Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:52, 30 July 2007

July 29

Category:Forgotten Corner of Cornwall

Category:Forgotten Corner of Cornwall - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete This term is just a tourism marketing slogan for part of Cornwall. Wimstead 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think the article is acceptable, and references use of the term, albeit mostly from tourism publicity, but a category is a step too far. Johnbod 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from St Helier

Category:People from St Helier - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category no longer has any pages within it. RichardColgate 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and repopulate It's empty because you emptied it immediately before making this nomination. Such attempts to preempt discussions on this page are very bad form. Wimstead 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment was part of extensive sub-categorisation of Category: People from Jersey have now sub categorised by religion, educational establishment and profession, peviously this was one of only four sub cats. Is was never really relevant as nearly all people born in Jersey are born in St Helier since that is where the maternity hospital is.RichardColgate 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • These categories are not based on where people were born. That is why the names were standardised as "People from" rather than "Natives of". Greg Grahame 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and repopulate - Around half the population now may certainly have been born in St Helier at the maternity hospitals. Historically, of course, most people were born in the family home. Then there's the case of the current Connétable of St Helier Simon Crowcroft, who is arguably from St Helier, although he wasn't born there. Or a C19th Connétable of St Helier, Sir Robert Pipon Marett, who was a St Pierrais by birth. Man vyi 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and repopulate Greg Grahame 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and repopulate per those above. Johnbod 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maya Master

Category:Maya Master - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: "Award" created solely to promote award-giver's products Maya by promoting award-giver's users of said product. Comparable to 7 Up giving an award for 'best 7-Up consumer'. Seattlenow 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - also may be some COI and autobio issues involved. --Orange Mike 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No article on this award, and only two winners anyway, so category not needed. Johnbod 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Big-bust models and performers

Category:Big-bust models and performers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete this category has arbitrary inclusion criteria akin to the Category:Men with unusually large penis, except here there's not even a guidance as to what chest measurement or cup size is the standard that must be met. It's trivial and not really encyclopedic - we do have a list, which can capture the, ahem, various dimensions and source them, the category is otherwise superfluous. An upmerge may be ok, if we're sure that all these models and performers are really of the "adult model" genre. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is apparently the 3rd go around for this cat: first debate resulting in deletion; it was re-created, a circumstance not discussed or considered at its second debate that reached no consensus. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Epbr123 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Ebyabe 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Folks, the inclusion criteria have nothing to do with measurement. They're "This is a list of women known for modeling or performing in big-bust entertainment." You're mis-reading the title. --AnonEMouse 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the distinction between models in big-bust entertainment and models with big-busts? How does Kelly Brook fulfil the criteria, for example? Epbr123 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Big-bust is a genre of erotic films and magazines, in the same way that Bondage pornography, or Altporn, or Big Beautiful Woman is a genre. It is typified by pornographic magazines such as Busty Beauties, Juggs, and Score, and the erotic but not (at least not always) pornographic films of director Russ Meyer (see Russ_Meyer#Big_breast_fixation.2C_or_the_Meyer_physical_archetype, and books such as Meyer, Russ (2000). A Clean Breast : The Life and Loves of Russ Meyer. El Rio, TX: Hauck Pub Co. ISBN 0-9621797-2-8. , Woods, Paul A. (2004). The Very Breast of Russ Meyer. London: Plexus Publishing. ISBN 0859653099). Canonical examples of models and actresses who specialize in this genre are Minka (porn star), Maxi Mounds, Ashley Juggs, Tawny Peaks, Kayla Kleevage, Chelsea Charms, others - you will notice from visiting our articles that they appear in features based on breast size fetishism, and often even choose their stage names based on breast euphemisms. To answer the distinction question, Dolly Parton is probably the canonical example of an actress with a big bust who does not appear in big bust entertainment. I can't speak for Kelly Brook -- it's a category, anyone can add entries to the category incorrectly, that's not a call for deletion of the category, any more that someone putting an incorrect statement in an article is a call for deletion of the article. --AnonEMouse 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There are at least 30 articles in the category which don't match that criteria. It does appear as though the category is being used for any model with a big-bust. The criteria for inclusion in the category should at least be made clearer. Epbr123 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• I knew this would show up here today, right after the penises...KEEP - for all the same reasons it was kept the last time. This is not a category for performers with large breasts. It is a category for performers within the specific big bust genre. Otto4711 19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How is the specific big bust genre defined? Epbr123 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • By examples and consensus of experts in the field. That's the only way genres are ever defined. For example, there is usually a consensus that there is such a thing as horror films, and science fiction literature, and in each case there are canonical examples that everyone agrees typify each, and a pattern that others follow. This is one of those categories, except these are performers that tend to specialize in this genre, so specific parallels would be Category:Horror film directors and Category:Science fiction writers. Please see my comment above for specific examples and more. --AnonEMouse 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • True it is not named Category:Big-busted models and performers, but the current name is ambiguous. If this is for the genre that is clearly defined, then maybe a different name? Vegaswikian 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see how having had plastic surgery is grounds for notablityRichardColgate 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Otto & AnonEMouse above, noting with slight surprise Otto's respect for genre boundaries here, when he has so often been completely dismissive of much better-established ones in other debates. But there we go. Like Vegaswikian, I would favour a rename.Johnbod 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes, by all means make this about me. Otto4711 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Epbr123, and RichardColgate (plastic surgery, lol. good one, RC.) 72.76.78.127 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not an encyclopedic category.- Gilliam 06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Misspelled article titles

Category:Misspelled article titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Redirects from misspellings, since it should only contain redirects. Misspelled articles should just be renamed, not added to this category. -- Prove It 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - per nom. RichardColgate 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category: Information economics

I'm nominating Category:Information economics for deletion. The category only has one article in it besides the main article; and the main article is misleadingly and confusingly named, per the comments at Talk:Information economics. Jeremy Tobacman 12:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges in Abia State

Suggest merging Category:Universities and colleges in Abia State to Category:Universities and colleges in Nigeria

Nominator's rationale: Merge, this category and similar ones are too small so this is over categorization. Bduke 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Include also all other state categories in Nigeria:

• Category:Universities and colleges in Adamawa State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Akwa Ibom State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Anambra State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Bauchi State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Borno State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Cross River State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Ebonyi State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Edo State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Ekiti State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Enugu State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria
• Category:Universities and colleges in Kaduna State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Kano State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Kogi State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Kwara State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Lagos State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Ogun State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Ondo State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Osun State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Oyo State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Plateau State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Rivers State
• Category:Universities and colleges in Sokoto State

• Merge as nominator. Most of these categories contain only one entry and the largest number is 4. They are never likley to get much larger. Bduke 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all to Category:Universities and colleges in Nigeria per nom. The total number of colleges isn't large enough to justify this many subcats. If there were hundreds of colleges, dividing them by state would make sense. -- Prove It 13:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Men with unusually large penis

Category:Men with unusually large penis - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: I speedy deleted this category but I think I was wrong to and per the creator's request I have undeleted it and am nominating it for deletion. I believe this is overcategorisation in that it contains an arbitrary inclusion criterion ("men with penis size over 8 inches"), is trivia, and the title ("unusually large") is probably POV. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 11:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as arbitrary inclusion standards and also WP:V issues. Otto4711 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Having created this category in conjunction with the section Human penis size#Men famous for their large penis, I would like to explain my action. First, I'll mention that that section has also met resistance from another user who has removed it twice. The discussion at Talk:Human penis size will provide my rationale and, I think, will elucidate the problems which AnemoneProjectors sees with the current nominated category.

Phallic worship has been a strong motivating factor, albeit mostly unconsciously, in human cultures always. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages does not have a good article on this despite many books available to source it. So far the topic of penile largeness and everything associated with it, has been left unattended and obviously unsupervised, relegated to the discretion of arbitrary contributors to articles on male porn stars. This has led to the discrepancies and sometimes, I'm sure, unreliable claims upon which this category is based. However, I would urge the community to see the category (as well as the above mentioned article section) as starting points for a much needed work of harmonizing criteria and applying quality control to these articles. Deleting the category (and article section) will diffuse attention once again, removing a strong incentive for the needed clean-up.

I set an "arbitrary" inclusion limit, however, it can be changed following discussion. This should not constitute reason for deletion. Such a discussion may lead to more "scientific" and neutral criteria, i.e. setting the limit based upon an average of the known numbers set for the mean size of of a human penis (discussed in detail in the article Human penis size) and a given percentage above that, perhaps leading to a renaming of the category at that time. I would encourage editors to see this as a work in progress and allow time for needed discussions and clean-up, and see if the situation becomes acceptable when this has taken place. If then, this part of Misplaced Pages still is as messy as it is currently, we can delete then. __meco 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is no standard for "unusually large" that is objective. Whatever size you set is going to be arbitrary. Otto4711 12:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• There may always be a murky border area, however, I at least do not think that should be prohibitive for having such a category. I also think it would be considered very helpful for people investigating the subject of penis size which should weigh in more than the presented problem of setting a limit. __meco 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, or at the very least Rename to Category:Men with an unusually large penis. I think this subject is more suitable for a well referenced article, rather than a category. -- Prove It 13:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• 'Keep but refocus to Men famous for a large penis. There really are a number of people for whom this was an important, or even the most important, characteristic of their notability: John Holmes, Ron Jeremy, Long Dong Silver (from the Clarence Thomas#Anita Hill controversy), etc. That also removes any issues of verifiable measurement or arbitrary limit - we don't care how long the member actually is, just that it got Misplaced Pages:verifiable notoriety as being long. On the other hand, though, this will exclude people who happen to have unusual measurements but aren't particularly notable for them. For example, most male pornographic actors assert above average dimensions, but we don't want to make this a copy of Category:Male porn stars, so I would remove, for example, Mike Branson, Rex Chandler, etc. --AnonEMouse 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would think a renaming to Category:Men famous for a large penis would be more objective, indeed. __meco 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Otto4711. 72.76.85.187 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Think this would be better as a list, not a category. Then it could be more accurately sourced. Porn star "measurements" seem to rarely be reliable, being part of the mystique that sells their movies. Most of the measurements in articles currently should be deleted anyway, due to not being verified. But that's another issue... -Ebyabe 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:V issues. I'm also uncertain if the criteria of 8 inches truly counts as a point over which a penis counts as "unusually large"; with the average according to human penis size saying 5 to 6 inches, my gut says more like 9 inches or above counts as unusual. If it turns there are votes to keep (which seem unlikely at this point), then I would rather it be kept under AnonEMouse's suggestion of keep but refocus than just a straight keep. Tabercil 16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I second your reasoning. I would also agree that setting a limit at 9 inches instead of above 8 would be a constructive move. __meco 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable and therefore a vanity vandalism magnet. -- But|seriously|folks  16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Hardly unverifiable by necessity. Also, anything related to sex are "vandalism magnet" material. We cannot censor Misplaced Pages based on that criterion, really! __meco 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Epbr123 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable non-defining trivia. Abberley2 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not unverifiable with the suggested renaming. And I would also argue that a penis measurement does not have to be unverifiable as you seem to suggest. Non-defining trivia is definitely wrong. It is obvious that many of the names mentioned are indeed profiled to a large, or even major, degree by their large penis. __meco 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and I'm going to nominate Category:Big-bust models and performers the female category with similarly vague criteria. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and  But|seriously|folks  -Jmh123 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not an encyclopedic category.- Gilliam 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or rename. "Unusually large" is too subjective a criteria for inclusion. Would need to be something like "Notable for having a large penis", which might be verifiable using reliable sources. But I'm generally not persuaded this category is very useful. WjBscribe 09:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I protest your censoring edit removing several of my notes. Yes, the closing admin may be aware of those policies, however the incessant presence of these types of entries in deletion discussions should indicate that many editors are not. Your being a highly trusted member of the Misplaced Pages community I find this type of interference with user entries particularly disconcerting. __09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but badgering numerous people with a policy link isn't condusive to good faith collegial discussion. If you would like to tailor messages for people whose opinions you think are not releveant, feel free, or you could write a general comment expressing a concern about the oposition arguments - but adding a policy link to each opinion for why you think that opinions should be ignored will just antagonise people. WjBscribe 09:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the way you propose is the best way to do this. __meco 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I trust the closing admin will see right through meco's badgering and backdoor politics and find the consensus here is to delete this silly category. 71.127.231.88 11:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• By backdoor politics I suppose you mean the note placed on the articles' talk pages addressing the problem of reliable citations for claims of extreme penis size? Or was it my attempt to alert several participating persons in this discussion that merely stating "per nom" or "unencyclopedic" does little to contribute to the perhaps utopian, but nevertheless stated goal of Misplaced Pages of reaching decisions through a consensus decision process. If there's something else you find worthy of your comment on my behavior, I'd be appreciative in learning it. (Perhaps on my talk page.) __meco 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95

Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is a nonsenical offensive POV, the same category was already two times (speedy) deleted and now the same vandal using his sockpuppets creates it again. No.13 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. First, prior speedy deletion does not bar re-creation of a category, especially when at least one of the speedies was because another editor intentionally emptied it out. Second, Misplaced Pages is a worldwide encyclopedia maintained by people with diverse backgrounds. This category apparently relates to a regional dispute, so you need to explain why you think it is a nonsensical offensive POV. (Please try to do so matter-of-factly so this CfD discussion does not turn into a mirror of the regional dispute itself.) Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  16:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

However, prior speedy deletion can sometimes be considered evidentiary that somebody has considered the article's value to Misplaced Pages before, and come to a damning conclusion. Digwuren 11:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a regional dispute, this one person enforcing his nationalist crap over everyone. The so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina was an illegal entity unrecognized by anyone, basically it was occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia. Recently with the confirmed indictments to Milan Martić and before him Milan Babić, it was also confirmed that this illegal occupation was part of the joint criminal enterprise between these men and some others. Basically this quasi state was formed on genocide and ethnic cleansing of these mentioned cities and villages. This is not only ridiculous category because it goes against the rules but it is also highly offensive to any decent citizen in Croatia (regardless of their ethnicity), or anywhere else for that matter. There is absolutly no value or point in having this category as it doesn't belong neither to geographic nor historical subject that would matter, they are only highly offensive nationalist propaganda. --No.13 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, the problem might be solved with a name change to something like "Towns Formerly Claimed by RSK 1991-95". Whether the assertion of dominion over these towns was legitimate or not, it appears to be a historical fact that somebody tried to create such a place. The existence of this category does not per se validate the purported creation of the geopolitical subdivision. We should however strive for a category name that is acceptable to both sides. -- But|seriously|folks  18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And of what value would that be? Thats like creating a category "Towns previously owned by Nazi Germany". As you can see it's ridiculous. Sorry but we cannot strive for compromise here because that is simpy impossible. This category is highly offensive, provocative and has absolutly no use or value. I don't see a reason for it's existance and frankly the fact the other two admins who deleted it two times before that speaks for itself, not to mention it is creating by highly disruptive user as I have shown you on your talk page. --No.13 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW lets put the fact that this entity was illegal and created on ethnic cleansing and genocide (confirmed by several indiciments from ICTY also proving joing criminal enterprise by leadership of this quasi state). This has absolutly no sense. Under which social category would this fall? Geography? There is no such thing as region of "Republic of Serbian Krajina". Political? This illegal entity ceased to exist 12 years ago. Historical? This is not a category about history but about illegal political entity. So where is the rationale for this category? There isn't any, it's pure nonsense. --No.13 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to previous debates please? Johnbod 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth does the formation of RSK have anything to do with this? Since people bring up ethnic cleansing, they fail to mention that it was the Croatian who started it, in Western Slavonia in the Summer of 1991. The Serbian reaction was a natural consequence of the Croatian actions such as : cleansing them out of western slavonia, glorifying the nazi ustashe movement (which committed genocide on them - Serbian Genocide, and a new constitution that downgraded them to second class citizens. (LAz17 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)). Who is to say that this is not geography? This is geography. To be precise, it is in the category of Human Geography, and fits in Population Geography and Historical Geography. Perhaps cultural too, considering the amount of Serbs there. Landforms are also important, as most of the region is rather hilly/mountainous. It can also be handy for mapping. (LAz17 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

I simply do not want to get into a discussion with someone like yourself into "who started it". There are indicments such as to Milan Babić and Milan Martić which prove who started it and what kind of entity this quasi illegal state was. This is not geography as there is no historical or contemporary geographic region with this name, neither it is cultural as it mentions a political entity. It has absoutly no eason to exist.

While I support the keeping of this category I strongly disagree with user LAz17's statement: The Serbian reaction was a natural consequence of the Croatian actions. --Koppany 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think were the consequences of this raging Croat nationalism that identifies very well with the Nazis and Genocide? These ultra-nationalists betrayed Bratstvo-Jedinstvo, leading their states to economic contraction and a more easier way for the West to neocolonialize the ex-Yu. (LAz17 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

I can't state how much this is offensive. This category is about an illegal entity based on genocide and ethnic cleansing. It is offsenive as much as it would be for someone to create a category about ex Nazi Germany occupied towns or any other illegal quasi political entity based on genocide. --No.13 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Laz17 and No.13 you are enforcing your political POV. I think Croatia had the right to independence, and RSK was an illegitim puppet state, however, the de facto existence of this republic is unquestionable, so such a category or maybe list of the towns that were part of it can be useful. --Koppany 08:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. It was not me who started this whole charade but LAz17 and his gang (most likely sockuppets of his). I also ask you, is it not that we have already articles which speak about this extensively? The only thing I enforce here are the Misplaced Pages rules and this category is against them, most notably it is a clear example of WP:OCAT. What is next? "Category:Former towns of Ottoman Empire"? Come on. --No.13 09:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - You seem to be pushing an occupation theory. Most occupation theorits on Misplaced Pages are single purpose accounts engaged in hate speech. From your comments so far, it seems likely that you too are a WP:SPA. If so, please go away. + Restore articles/towns in category. -- Petri Krohn 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All towns in this area have been included in many political entities in their time - over 10 if they go back to the early middle ages. None of the other former states have "towns in .." categories of this sort. A list would be ok, but this is WP:OCAT. Johnbod 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I strongly feel that this should be kept. The whole RSK and things associated with RSK, have had major influence and impact on the making of Croatia, and this region is unique and had a unique border. Furthermore, places in this region are distinctly different from that of the rest of Croatia. First off, there is still a big presence of serbs, unlike in the rest of the country, the place is much poorer, and the infrastructure is underdeveloped (much being in ruins and not likely to be repaired in the near future). (LAz17 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).
• Keep - The RSK was de jure illegal, but de facto it was an existing state with its own administrative order. Such a category also can help readers to summarize which towns were part of RSK. That is also true that this area, and other regions of Central-Europe were included in many political entities, therefore I support to mention other relevant categories as well: eg. Kingdom of Hungary, Venice, Ottoman Empire etc. --Koppany 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per explanations I gave above. This is neither geographical deisgnation nor political. It has no use, no value and is offensive. As for Koppany's comment let me just mention we already have articles who mention and explain what it was, where it was placed (maps and everything) and there is absolutly no reason for this category to exist. --No.13 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Listify and delete: this is not a defining characteristic of the towns in question, but the information is historically significant, so the appropriate way to deal with it is a list. Note that the same argument would apply to Nazi Germany occupied towns. It's a historically significant fact, no matter how offensive the persons involved may have been. Pretending unpleasant things didn't happen is not a productive approach to history. Xtifr _tälk 08:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Xtifr. If there will be a list, I can accept the deletion of the category. --Koppany 08:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If I may ask what would be the point in making such list? I repeat, we have articles which deal with this matter, namely Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatian War of Independence. Also most of these articles that should be in the list also already mention it. Perhaps I used a bit wrong argumentation here, partially at least but Johnbod is completely right, he put it exactly what I meant, this is clear example of overcategoriazation. This is neither geographic nor current political category. It also doesn't satisfies historical categories as you just can't use historical issue like this. Other matters I described may be correct but perhaps I shouldn' have used them as an argumentation, from that point of view I understand how someone like Petri Krohn could have gotten wrong impression. Also I would like to point another absurd fact, not all of these settlements are towns, most are just mere villages which is another example of how ridiculous this category is. --No.13 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Johnbod: political and legal issues aside, this is a clear issue of WP:OCAT, and I don't see this as a defining characteristics of a town. We don't—and shouldn't—include former geopolitic entites into categories. What next? Category:Mountains in Austria-Hungary? Category:Towns in Transkei? Duja► 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The very existance of this article is support for that segment of society wich considers this "province" rightfuly part of a Serbian state. There is even a (totally ignored) world war 2 style "government in exile" in Belgrade. We must not send such belligerent messages on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIREKTOR (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per argument presented by Johnbod. As for argument by Xtifr; I do not believe a separate list article is merited. Rather, an article dealing with geographic layout of RSK could present the list. It's reasonably short, and it's not going to change separately, anyway, as RSK is now clearly defunct. Digwuren 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, RSK was so-called "state", recognised only by Serbs so it is absolutely irrelevant, actually it was Croatian territory under occupation during 4 years. The historical name was "Vojna krajina" ("Millitary province") during the wars with Otomans. Later it was called just Krajina. It was never called Srpska Krajina before 1991. The history of that part of Croatia is history of Croatia. The geography of Krajina is a part of Croatian geography, just because it was occupied for 4 years doesn't mean that some "new geography" originated there. Krajina existed, SK only in the heads of occupators and S.Milošević. We should know what towns were in its borders, to know where this entity was. Which entity? Before the war this area was populated by both Croats and Serbs. If genocide happened then it happened in 1991 when all Croats were killed or persecuted by Serbian paramillitaries in Krajina. So which entity then? Clean Serbian ethnicity in the area formed between 91 and 95 by millitary force? This must be a joke. Delete it! Zenanarh 13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see what the problem is. RSK did exist and it's a part of history. If RSK wasn't invaded and if it wasn't ethnically cleansed by the croats, it would still be around today. Fkzeljo
• Keep, This category has great relevance. Lets talk about Ante Gotovina. He was indicted for crimes against humanity and violations of laws and customs of war. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) charged Gotovina's troops with shooting, arson and stabbing Serb civilians to death and with destroying countless buildings in an effort to make it impossible for the Krajina's Serb inhabitants to return home. Why are we arguing. Think of the poor Serbs that were killed and forced out of their homes. 200,000-250,000 Serbs were expelled from the Krajina region.

Incorporations

Category:2006 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and Category:2005 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2003 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1991 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1938 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1911 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1901 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1888 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1847 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1833 incorporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 26#Category:Incorporations by year where it was agreed that the distinction between incorporation and establishment was not really needed. Tim! 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Tim and pervious discussion. ×Meegs 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Tim! and nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Soviet propagandists

Category:Soviet propagandists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The category is very POV. People who are propaganists according to some are genuine writers, journalists, politicians according to the others. The way the creator put people in the categories seems to be arbitrary. Why e.g. Konstantin Chernenko is here but Joseph Stalin or Leonid Brzhnev not? Why Vladimir Mayakovsky is here and Demyan Bedny is not? Alex Bakharev 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - again POV Onnaghar (Talk) 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. KNewman 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A loaded term. --Ghirla 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Johnbod 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in the absence of a wider discussion of Category:Propagandists and all of its subcats. While the entire category structure may or may not be contentious, addressing the subcats in isolation when they are part of a wider structure is almost always a bad idea. Otto4711 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Russian propagandists

Category:Russian propagandists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The category is very POV. People who are propaganists according to some are genuine writers, journalists, politicians according to the others Alex Bakharev 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - many people have different viewpoints. A debate would occur. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. KNewman 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A loaded term. --Ghirla 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wildly POV category. Johnbod 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in the absence of a wider discussion of Category:Propagandists and all of its subcats. While the entire category structure may or may not be contentious, addressing the subcats in isolation when they are part of a wider structure is almost always a bad idea. Otto4711 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users with BLOCKPROOF

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 rogue speedy delete to the max. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users with BLOCKPROOF - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Pointless vanity Category Q 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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.