Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 27

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 29 December 2006 (→Category:School massacres by country categories: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:43, 29 December 2006 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Category:School massacres by country categories: comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< December 26	December 28 >

December 27

Non-English words categories

Rename - These are the only two such categories (except for Category:Spanish etymology which serves a different purpose) that are named "terms" instead of "words." My feeling is that all such categories would be better served by being renamed to "Fooian words and phrases" rather than having "Fooian words" with a "Fooian phrases" sub-cat but rather than nominate all of the cats I thought these two could serve as points for discussing that notion as well. If consensus is to rename to "words and phrases" then I'm planning on nominating all the other "words" categories too and nominating any "phrases" sub-cats for merging. Otto4711 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gah...fixed the names of the cats up for discussion. It's Korean and Japanese. Sorry. Otto4711 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Fooian words and phrases due to the high chance that words on its own will not cover the full range of terms. Nathanian 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename per nom. My intention for Category:Korean terms was for loanwords, as a child of Category:English words of foreign origin; it seems however that Korean words and phrases not common in English have been included, changing the scope to the proposed.-choster 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Korean; would it be worthwhile to have Category:Korean loanwords in addition to the words and phrases cat? There are a number of other loanword categories. Otto4711 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cult television series

Delete, This is a subjective categoryname see the Subjective inclusion criterion and there are little sources that could qualify a series as "cult". I have similar problems with Category:Cult films, although there is considerably more literature there that can be referenced. The problem is that nobody checks wether such references are made in the Film-articles. We'll leave Cult films as a future exercise. :D TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete "Cult" is a word to avoid. Overuse means it has less meaning every year. Sumahoy 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not objectively defined. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant delete and hopeful Listify - I do think there's value in the concept of a cult TV shows list and I hope with a list there will be enough vigilance amongst editors so that anything included will have sourcing. Otto4711 13:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Women Buddhists

Delete; presumably roughly half of Buddhists are women, and based on the discussions to delete Category:Muslim women and Category:Hindu women. Mairi 22:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no reason for gendered category. -- ProveIt 22:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mairi. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mairi TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no point to this.Baka man 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
comment if this cateogry is to be deleted, first bring up the articles to the next higher catgory, 'Buddhists' Hmains 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No. This subcategory is not helpful. We don't need to sort Buddhists by gender. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any possible utility of the parent category. Category:Buddhists might be useful for reasons that are completely different from the reasons why Category:Women Buddhists is useless. — coelacan talk — 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I totally misunderstood you. I thought you meant "first nominate Category:Buddhists in general for deletion. Okay, don't worry about the articles in this category being upmerged. The closing admin will make sure that happens properly. =) — coelacan talk — 03:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional widows or widowers

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost. Circeus 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

May qualify as a speedy deletion under G4, recreated material. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 22#Category:Fictional widows and widowers for previous CfD discussion. CovenantD 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per previous deletion discussion. Doczilla 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. -- ProveIt 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged as {{db-repost}} -- ProveIt 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Angel categories

rename as Angel (TV series). Twin Load 21:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I understand your logic, but the proposed new versions are clunky and inconsistent with other category names. Frankly, are these categories even necessary? Just delete and listify them all per past deletions of characters by series, etc., categories. Doczilla 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename to match parent. There are no "past deletions of characters by series". Tim! 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose there is something to say for this, but I'm not sure if I like it. What if we start renaming all Batman related categories to "Batman (comics) *". I'm sure few people would like that. Besides, what do the novels have to do with the TV series other then being based on the same fictional universe ? Only dab where necessary is the rule i believe. Nothing is determined about consistency after you dab. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename "series" to "TV series". What are the other two categories in danger of being mistaken for? -Freekee 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Freekee. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:School massacres by country categories

Upmerge all Not enough articles, not enough countries to warrant such a division. At best, a non-country divide between "by students" and "by non-students" may be appropriate. Circeus 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep all As with any set of categories allocation by country is significant both in itself and to the usefulness of the category system for navigation purposes. Sumahoy 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Upmerge per Circeus. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC) NOTE that all articles are already in the parent cat! >Radiant< 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Upmerge - with the proviso that there are enough US ones to warrant a separate category. If they are all dumped back into Category:School massacres, I'd be happy to go through them and find similar articles, and try and find a category structure more relevant and coherent than "by country". Carcharoth 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the two I forgot.Circeus 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep To optimise navigation. Nathanian 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - it segregates the articles into a more manageable search. It seems that Fresheneesz has already stared moving them to the main category without this vote being completed ! Headphonos 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's actually less manageable this way. Before, you had to open up 9 or 10 categories to get a list of all the school massacre articles. It makes no sense to create categories where only one or two articles exist. Better to wait until coverage of such events is complete, and then decide on a category structure. Carcharoth 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record the articles are: Monash University shooting; Centennial Secondary School massacre; Concordia University massacre; Dawson College shooting; École Polytechnique massacre; St. Pius X High School massacre; W. R. Myers High School shooting; Cologne school massacre; Erfurt massacre; Avivim school bus massacre; Ma'alot massacre; Osaka school massacre; Beslan school hostage crisis; Dunblane massacre; Sanaa massacre; Amish school shooting; Bath School disaster; California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre; Laurie Dann; Enoch Brown school massacre; Wayne Lo; Platte Canyon High School shooting; Poe Elementary School attack; Rocori High School shooting; Brenda Ann Spencer; Stockton massacre; Charles Whitman; Kent State shootings; Columbine High School massacre; Appalachian School of Law shooting; Heath High School shooting; Jonesboro massacre; Kip Kinkel; Barry Loukaitis; Pine Middle School shooting; Evan Ramsey; Red Lake High School massacre; Red Lion Area Junior High School Murder/Suicide; Kayla Rolland; Weston High School shooting; Charles Andrew Williams; Luke Woodham. Having read through these articles (not recommended), the "by country" division is only one of several that could be applied. The most obvious is the date. Plus the weapon used. Plus number of wounded, killed. Fate of killers. Number of killers. And so on. I'm tempted to do a table summarising all this, just so that people avoid the silly categorising and leave these articles in a single category. However, a summary and comparison like this has already been done at School_massacre. I'll add a note to the category to tell people to only add articles to the main category, and to handle further detailed sorting at the main article. Carcharoth 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I've left a note here to get more input on this. I've also updated the main article using the stub-articles from the category (though some of the stub-articles should really just be merged (back) into the main article). Some of the articles mentioned in the main article could also be integrated into the category structure, though I haven't done that yet. Carcharoth 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all. Why do some people not see the merits of categorisation by country? It improves accessibility without increasing category clutter. Osomec 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did you actually look in the categories or research the topic area before using that generalisation? In some cases, by country categories are helpful, in same cases they are not. This is clearly a case where by country categories are not helpful, unless you want to spilt the non-North America cases from the other ones. Of the 11 categories, 5 have only one article, 1 has no articles in it (the UK one - created only to hold the Scotland one), and 2 have two articles. Only the Canada one (6 articles) and the US one (about 33 articles) are remotely populated. The assumption you are making is that there are other school massacres which we don't have articles about. This "incomplete coverage" argument is incorrect, as most of the major school massacres do now have articles on Misplaced Pages. The school massacre article shows that there are other incidents, but not enough to warrant even separate articles, let alone a byzantine category system. Carcharoth 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- What annoys me most about CfD is that the categories thrown up for discussion are often ones that I could easily tidy up and organise, but that is impossible in the middle of an ongoing CfD. If deletion occurs, it is often difficult to find the articles again unless you keep a list. Carcharoth 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actors by religion

Delete, why is religion relevent to this profession? Like Category:Sportspeople by religion, I would propose a ban on all actors by religion categories. -- ProveIt 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep The parent category Category:People by religion and occupation specifies that it allows for pairs provided that the person involved integrates religion into his occupation. It is likely that certain actors are notable for working on projects with strong religious connections. Mel Gibson is an example that comes to mind, for example. Dugwiki 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that sometimes religion IS relevent, particularly for politicians, judges, writers, artists, and religious workers. There may be others I'm forgetting, but in general it isn't, or at least shouldn't be relevent, especially in a secular society. I see your point about Mel Gibson, but would argue that religion is relevent to him as a director, not as an actor. -- ProveIt 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 22:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nearly always irrelevant. Sumahoy 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I know of no existing religious sports, except maybe Sumo for Shintoism, but there are religious forms of theater and acting. See Chakyar koothu, LDS cinema, etc. Kirk Cameron, in a much clearer way than Gibson, is a "Christian actor" as in that's his medium. Still I think it should be renamed to "Actors in 'blank' entertainment." Hence Category:Actors in Christian entertainment, Category:Actors in Hindu entertainment, etc.--T. Anthony 02:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. I'd also like to comment that just because there is a parent navigation category contains categories that are the intersections from the two sets of categories, that does not mean that we have to create and populate all such intersections. That would lead to a huge amount of overcategorization. Each category needs to stand on its own. In cases like this one, it would help if the parent navigation categories such as Category:People by religion and occupation explicitly make this point. -- Samuel Wantman 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Over categorization. And as stated above, this is not an intersection that is generally a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 08:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I think that religion is an important part of who a person is, and each religeon has so many notable people that they need to be split up in a way that makes sense. Eli Falk 10:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. That is why you include them in a category for their religion. The issue here is about their religion affecting their acting? What is the tie in? How does their religion affect their acting ability. It may affect the roles they take, but does it affect how they act? Vegaswikian 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, they don't have separate Oscars per religion either. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but they do have the

Keep - many actors in India wear their religion on their sleeve, and its useful to remove backlogs.Baka man 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete this overcategorization per nom. — coelacan talk — 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lilith Fair performers

Delete, as non-defining or trivial characteristic, we had decided against performers by performance cats. -- ProveIt 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete overcategorization. We can't categorize every person, place, thing, by every single quality and experience they have. Doczilla 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Doczilla Nathanian 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. These artists participate in a special concert promoting feminism and therefore are in this special group. --PenaltyKillah 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Parents of twins

Delete This category is unencyclopedic clutter as Misplaced Pages should cover individual's public achievements, not random aspects of their private lives. Honbicot 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete absurd cat, per nom. — coelacan talk — 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom (generally bad idea to start categorizing people based on who their relatives are). Dugwiki 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom LaszloWalrus 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete- Why do we care? Baka man 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional toads

Merge into Category:Fictional frogs and toads, see discussion of November 4th. -- ProveIt 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge per nom. — coelacan talk — 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Doczilla 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Algeria

Category:Towns in Algeria

Merge with Category:Cities in Algeria (or vice versa) because the Algerian government doesn't make a real difference between cities and towns, they don't even have a word for "town" in Arabic or French, they only have "Cities" and "Villages", and these categories aren't well organized, while In Amenas (a small town) with 5000 inhabitants is in the "cities category", Arzew (a smaller city) with 70,000 people is in the "towns category", you see what I mean? Or it would be a good idea to rename it to Municipalities of Algeria, as this is the official govermental term for them. --Escondites talk 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cities and towns in Algeria see also Category:Cities and towns in Italy. -- ProveIt 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename , per nom. Qqqqqq 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Category:Cities and towns in Algeria per Italy and many other countries. Nathanian 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge both to Category:Cities and towns in Algeria per above. David Kernow (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Suicides by methods and subcategories

While it may be interesting to know why famous people committed suicide, it's not particularly relevant whether they did so by jumping, hanging or self-poisoning. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. Such lists provide valuable help for, for example, a historician who wants to make a research on popular methods of suicide by an epoch, or a psychiatrist may be able to do a significiant research by finding correlations between suicide methods and other factors (epoch, diagnosis, profession of person, nationality, location, etc). It's useful navigational and categorizational mechanism. Also, note that a subcategories includes various ritual suicides, such as Seppuku - I suppose there's no doubt that it's useful to be able to get a list of Japanese people who committed seppuku? --GreyCat 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Seppuku would be a reasonable exception since it's a cultural phenomenon. Jumping off a skyscraper, however, is not. >Radiant< 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I don't see why other methods are different. There's at least Sallekhana that is also a ritual suicide - is that a cultural phenomenon? Other examples include political prisoners in USSR usually suicided by hanging, because of lack of other options. Self-immolations also usually include important social aspect: it's one of the most painful methods and thus usually used by radical activists who protest something so strong that they'll going to sacrifice their own life for their beliefs, using public self-immolation to grab public attention to their ideas. Self-poisoning was a popular choice for medieval suicides - that's also a historical fact and I think it may be equally interesting for a researcher to have a list of people who committed sepukku and a list of people who used poisons to commit suicide. --GreyCat 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
undecided GreyCat's argument is good but it just seems like an overcategorization still. It might conceivably be interesting to some historians to categorize people not by hometown but by what neighborhood/district/ward they were from in that town. But just because it's useful to a few readers doesn't mean it's the best choice altogether. Still not entirely convinced we should get rid of these categories though... they clearly communicate that it was a suicide, they just give extra information. --W.marsh 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The subcategories need to be tagged before deletion. According to Radiant's nomination, they are are up for debate, but discussion has already noted that one of them could easily be kept. Let's keep this clean. -Freekee 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to reply to the above comment, the subcategories are obvious choices for this parent category. So if this parent is kept, then the subcategories likewise should be kept. But if the whole notion of dividing suicides by method is a bad idea overall, then all those subcategories should be deleted since they only make sense in the context of subdividing this parent category.

So this is a case where I don't think you can reasonably delete only some of the subcategories and leave others intact. The fate of all these categories hinges on whether or not this parent category makes sense. Dugwiki 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First, my main point was that the subcats need to be tagged so that people are aware they are up for deletion. I've had articles deleted out from under me with no notice, just because they were children of others. It's not a nice way to lose what you worked hard on. Second, the Seppuku cat has other articles besides people who committed seppuku. So its existence doesn't seem as closely tied to it's parent. It could easily be recategorized. -Freekee 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep I'm going to side with GreyCat here that there is probably useful information gained by sorting suicides by method. People who study suicides could possibly be interested in also studying the methods different people choose to commit suicide. I also don't see a downside to these subdivisions. The number of categories per article won't increase (you'll replace "Suicide" with "Suicide by..." in the article), and the number of articles of people who have committed suicide might be large enough to warrant subdivision of some sort. Given that, I'd lean toward giving this category the benefit of the doubt. Dugwiki 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Listify and delete, A list is a much more efficient way (and allow more latitude in doing so) of organizing that info. Circeus 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a very long and not very maintainable list. AFAIR, Misplaced Pages includes at least about a thousand of people listed under suicides category. Shall we make a policy of "notable suicide" and "non-notable suicide"? --GreyCat 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all per GreyCat. Otto4711 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and listify. I lecture on suicide and believe, it's not as easy to classify as you might think. "Suicide" should suffice. Doczilla 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Make into a list and then delete. I was on the fence as this seems borderline, but Doczilla convinced me. If it is not easy to classify, than the entries need annotation and explanation. A list is better. -- Samuel Wantman 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, how is method of suicide not easy to classify? If the person shot herself, Category:Suicides by firearm. If they jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, Category:Suicides by jumping from a height. And so on. I suppose there are cases when the person, say, takes poison and self-immolates, but are such cases where the method of suicide is impossible to determine really so prevalent that suicide method can reasonably be called "not easy to classify"? Otto4711 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. For those whose cause of death is difficult to determine, just leave them in Category:Suidides. -Sean Curtin 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Local Filament galaxies

Delete - The term "Local Filament" is not used in astronomy as it is being used in Misplaced Pages (to describe a large-scale structure comprised of multiple galaxies). Instead, the term is used to describe a non-specific cloud of gas associated with the Milky Way (as seen by a search using the ADS Abstract Service. In the failed first nomination, it was suggested that the name "Virgo Filament" could be used instead. However, a search with the ADS Abstract Service shows that the term "Virgo filament" is hardly ever used (and one of the results shows that the term is used as a synonym for the Virgo Cluster). Since the terms "Local Filament" and "Virgo Filament" are not used in astronomy, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as desribed above. It should be noted that there is no Local Filament article. The closest I can find seems to be Galaxy filament, which asserts the use of "filament" employed in this category, but is an {{unreferenced}} stub of perhaps dubious quality. Serpent's Choice 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - "Filament" is a term used in astronomy (see the references in Sculptor Group, for example). However, the galaxy filament article needs to be rewritten and referenced. Dr. Submillimeter 12:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films

Delete - Two reasons: 1) Use of the term "propaganda films" is highly POV. 2) Redundant - there is already a category for "Vietnam War films".

Cgingold 11:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Vietnam War films per nom. Honbicot 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep as is. This is a useful subcat of Category:American propaganda films. "Propaganda" is a widely used scholarly term that the US government itself has also embraced. The word has a well-delineated definition. If a certain article in the category should be removed, then remove it, but the category itself should remain as is. — coelacan talk — 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The inclusion of commercial Green Berets exposes the ambiguity of the term. Nathanian 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:TradeWars 2002

Delete, Categories were emptied (save for the parent) as a result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Merchant Cruiser. Serpent's Choice 08:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:FieldTurf installations

Do we want to classify stadiums by the type of artifical tuft they use? How about by the type of grass seed next? Vegaswikian 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Listify to Stadiums by turf type and Delete. I'm changing my vote based on the comments below. There is value to the information and a list is more appropiate.Vegaswikian

weak keep this is relevent, some teams are "fast" and are said to play better on artificial turf, stadiums still using AstroTurf are becoming a bit of a novelty... while non-sports people might not really care I think it's an interesting and useful classification to people interested in sports. --W.marsh 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Stadiums by brand of artifical turf? Overcategorization. Listify it right in the product article. Note that there are no corresponding categories for stadiums by turf type. -Freekee 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is getting rediculous. We moved the high profile installs into a seperate list because some wanted to keep the article more compact. Then we had a debate about the list so the comprimise was that we categorize instead. Now we have people with no idea on the background of this topic trying to delete the catagory. If you decide to deleted it i'll be putting back the list so how about everyone get on the same page? --Coz 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- So your vote should be to listify and then delete since that supports the initial decision. Based on that I can support Listify and Delete. Based on the above disucssions, it would appear that one article Stadiums by turf type should be the target allowing for expansion to include other information which you can have in an article or list but not in a category.Vegaswikian 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Coz, that's unfortunate. But I still don't feel it deserves either a category or it's own list article. I think it should either be added back to the article (someone thought it took up too much space?) or create a new list of Stadiums by turf type. -Freekee 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I respect your personal opinion, I even respect the opinions based on ignorance (like the one below). What I am saying is that it is easy for mis or un informed people to pass judgement on one solution or the other, but they are doing so without offering a solution or being part of the solution. Should it be in the article? Fine. Should it be a seperate list? Fine. Should it be a catagory? Fine. Just pick one and stick with it. This circular "government style" decision making is insane. --Coz 02:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Useful for the investors in the company behind the product, but probably not to the rest of us. Sumahoy 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nathanian 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - As stated in the nomination, this classification is too technical. Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrested Development

rename as Arrested Development (TV series) and Arrested Development (hip hop group).Tunag 06:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename per nom for disam purposes. Dugwiki 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename Category:Arrested Development to Category:Arrested Development (TV series). The others are fairly obvious in what they refer to. -Freekee 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:US State Related Ships

Delete, category for ships named for states, or places in a state, or persons from a state. These ships have nothing in common, except being named for a person, place, or thing within the same US state. -- ProveIt 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, trivia. Also, miscapitalized, and it's not the ships that are related to the state. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United States Coast Guard Academy graduates

Merge into Category:United States Coast Guard Academy alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge, per nom. Qqqqqq 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Seth Macfarlane

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Seth MacFarlane, to match Seth MacFarlane. -- ProveIt 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Bad idea to create eponymous categories for individual people. All these links can easily be found in his main article by interested readers. Dugwiki 18:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precedent re: many previously deleted categories by person. Doczilla 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Qqqqqq 23:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:IBHOF Members

Delete or Rename to Category:International Boxing Hall of Fame members, already a list at International Boxing Hall of Fame. -- ProveIt 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly rename to avoid abbrev, no opinion either way on deletion. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Too broad a category. Every great boxer the world has ever known seems to be on the list of members. It's got about 300 inductees. Being in the Hall is not a notable achievement or defining characteristic. -Freekee 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I created this category, and agree with the re-name. I don't think that it should be deleted though. Being in the IBHOF is just as defining as being in the HOF for any other sport, they induct abotu 3-4 members per yer. Jackboogie
Looking at Category:Sports halls of fame, I note that A) the majority of the subcategories do not say "members" (but do contain inductees), and B) there is already a Category:International Boxing Hall of Fame which should serve the purpose. So, my !vote is merge to that last. Xtifr _tälk 07:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

Delete. Category is inherently POV. Strong tendency to be populated with people who really ought to just be in Category:Critics of Islam, and this is exactly the problem that recurs regularly (some of these issues have been chronicled near the bottom of Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment#This category). In addition, please see already finished deletion discussion on Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 11#Category:Anti-Islam writers, which suffered from the same problems and was deleted.

To every article currently in this category, I have added either Category:Critics of Islam or Category:Islam-related controversies, whichever was topical. So no further merge will be necessary; this category can now be deleted and the articles will remain in other more appropriate categories. — coelacan talk — 01:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This category is as equally valid as Category:Antisemitism. (→Netscott) 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Perhaps in theory, but it's never used that way. If every single article could be recategorized in either Category:Critics of Islam or Category:Islam-related controversies (they all could and I had no trouble doing so), then it's just being used for superfluous POV-pushing. I think it's better to let the non-POV categories hold these articles instead. This category is especially problematic when people who are just "critics of Islam" are added to it, because as was pointed out in the other category's CfD, "For very real safety reasons, Misplaced Pages shouldn't host what can amount to a hit list compiled by editors. Terrorists and radicals can just look at the list and be saved a lot of time. If the safety concerns weren't a real problem it would be a very different matter." (see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 11#Category:Anti-Islam writers). — coelacan talk — 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. (→Netscott) 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, POV magnet. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Honbicot 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and salt per Coelacan's answer to Netscott. Circeus 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Antisemitism precedent. Boy, do I understand deleting this category. However, deleting this while keep the Antisemitism category makes no sense and would be more biased than keeping either. Doczilla 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant Keep, solely because of precedent of Antisemitism and Anti-Catholicism; based on precedent, I think the ship has sailed on the use of these hate categories. These categories need to be applied very sparingly, and only where the article includes clear and overwhelming documentation of their sentiment; I would suggest that the individual articles put in this category need review, as I do not think a couple of articles have the support in the article for their inclusion in this category. Still, this particular category today seems to be used more carefully than some of the other categories; most of the articles in this category are not about individuals. Sam 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and block. The precedent argument is a misunderstanding as there have been more of these deleted than kept and there are always a lot of delete votes even on anti-semitism. Sumahoy 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are other precedents where a hate category like this has been deleted (I believe a category for "racists" was so deleted). However, at the end of the day, I think the standards have to be applied consistently, with Wikipedians taking full responsibility for policing their application. Make no mistake, I think having this category will lead to controversy and discord, and that it's application is horrendously difficult. But, if the standards are applied inconsistently, the whole project just becomes one POV mess. Sam 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is a council of despair. Following your approach, as soon as there is one bad category in a field, perhaps kept as a result of a campaign by an organised group or just by chance as to who happened to be around that day (and we might be talking about two or three people out of seven or eight) that means unlimited bad categories can be created in that field and all of them must be kept forever. I think that is so self-defeating. Sumahoy 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It is a relevant part of history. However I'd like to say that Category:Antisemitism is not fully analogous as Jews are also an ethnic group. This is more analogous to Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Anti-Mormonism, or Category:Anti-Protestantism.--T. Anthony 02:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the precedent set by cats like Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Catholicism and others. furthermore, anti-Islam sentiment is far more prevelant and distinguishable today than for a number of the other cats. i see no basis for it being lumped with "criticism of Islam" (since when was hate-speech a legitimate critique?) or the ambiguous (and possibly euphemistic) reservoir that is "Islam-related controversy". ITAQALLAH 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with your comment more. --70.51.229.211 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - per the fairness issue. No point singling Islam out.Baka man 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This and all similar categories. Nathanian 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep it is POV to say that ever thing that appears to be anti-Islam is merely a controversy. --70.51.229.211 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per precedents. // Liftarn 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep otherwise delete all the other similar categories. Furthermore there are many categries like "Islamism", "Islam-related controversies" this category tell other side of story hence should not be deleted. --- ALM 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Its attribution to someone of course requires a reliable source per WP:RS but for some people that's not hard to find. --Aminz 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cosmetics magnates

Category:Cosmetics magnates to Category:Cosmetics businesspeople Gkklein 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to more neutral and inclusive term. Honbicot 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename - I am suggesting Category:Cosmetics businesspeople--Gkklein 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:MySpace Stars

Not sure if this should be renamed or just deleted... "stars" is a bit subjective so I'd suggest Category:Notable MySpace users if kept. The people in this category, at a glance, do seem to actually belong as they have news coverage. W.marsh 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Nothing notable about signing up for a website. If the person has an article then their Myspace page can be linked to it if desired but there is no need for a category for this triviality. Otto4711 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge to Category:MySpace people -Freekee 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- It does seem to be about people who are notable for their MySpaces. Not just people who happen to have them. -Freekee 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Over categorization. What do we gain adding another category to the already excessive lists on many articles? This is a catgory that may wind up including most notable people especially those under some age (25?). Vegaswikian 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete overcategorization. What's the point of this POV-laden category? Doczilla 22:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge to Category:MySpace people as "stars" is a POV term. Nathanian 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to a wiki domain that would not only welcome such a project, but contributors get to keep the Google AdSense revenue their Directory pages might generate. Read all about it right here. --JossBuckle Swami 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)