining why" could be provided in the article being categorized. All one needs is NPOV and RS. ←Humus sapiens 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      - I think there are lots of good reasons a list would be preferable; in particular, I think that the possibility of abuse will be diminished if sources are at least required. Neither a list nor a category in this area is going to avoid POV; listifying, however, will provide significantly more ability to meaningfully police the content, providing a better defense against the POV charges. The idea that there may be ways in which a list will have the same deficiencies isn't a good argument against a list: a good argument would be that the list makes the problems worse, which it will not so far as I can see. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        Reliable sources are always required. Some users feel uncomfortable with factual events from human history. ←Humus sapiens 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and do not rename It is used where there is sufficent evidence to be certain, and has been removed from people who are very likely anti-semitic, but the evidece is not iron clad. It is not inherently subjective, for example, when someone calls Jews "Scum of the earth", "monkeys and pigs", and asks God to rain curses on them. Further it should not be renamed to ensure the differentiation between this category and Category:Antisemitism. -- Avi 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Listify or Merge into Category:Racists (yes, I know...). // Liftarn¨
- Why is Category:Racists any better than Category:Antisemites? ←Humus sapiens 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note that Category:Racists has been deleted and protected from recreation. Otto4711 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Category:Antisemites. Inclusion of course is based on reliable sources, like every other category. --MPerel 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as attack category and categorisation by opinion. Haddiscoe 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as attack category and categorization by opinion. Either anti-semitism is clear and apparent from the sourced facts in the article itself, or it's debatable. In either case, categorization as "anti-semite" does nobody any good, and unlike profession, national origin, or alma mater, this grouping is not helpful in navigation. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per other people-by-opinion categories. Anti-semitism is too subtle and pernicious a concept to be reduced to a simple binary choice between the attaching or omitting the label. Unlike atg, a list or article can be referenced, and can also consider nuances of position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Note this CFD which contains links to several previous CFDs for this category. Otto4711 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete for all the same reasons we have deleted similar categories for racists, misogynists and the like (both real and fictional). Whether or not someone is anti-Semitic is often a matter of opinion. Otto4711 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- We are dealing here with millennia of very factual persecutions and hostilities, see History of antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but look in to deleting Category:Holocaust deniers, as that particular category is MUCH more relative and problematic than this one. --WassermannNYC 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. So relative and a potential WP:BLP and WP:ATT nightmare. Needs to be more specific, like "Persons who belong to <XYZ anti-Semite organization> or <Writers for XYZ anti-Semite periodical>. --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete-BLP is certainly an issue. Just because dead people are in the category doesn't necessarily negate the status of those still living. But that's beside the point. It's already being applied unfairly. Note two subcategories: Holocaust Deniers and Hamas. There are many reasons for why one might be a 'holocaust denier', ranging from poor education, to ignorance, to a general dislike of what's been politically justified based on the holocaust. It isn't fair to make a claim of an irrefutable lack of distinction between antisemitism and holocaust denial. One does not necessarily mean the other. And, as for Hamas, well, I'll concede that (or, at least, assume that) many members in hamas are very much antisemitic. However, their only certain hatred is for Israel, not jews. Being against Israel is explicitly listed as being an invalid criteria for inclusion in the category, but being a member of an anti-israel group suddenly qualifies? It's inconsistent, and reveals a horrendous lack of neutrality. Labelling people subjectively is bad enough. Evidence of it being even more abused is simply additional reasoning to get rid of it. Bladestorm 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong on Hamas, check out the article. It's in their organizational charter; they specifically announce their hatred of Jews (in addition to Israel and Judaism). I was going to quote some of it here, but it's long. Take a look. IronDuke 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Too subjective to act as a category, and I'd also be skeptical of it as a list. It's too easy for someone to use this as an attack category. Also note that there are going to be people who don't outwardly hate Jews but who vehemently disagree with policies of Israel that will fall into a grey area. Dugwiki 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a "grey area" at all, any more than the question of whether passionately hating Nazis makes one a racist German-hater. Casperonline 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Per humus sapiens.Baka man 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's just a matter of opinion, and this is not a field in which everyone keeps a calm head and assesses matters objectively. Casperonline 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep For the same reason we have the Category "Murderers." Lots of BLP issues there as well; just because someone has killed doesn't make them a murderer. We just have to be vigilant with this category and make sure it doesn't violate BLP. IronDuke 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
While I have other issues with the Murderers category tree, it really isn't comparable to this category. Whether someone has killed or not is a matter of objective fact. Whether someone is an anti-Semite or not is not objectively defineable. Otto4711 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The category's article page includes a commendable effort at providing an objective test of antisemitism. It avoids many of the common pitfalls, such as confusing anti-Israeli with anti-semitic, and it includes a motivation test (so a yob who breaks all the womdows on a street isn't labelled as anti-semitic just because one of the houses was owned by a Jewish person. But the problem is that it all hinges on a test of "hatred", and that's a weasel word, defined in hate as "intense revulsion, distaste, enmity, or antipathy for a person, thing, or phenomenon, generally attributed to a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy the hated object". So by the current definition someone who says "I intensely dislike all those Jewish rituals around food, so I try to avoid Jewish people and Jewish rituals" can be classed as an anti-semite.
Sorry, but that's just too vague a test and too ow a threshold, and I don't see any reasonable prospect of a more precise definition of "hate". Of course anti-semitism exists, but it takes many different shapes and many different degrees, and a category is just too crude a way to consider the nuances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is a category with horrendous issues that in my view clearly violates policy. Simply the need for a mini-article at the beginning of the category telling you what the criteria are suggests that this category ought to be a list, if it ought to exist at all. BUT it has been nominated repeatedly (six times before) for deletion without any consensus being reached, and at some point it is important for there to be stability in categories, so the work of building out the categories by the appropriate criteria can be carried on without loss of information. As a result, I'm on the fence. Can anyone point out what has occurred since the category was last deleted that suggests abuse of the category, or otherwise suggests a change in circumstances? A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It looks like people will keep nominating this category for deletion until they get the desired result (which may never happen, of course). Contrary to what has been claimed above, it's entirely possible to identify antisemitic people; all one needs to do is do research and use reliable sources. There seems to be an unstated presumption in the deletion votes that calling someone antisemitic is a method of political abuse and vilification of opponents. This is just not true. Lots of people, both in the past and in the present can be described as antisemitic and this description will be a NPOV one; just consult the reliable sources on antisemitism to see what notable individuals are consistently called antisemites. Many people were and are self-described antisemites, for example, Wilhelm Marr, who popularized the term "antisemitism" for the ideology he adhered to. Without violating the Godwin Law, I must point out that there can little doubt that people in the Category:Nazis can be called antisemitic without breaching an iota of WP:NPOV. Whatever WP:BLP issues may arise should be dealt with on a case by case basis; there must be no throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Beit Or 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can imagine a pretty compelling argument against assuming that anyone who was a member of the National Socialist Party at any time was by definition an anti-Semite. And there remains the simple fact that it is not possible to objectively determine whether someone is an anti-Semite. Otto4711 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's not the simple fact, just your own opinion. Beit Or 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I can do better than that, Otto. See, this brings up the problem of sub-categorization. If you accept listing the 'nazi' category with 'anti-semitic' people, then let's see what we get:

Etienne Léandri and Émile Dewoitine are both listed as being antisemitic, even though nothing in their articles asserts that they were.
Alois Hitler is anti-semitic just for having Hitler as a son. (At least, his article doesn't assert anything more concrete than that)
Alois Hitler Jr. is anti-semitic, even though he had nothing to do with his brother's regime (at least, according to the british. I guess it could be a conspiracy or something?)
Rudolf Freiherr von Gersdorff, Claus von Stauffenberg, and Axel von dem Bussche are all considered anti-semitic. Why? Because they tried to kill Hitler. Well, if that doesn't say "I hate jews", then I just don't know what does!
In the fictional world, Montana Max is listed as antisemitic, even though (at least, according to the article), he had no specific political or idealogical motivations beyond simply desiring war. And heck, Tyrannosaurus Reich, in spite of not even being human, is still an anti-semitic person. Wow. That's impressive. (of course, there isn't any indication of his anti-semitism in the article... but you know those nazi dinosaurs. They hate jewish dinosaurs sooo much!)

Seeing the problem here? Granted, these are very extreme cases. However, the point is, the second you try to make sweeping generalizations, you're bound to cause problems. Bladestorm 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing that while the Nazi ideology was antisemitic, the people who adhered to it were not antisemitic. This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. A couple of straw man examples where articles were improperly included into Category:Nazis don't strengthen your case. Anyway, you didn't address the cases where reliable sources agree that a person was antisemitic (per WP:NPOV, we must describe them as such) and where people call themseleves antisemites. Beit Or 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you replying to me, or to Otto? Of course, you'd be wrong in either case, but still, need to know how to reply. If you meant to me, then I partially argued that calling people who tried to kill Hitler necessarily antisemitic is laughable. If you were replying to Otto, then the Nazi party gained so much power from things beyond antisemitism, including preying upon people's vulnerability right after WWI. Not every nazi was necessarily an anti-semite, any more than every republican is against abortion or for war. Bladestorm 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rargh! You changed part of your text to address us separately! Now I don't think mine makes sense! Anyways, the fact that this over-categorization tends to lead to even more over-categorization is not, in and of itself, a valid argument for categorizing. (was that confusing enough?)

However, if you'd prefer to choose something else, then Mahmoud Ahemenijad (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) has drawn a lot of anti-semitic criticism. However, there's no objective way to definitively call him antisemitic. However, by suggesting that the holocaust be re-examined, he's been categorized as a holocaust-denier, which has then recast him as antisemitic, even though nobody would have a chance at directly adding him to the 'antisemitic' category. In other words, he's been added in through the back door, even though he'd never get in through the front. That isn't a problem to you? Bladestorm 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"calling people who tried to kill Hitler necessarily antisemitic is laughable" Says who? And why? You're focusing on whether it's appropriate to call all Nazis antisemitic or just those whom reliable sources call antisemitic. Either way, this is not a good argument for the deletion of the entire category because it can be easily demonstrated that there are lots of people who can be called antisemitic in a NPOV manner. This is a fact and you don't even seem to dispute it. Beit Or 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you're only repeating the same logical fallacy. You've pointed out a case where categorization of a person is problematic. However, you need to make a much stronger case, to wit, that this categorization is problematic in all instances. This is what neither you, nor anybody else in this discussion has so far managed to do. Beit Or 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oi... The reason I was dealing with nazis was in response to your claim that "there can little doubt that people in the Category:Nazis can be called antisemitic without breaching an iota of WP:NPOV." This was outright false, because some people are listed under the nazi category for reasons other than being nazis. For example, Adolf Hitler is a sub-category, and Hitler's family is a sub-category of that. Anyone in his family, even if they weren't nazis, were still categorized as nazis. Similarly, people who tried to kill Hitler are associated with Nazis, in that they tried to kill a Nazi, and are thus listed in the category of that general topic. But, but virtue of Nazis being a subcategory of Anti-semitic people. I did not say that a person can't try to kill Hitler and still be antisemitic. I said that trying to kill Hitler does not in and of itself automatically make someone an antisemite. If you fail to see the difference, I can't help you.

However, my primary arguments with the category also included other subcategories. For example, listing holocaust-deniers. Some deniers were explicitly and intentionally removed from the list of antisemitic people, because there was nothing to back up that claim. However, they are now re-added to it, by virtue of that subcategorization. See the problem there?

People were explicitly removed from the list because there wasn't evidence to call them antisemitic, and yet they're now re-added through the backdoor. Hmmm... Aren't verifiability and reliability supposed to kick in somewhere?

And, that's really the problem with subcategorization. Any and all category tags should be intentionally added. Adding something by virtue of something else, by virtue of something else, by virtue of something else, is inherently stupid. And, as such, your argument that nobody could argue that the people included in the nazi tag weren't antisemitic was verifiably and incontrovertibly false. Since you were wrong, I felt the need to address that incorrect statement.

My other arguments are already listed above. And how do you cite what's in another person's heart? What is the criteria? For that matter, where do you put the citations? This is a category, not a list. Where do the checks and balances come into play? Hmmm?

And, more generally, you make the claim that people can be verified to be "antisemitic" in a NPOV manner. By whose relaxed standards? To me, you can't start labelling people, and grouping them together by perceived character defects, without it being inherently POV.

Perhaps you should answer this: What is the motivation for lumping all accused antisemites together? How does it improve the knowledge in wikipedia?

For that matter, how does it serve the project to support a system that explicitly supports making unattributed additions? (labelling ahmenijad antisemitic by proxy, labelling each nazi as an antisemite without, by your own admission, bothering to actually prove that claim in each case) Bladestorm 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Comment. First of all, I feel like I'm experiencing déjà vu, that we've been through this CfD before and yet I don't seem to see a record of the previous results (or maybe it was a similar CfD for another topic, I'm not sure but it is important to have that information when we are making this decision). I think this is an important category to have. At the same time we need to be very careful as this is likely to cause libel debates. --Valley2city 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the list on the talk page of the category - this is number 7. It is the only reason I have not supported deletion at this time. A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment-Mentioned above, in in a looong thread. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was intentionally removed from the category, because nobody actually came up with cited references directly proving antisemitism. He's now added to the list by way of . That is, he wasn't allowed in the category because it was unsourced. Now, even though it's still unsourced, he's back into the category. Just thought that was significant. Bladestorm 21:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Videogame's fighting women

Delete. A category for female characters in fighting video games - a too-specific cross-section of categories. Also, misspelled. -Sean Curtin 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Otto4711 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Category:Fighting women in video games. Fighting women have become a regular feature of video games despite their absence in real life and their rarity in other art forms, so this is a culturally-significant grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous Australian leaders

I can't work out who this category gets applied to; the people in the category range from historic figures to contemporary politicians, writers and footballers. While these living people may be role models to some; does that qualify as leadership of a community? The criteria for inclusion are too fuzzy and have led to a category that isn't useful. Delete unless someone can come up with a suitable rename or some firm inclusion criteria Peta 04:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It is hard to define a simple set of definitions of leadership for a society which has experienced as much change as indigenous Australians, and which doesn't have the same formal structures as Western societies. It'd be great if someone can do come up with a more clearcut definition, but for all its current fuzziness, it's more useful to have a deficient category of indigenous leadera than no category. Improve, don't delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tehran University faculty

Rename to Category:University of Tehran faculty, per discussion of March 20th. -- Prove It 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename, per nom. The official name is University of Tehran. Siba 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rename-I can't even imagine any possible argument against it. Bladestorm 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Uncommon firearms

Delete all for subjective inclusion criteria. -- Prove It 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. What is the definition of an uncommon firearm? bibliomaniac 1 5 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Subjective. Haddiscoe 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Listify and delete: the uncommon-ness can be explained in a list, but not in a categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Women sportspeople

Merge Category:Women sportspeople to Category:Sportswomen
Rename Category:Women sportspeople by sport to Category:Sportswomen by sport

Merge to Sportswomen, which I had created in error (not having noticed Category:Women sportspeople); I was going to delete the new category, but I think that "Women sportspeople" is such a clumsy name that it's better to merge to "Sportswomen". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we divide sportspeople into two groups, "people" and "women"? That seems odd. Otto4711 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, of course not. Per WP:CATGRS, there are some sports which have gendered sub-categories, mostly those where women's participation is separate or rare. Those are the already existing subcats of the clumsily-named Category:Women sportspeople by sport, and we already have guidance in WP:CATGRS on their usage so as not to divide by gender. I have not proposed creating any new new subcats, and this proposal relates simply to container categories which link those into higher-level parts of the category sytem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete them both, there are no subcats anyway. --Peta 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, there are subcats: see Category:Women sportspeople by sport. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per User:BrownHairedGirl A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees

It's just silly. Delete all but the main and Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released. --HanzoHattori 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support per nom. Casperonline 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Reluctantly support per nom. Some of the categories appear useful, but to be any use, the information needs reliable sources, and categories don't permit attribution. Lists with references would be a better approach to this job, but I referenced lists cannot usefully be generated by by robotic listifing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. "Guantanamo detainees held because they wore a Casio watch"? You must be kidding me. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - there might be some use for keeping Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees missing from the official list, which does appear to be a well documented category within this mess. --Peta 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I say okay. --HanzoHattori 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete all but the main category and consider sending some titles to WP:DAFT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly over classification. I might be able to support a listify for this into a single list if there is overlap on the various categories. But then how much of this data can be verified? Vegaswikian 07:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge all to Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees - Guantanamo detainees do not need to be subclassified to this extreme. Also, many of these categories are named using weasel words ("alleged") or POV terms ("Guantanamo captive"). Some of these could be used as examples at Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization once this nomination is closed. Note that most of this is the work of Geo Swan, who should be told not to create categories like these in the future. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words? Guantanamo Bay detention camp is in the categories such as "Concentration camps" or "Political repression in the United States". --HanzoHattori 09:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Prisoner" would be my choice as a neutral descriptive term, but "captive" is not unresaonable, and no more so than "detainee". Surely you don't think that people are staying there voluntarily? I still think that most of these categories are non-defining and that the information needs to be handled by a method which (unlike categories) allows proper referencing, but I do worry when I see the cats dismissed because some people prefer a softer term than "captive". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete All Half of them are useless "Guantanamo detainee who had a writ of habeas corpus filed on his behalf" this is going a bit extreme. Af648 10:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This level of detail is far too much. If major historical figures had sets of categories describing all their achievements and attributes to this level of detail, the lists of categories on their articles would be ten thousand word biographies. Haddiscoe 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing, all the Geo-Swans spamming. Just look at this picture (there are many others like this one), look on which aticles it is featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Trailer_where_CSR_Tribunals_were_held.jpg Yes, it's SEVERAL HUNDRED pages. Just... wow. --HanzoHattori 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge all into Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees As per Dr. Sub's suggestion above, this seems like wanton overspecification. Merge back into the main GB detainees category. Dugwiki 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge, but it would be civil for the creator to be notified, both so that he or she can be part of the discussion, can understand why their work is being thrown out, and won't be tempted to do this (or some variation of this) again.A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:

Holocaust deniers