Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

July 29[edit]

Category:Forgotten Corner of Cornwall[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, per consensus established. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rationale behind this category (I set it up) is to reference all of the points mentioned in the Forgotten Corner article together. I can move the articles listed in this category into the article itself, if this makes everyone happier. Incidentally, I have absolutely no connection with the tourism industry! Feel free to email me to discuss further.. Tinminer 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - like the article itself - this is a marketing phrase, not encyclopedic content. Concentrate instead on improving the articles on all these places themselves. --Orange Mike 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only official subdivisions should be used for categorisation. Postlebury 10:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a quick scan of the references in the Forgotten Corner of Cornwall article I could not determine if this area has any official definition. So I agree with Johnbod that we should keep the article but the category is too much. There was a claim that this is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which sounds official, but I could not confirm that it was so designated at aonb.org.uk, so I think the claim should be removed from the article. EdJohnston 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorisation by advertising slogan, which is not an official administrative entity. Tewfik^Talk 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to Places in Caradon, being the district of which it is part. The article is acceptable, but a category for an area without procise limits is asking for trouble. Peterkingiron 18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from St Helier[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep and repopulate Greg Grahame 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate per those above. Johnbod 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok per Man Vyi and Greg Grahame I shall repopulate as another basis for sub-cat i.e. which parish people from Jersey are based in. I withdraw the request for deletion.RichardColgate 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate. I support the above clarification that this is where they are FROM and not necessarily where they were BORN. EdJohnston 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maya Master[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "Award" created solely to promote award-giver's products Maya[1] 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)[reply]

Strong delete - also may be some COI and autobio issues involved. --Orange Mike 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No article on this award, and only two winners anyway, so category not needed. Johnbod 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no corresponding article on the award. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Big-bust models and performers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Epbr123 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Delete because of the category's current misuse. Its current use as a category for big-busted models has arbitrary inclusion criteria. Epbr123 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Ebyabe 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(squeak) 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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 ^(squeak) 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- How is the specific big bust genre defined? Epbr123 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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 ^(squeak) 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

How about Category:Big bust genre models and performers? Specifies that it's for genre performers rather than just for models with big 'uns. Otto4711 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could work. But it does not explain why Carol Doda was not in the category. Makes one wonder if there is way too much over categorization if editors don't know about all of the possible category choices. Vegaswikian 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how having had plastic surgery is grounds for notablityRichardColgate 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Delete per nom, Epbr123, and RichardColgate (plastic surgery, lol. good one, RC.) 72.76.78.127 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic category.- Gilliam 06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is nothing arbitrary or subjective about it. There is such a thing as a Big-bust genre both in the U.S. and in Japan. A model or performer either works in that genre or she doesn't. How funny does a person have to be to be included in Category:Comedians? That's a subjective question, and it has nothing to do with whether a performer belongs in the category or not. A performer's either a comedian or not. Same with those who work in the big-bust genre. Dekkappai 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why any of these categories could be regarded as trivial except for the wish of many people to trivialize the subconscious underpinnings of human sexuality as not worthy of encyclopedic attention. I consider such an attitude both unenlightened and arrogant. __meco 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to "Category:Big bust genre models and performers" to avoid categorisation of articles not fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Garion96 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As arbitrary and trivial. I am delighted to be considered "unenlightened and arrogant" by people who spend their time on the such interests as this! Postlebury 10:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per AnonEMouse & Dekkappai.Powergirl 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per AnonEMouse and Dekkappai. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per AnonEMouse and Dekkappai. --David Hain 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous and POV. If kept, at least rename to Category:Big bust genre models and performers and see if this fixes the content issues. If not it should be renominated and then deleted. Vegaswikian 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambiguous, subjective cat. Wryspy 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid genre, and the people engaged it it are fairly well defined. DGG (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is being used on any article about a famous person with a "big bust" (it's very ambiguous) and it's arbitrary and trivial. --Leon Sword 02:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Misspelled article titles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Misspelled article titles to Category:Redirects from misspellings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nom. RichardColgate 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does anyone spend time categorising redirects? Æthelwold 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of reasons. Two notable ones: redirects from misspellings can likely be safely omitted from things alphabetical listings of articles, while {{R with possibilities}} often should not be; and categorizing redirects aids in certain bot-oriented tasks, like "fix the spelling on every link to a redirect from misspelling" a la "Scandanavia" -> Scandinavia. SnowFire 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category: Information economics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete The main article and the single member use the term to refer to different topics. Johnbod 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Universities and colleges in Abia State[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge all into Category:Universities and colleges in Nigeria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Include also all other state categories in Nigeria:

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)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 13:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge all - WP:OC. Eusebeus 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Men with unusually large penis[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary inclusion standards and also WP:V issues. Otto4711 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia still is as messy as it is currently, we can delete then. __meco 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 13:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'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 Wikipedia: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 ^(squeak) 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete per nom and Otto4711. 72.76.85.187 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Delete per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and therefore a vanity vandalism magnet. -- But|seriously|folks 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly unverifiable by necessity. Also, anything related to sex are "vandalism magnet" material. We cannot censor Wikipedia based on that criterion, really! __meco 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable non-defining trivia. Abberley2 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete per nom and But|seriously|folks -Jmh123 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic category.- Gilliam 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
- To answer your first question: you have answered it yourself, tho I think placing the note was a crafty way to alert editors who might be sympathetic to your "cause" who might otherwise have overlooked this silly discussion about preserving a silly category. To answer your second question (that sounded like a question, but without a question mark at the end of the sentence), if a person agrees with the statement of the nominator, as it's worded, then s/he can say "per nom" -- what's the problem with that? Should they write an essay like you did? Further, I don't see where you alerted the one editor who wrote "unencyclopedic." Look, the consensus is against you. Walk away from this silliness and preserve what dignity you have left. There you have my comment on your behavior, OK? 71.127.231.88 13:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that becomes apparent when you follow the wikilink which you yourself have quoted but apparently not followed. As for the one editor who wrote "unencyclopedic," you missed that link also, WP:UNENCYC. In fact, you may want to browse the entire page to which those links point. __meco 16:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still at this? Don't you have any pride? Quoting the info at the Wikilink: "...nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. Where a nomination has been effectively addressed by counter-arguments in the discussion, however, it may be useful to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible..." The nominator's argument was well-formulated, etc., whereas your counter-arguments were not effective, and do not enjoy the consensus of opinion. Do point out exactly where you alerted the editor with WP:UNENCYC, as I do not see it. Why not just admit your mistake, just like you made a mistake in "creating" this silly category, and let this go? Consensus is against you. 71.127.231.88 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. I fail to see how this is at all important or noticeable. We don't need to stroke the vainity (no pun intended) of these men, and its a verifiability nightmare. If you are considering renaming, you'll have to go for something without the word 'large' in it, since that is inherently subjective and any 'cutoff' you make is not neutral. So if the admin see consensus to keep (for some crazy reason I can't see) it should be renamed to Category:Men with an above average penis. CaveatLector^Talk 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, it's noticeable because everybody currently in the category is a porn star. Can't speak to importance, though. Bearcat 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above delete comments. Postlebury 10:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop presses. This is a notable characteristic even outside the porn industry. There are a number of people who are not porn stars, but genuinely famous for their penis size. Milton Berle ... prodigious organ discussed by Phil Silvers, Alan Zweibel, and Freddie Roman; Porfirio Rubirosa ... dimensions written about by no less than Truman Capote, and gave name to pepper grinders; Jimi Hendrix, famously cast by Cynthia Plaster Caster, [2] and others. We don't need to stroke their vanity, they're dead. For them it's not a verifiability nightmare, we're not concerned with the actual measurements, we're concerned with the notability of those discussing their measurements. The category should be refocused on people with notable sources discussing the length. We don't care about dimensions, we care about notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, Mouse, when I think of Milton I don't think of his supposedly having a big schlong, I think of his contribs to TV, despite his being "genuinely famous" for his penis size. Puh-lease! So what if those three guys talked about it? -- they knew him, they're part of the same gang. I personally don't reliquish an airborne excrement what any of them say/said. We are not concerned with the notability of those discussing measurements, we are concerned with the notability of the category. The category is not notable, it is trivial. None of my dictionaries define rubirosa as anything. P. Rubirosa was a playboy and fast car driver who happened to have a big one. Capote wrote about what was on his mind. Admission criteria is based on measurements, not what somebody speculated. This category is doomed to deletion because it is not important. 72.76.96.78 15:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, along with all variations thereon such as "Men famous for..." or "Men reputed to have..."! This is the kind of nonsense that gives Wikipedia a bad name (along with fancruft and "every song that ever mentioned Topic X" lists). --Orange Mike 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to vague and unsourced, ect. --Tom 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though possibly redefine and even split. Porn performers whom the sources show are considered notable forthis characterisitc are a well-defined category. Other historical figures for whom here are also sources, such as those mentioned above, are a separate category, also adequately defined.DGG (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95[edit]

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 listify to Towns in the Former RSK --Kbdank71 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Was there even any previous discussion? (LAz17 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Serbs did genocide against the Croats? You are wrong. Ethnic cleansing yes, but there was no intention to kill the population. Again, the formation of RSK has nothing to do with why it should or should not be deleted. (LAz17 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep - You seem to be pushing an occupation theory. Most occupation theorits on Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- The Serb majority however seems to be the defining characteristic of these towns. (Except of course in the cases where the Serb inhabitants have been driven into exile.)
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)).[reply]

User:LAz17 has disrupted the RfCU procedure, be deleting the request materials [3], on the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17. On that same RfCU, it was disguised that Semberac, Benkovac and Fkzeljo are the same user. RfCU was started, because it was evident that users user:LAz17, user:Semberac (and his later proven sockpuppets user:Benkovac and user:Fkzeljo) were engaged in categorization-warring (and voting here) with this national-extremist category. Kubura 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

As I said above, I think a list would be ok, in fact useful. Johnbod 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific why would we need a list? We have the article about it (Republic of Serbian Krajina) and we have maps[4] so what is the point in lists? I don't understand. --No.13 09:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the map not all of the towns and villages are included, and you need to be an expert in geography to guess whether a village was part of RSK or not. Also in case of BiH if I see only the map I can not decide whether a village on the boarder belongs to the Bosnian-Croatian Federation or to Serbian Republic. So a list even as a part of a broader article would be appreciated, and this does not mean we support the aims of RSK or recognise it as a legitim entity. --Koppany 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koppany most of the settlement articles included in the list (actually most Croatian settlements) have small location maps, you can easily compare it with the map of Republic of Serbian Krajina. Perhaps you misunderstood me but it is not me questioning you or anyone else, I am questioning the use of such list. What would it be it's worth? It's purpose? Most of those places are really small and insignificant even from a Croatian perspective. --No.13 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIREKTOR (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 July 2007

That's just your perception which is totally false. {LAz17 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)}.[reply]

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)[reply]
- I could accept having the information presented in a broader article, rather than a separate list. My main point is that while I don't support the category, I'm strongly opposed to WP:CENSORing the information, which seems to be the primary motive of the nominator. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. (Although I'll admit that those who remember history are usually condemned to watch others repeat it.) :) Xtifr _tälk 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My primary motive is not censorship but removal of category not supported by Wiki rules. We already have the article about this Republic of Serbian Krajina and we already have other articles about Yugoslav Wars and specifically Croatian War for Independence so no need for this category. Historical subjects can't be used in this way. --No.13 08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hey, guess what... Vojna Krajina and Republika Srpska Krajina have totally different borders. If genocide happened there, it happened between 1941 and 1945 when the Croats wanted to kill a third of the serbs, convert a third and drive out a third. These ideas are still idolized by the ustashe movement, which is still popular today. Krajina's geography is rather distinct. The region in Croatia is much poorer than the rest of the country, the infrastructure mostly remains destroyed and in need of repairs, there is still a big presence of serbs there - ranging from big minority to majority depending on the municipality, and this is a region of croatia where most of the serbs in croatia reside. This category is relevant for population geography, historical geography and mapping. (LAz17 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Borders of Krajina's are irrelevant (overlapping a lot), the name is... There's no reason for this category, you can write about these cities in Republic of Serbian Krajina. The problem is what is the real motive behind this. Serbs had a majority in a few little towns before 91. In all civilised world it's called "a national minority". RSK was not recognised by UN or any country in the world, except Serbia&Montenegro. Phisically and officially it was occupied Croatian territory. Isn't it "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 (or some of them) had majority before 91 and not in present so Croats made a genocide" propaganda... pardon... category?Zenanarh 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to stop mentioning genocide propaganda which is true? Then you guys stop mentioning ethnic cleansing propaganda and other things associated with the formation of RSK. Both of these things are true and are irelevent to the problem. The borders of RSK and VK are totally different RSK had parts of Dalmacia and did not have central slavonia or parts of vojvodina or romania. They are two totally unrelated entities. You want to know what the real motive behind this is? It is to enhance geography and knowledge. The serbs a majority in dozens of places, not a few places. You call it occupied? By whom? The people who lived there for hundreds of years, that's by whom. That is like saying that negros are occupying part of the US southeast region. I am not saying that Croats made a genocide on the Serbs between 1991 and 1995. The intention was to force them out, not to kill them. Cleansing and genocide are two totally different things. Genocide is Rwanda or WW2 Croatia. I have mentioned how this region is unique in many ways and how it stands out in Croatia. (LAz17 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

You are playing with a word "genocide" like it is just an icecream. And you presume that you are the court which would decide who made genocide and who didn't. Once you say genocide, then unique geography (I really can't understand what you're talking about - do you know what geography means?), etc... This is childish! No comment from me anymore. It is quite enough to read yours. That's my comment. I said delete it!Zenanarh 13:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed. Votestacking. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17. Chasing the rabbit, but the fox run out of the bush. See the bottom of the page. User:Benkovac and User:Fkzeljo are the sockpuppets of user:Semberac. Kubura 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
- Note this was a double vote by LAz17 as can be seen from his changes you can see here he already voted here and then he again voted here. The proof they are the same person is here when he later came back and signed himself under the comment made by the anon IP user who voted here. --No.13 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that many were expelled in 1995, but many more had already left by then. (LAz17 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Ante Gotovina has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, you are attempting to steer the discussion off course; stick with the topic. --Jesuislafete 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the #*%#&% is your problem?!?! I am not a sock puppet and there is no proof that what that person said is a sockpuppet. Get Wikipedia to verify IP addresses and you will see that I am not a sockpuppet. You use this cheap slander to try to make your point across. (LAz17 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete This so-called "state" was illegal, unrecognized, and unstable--it lasted barely four years and took just 2 days for it to fall after the Republic of Croatia was finally able to launch Operation Storm and recapture the area. If the "state" was so important, it would have lasted longer and certainly would not have fallen so quickly. I wonder why this category was not deleted quicker, and hope it is because the Wikipedia administrators were mistaken in believing it was an "important" state, and if you read up upon it's creation and existence, you will find out it was not. It does not give any informatin that is relevent or important; if this category is allowed to exist, what is there stoping other categories? Is it fair to add the category "former Axis-power cities" to the city of Paris? No one would ever dream of adding that to Paris' (or other cities in France, Italy, etc) page. Why must the Croatian pages bear the burden of these categories? --Jesuislafete 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formation of RSK,the fact that it was unrecognized, how long it existed, has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, you are attempting to steer the discussion off course; stick with the topic. I have stated already why this category is important. It is a unique region with unique features such as populatoin, terrain, population, history, infrastructure as well as others, that are very different from other parts of croatia. This region is unique. (LAz17 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Please try to act mature LAz17, if repeating what I told another user above is your twisted idea of making me look dumb, I'm afraid it has had quite the opposite affect.--Jesuislafete 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what is happening is that people are trying to find people who support one side or the other. Why should the success of one to find people to vast votes be relevant for the final decision? Why is the formation of this state even important or the matter at hand? (LAz17 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment. User LAz17 is vote stacking. As you can see from this change here he already voted here and then he again voted here made 13:52, 30 July 2007 as anonymous IP 124.177.49.44. He revealed himself by accident on two separate places here. Also as you can see here and here he pretends to be talking to another person. This person is using sockpuppets for vote stacking, disruption and POV changes to articles on a massive scale. --No.13 07:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No.13, You seem to be spreading your POV, deleteing anything that is Serbian. Your history reveals this. Leave LAz17 alone. You No.13 just go around spreading propaganda to other users. Have you actually went on LAz17 talk page and try to discuss the situation? no you haven't!!! No.13, You have been told to stop vandalising. 2 comments were left on your talk page revealing your vandalisms and you just deleted them and ignored them.
- Note. This seems to be yet another sockpuppet of LAz17. --No.13 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. another sockpuppet??? Everyone seems to be a sockpuppet when they disagree with No.13's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.111.17 (talk • contribs)
  - Note. 124.181.111.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked by myself for votestacking, and the canvassing rolled back. I wonder who will get caught in an autoblock... I don't care if anyone accuses me of conflict of interest (as I !voted above), but I still declare no pasaran to the petty nationalism from whichever side it comes. Duja► 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't and shouldn't categorise towns by every transitory polity to which they have ever belonged. Postlebury 10:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to delete categories that have a purpose. Avala 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This category is senseless from political and historical point of view. I guess you all agree that equally senseless could be Category:Former Towns of Nazi Germany 1939-45 with Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Oslo, Kiev, Belgrad and Warsaw. If anyone wants to bring some value to Wikipedia, should write good and NPOV article about RSK with maps and all usual stuff. Piotr Mikołajski 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly, I wish people would address this issue. If we allow this category to exist, then others will crop up with the same arguements. --Jesuislafete 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization, though I don't see how a list could hurt if people want that. All the debate about whether RSK existed legally or was recognized internationally, or not, is irrelevant, as others have mentioned. -Bbik^★ 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because if category stay we will have nationalistic problems. Example of that will be new category: Cities under Ottoman occupation, Cities under Serbian occupation, Cities victims of Serbian Ethnic cleansing. Nobody will have possibility to say anything against this examples of new category. Please stop this edit wars before they start. --- Rjecina 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why wouldn't we have Category:Cities victims of <<whoevers>> Ethnic cleansing? (Despite being obvious POV magnet, but there is nothing wrong with the category per se.) Nikola 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at least for now, unless more similar categories appear so that more conclusions could be drawn. For one thing, I find this useful: if I browse Wikipedia and find a city, it's useful to me if I could look up if it was in RSK/in Cazinska Krajina/occupied by Bulgaria in WWII/etc without having to read entire history. But I see how this could spiral out of hand with "Former cities of the Banovina of Vardar", "Former cities of the Vilayet of Nis", "Former cities of the province of Moesia"... Comparison with Nazi Germany is not fully apt: it is superfluous to say that Paris is a "City formerly occupied by Nazi Germany" as it is in France and everyone known that entire France was occupied by Nazi Germany; better comparison could be cities in Russia (of which some were occupied and some not), and there I would find such a category useful, though Russian editors might want to give their opinion. Perhaps a rule of thumb for categories like these could be: they should stay unless superfluous with another geographical category. For example: "Former cities of the Banovina of Vardar" could be used but only on cities which were in the banovina but are not in the Republic of Macedonia (because all cities in Macedonia were also in the banovina; category "Cities in Republic of Macedonia" would be a subcategory of "Former cities of the Banovina of Vardar"). Nikola 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of historical importance --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a bad precedent, and there is too much strong feeling on both sides. This exists because it is recent and emotive, but if it had been thousands of years ago, its unlikely that anyone would have felt the need to create it. There is no need. Æthelwold 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Johnbod and No.13 on this one - we have an article on RSK, we have maps, is it really neccessary to list every single town and village? --Dr.Gonzo 01:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, it has historical importance Semberac
Keep RSK did exist before it was taken over by the croats. RSK had its own government, money..... People were getting on with there lives till croats decided to invade and begin there campaign of ethnic cleansing.
- Comment. This vote came from a proxy server (see User_talk:130.194.13.105), due to similar rhetoric and traditional practice of LAz17 not to sign himself it is my opinion that this is yet another vote stacking attempt by the same user. --No.13 10:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could make up the bogus claim that you are several users, just like you cause me of this which is not true. (76.29.100.8 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

LAz17 I have solid evidence that you voted at least two times with separate accounts here. Your rhetoric and the way you sign yourself is very unique and recognizable, using proxis won't help you. I recommned you stop with this. --No.13 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.13 you seem very obsessed in finding ways of getting rid of this category. You accuse anyone that doesn't sign in as being LAz17. You bombard a number of users (mainly croats) to vote to delete this category. Benkovac 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accuse just anyone, only the obvious sockpuppets you use - LAz17. You have a specific way of signing (or not signing) yourself and unique rude rhetoric. Where did you see me bombard other users to vote? I invated several people (5 to be precise) to look into this matter and cast a vote if they wish based on their judgement. It is you who is vote stacking and telling people how to vote which is why Duja already blocked one of your sockuppets (124.181.111.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))). --No.13 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

76.29.100.8 is my IP number. This is LAz posting now... so please sodd off with your claims that have no evidence. Those IPs are not my IP. Go harass someone else, or even better - stop harassing. (76.29.100.8 20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

LAz17 I have one of your IPs when you made a mistake, came back and signed yourself here. Your IP range is 124.1xx.xxx.--No.13 09:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is geting out of hand. Benkovac 06:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I must have deleted that person's message my accident. I'll put it back there. (LAz17 14:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep This category has great historical value as a number of users have already stated!!!Benkovac 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Votestacking. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17. Chasing the rabbit, but the fox run out of the bush. See the bottom of the page. User:Benkovac and User:Fkzeljo are the sockpuppets of user:Semberac. Kubura 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can this user Benkovac vote? His vote cannot be valid. As I've seen, majority of his contributions were reverts (revert-warring) and categorization of the articles with this category. See Special:Contributions/Benkovac. Till now, 117 edits. But look at the differences. Shall everybody now make tens of sockpuppets, whose only contribution'll be revert-warring and categorization with crap-categories, reaching that way the necessary 50 edits, making it easier for vote-fixing (rigging...)? In fact, he should be banned. As I've seen his userpage, that's propaganda of Serbian territorial expansionism. Shall Wikipedia tolerate such things? Kubura 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcategorization. Listify if wanted. Garion96 (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete. Ordinary territorial pretensions and expanisionism. I gave my explanation here [5]. Otherwise, what's next? Category:Former cities in Third Reich? Or even worse, how come that those Serb users haven't proposed Former cities of Bulgarian Empire 1915-1918? Kubura 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these articles about Croatian cities are geographical articles (not historical) and we have no reason to post them into historical categories. Besides this, these cities belonged to many countries in history, so should we have categories for each of them: "Former Towns of Habsburg Monarchy", "Former Towns of Ottoman Empire", "Former Towns of Avar Khaganate", etc, etc... There is clear difference between history and geography here and geographical articles should be placed into geographical categories, but not in historical ones. PANONIAN 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to "Towns in Krajina", alternatively "Towns in former Republic of Serbian Krajina". The category needs a neutral name. The republic had a brief (but unrecognised) existence. Its extent is thus of some historic interest. I distinguish this from the cases suggested by PANONIAN, becasue it is a comparatively modest part of the present Croatia. Peterkingiron 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify & Delete regardless of legalities, war-crimes, etc. My understanding of the categorisation convention is that we only include current entities, as most every place would otherwise be subject to tens of former governments. Tewfik^Talk 18:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, as above. (Also can we please keep the debate focused on the virtues of this particular kind of categorisation, there is no point in arguing on what each one thinks of Srpska Krajina and so on!)--Asterion^talk 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so we will listify and end this chaos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towns_in_the_Former_RSK (LAz17 21:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Listify and delete - Regardless of the fact the RSK was illegal entity, generally speaking, it's stupid to categorise towns according to their prevoius condition. Otherwise, we would have zillion of useless categories. And, of course, don't forget that RSK was ilegal entity. Listify under name Towns occupied by RSK during Croatian War of Independence. --Ante Perkovic 09:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as more or less useless; e.g. a hypothetical category Category:Cities and towns in the former Austria-Hungary presumably wouldn't offend anyone, but what purpose would it serve? Talk of "legality" is completely off the mark; when it comes to secession, one either pulls it off and gets an international recognition - or doesn't. It doesn't matter; illegal things exist too. I'd say "listify", but it's already done: Towns in the Former RSK. GregorB 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, it has historical significant and is interesting to read.Mike Babic (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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

Category:Soviet propagandists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete - again POV Onnaghar (Talk) 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. KNewman 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A loaded term. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep. It is important to understand that neither propaganda nor propagandist were inherently disparaging terms in Soviet Union; any claims of "loadedness" are based on a Western historigraphic bias. Digwuren 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary POV. "propagandist" is not a profession, it is a political slur. `'Míkka 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect. Consider the entry on House of Political Education from the Handbook of Party Worker of 1957, for example. The operative quote:

“

In Houses of Political Education, the propagandists, lecturers, speakers and instructors of agitative collectives can get methodical aid. Many Houses of Political Education have cabinets for dealing with the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, political economy, international questions and other matters. Led by the Party Committees, the Houses organise preparation and continuous retraining of propaganda workers and work on studying and promoting the positive experience of party propaganda.

”

(Old Soviet texts are rather hard to translate from Russian to English, as the semantic maps of Khruschev-era Partyspeak and modern English are rather different. But it shouldn't be a problem, as Mikkalai is certainly able to read the original Russian. Digwuren 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to describe a producer of Propaganda as a "propagandist" without its being a slur? Because that flies in the face of reason. Otto4711 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the word is a slur in English language. As for Soviet Union, by the statute of the Communist Party, every its member was a propagandist. MOreover, the whole Socialist Realism category of Soviet Art was supposed to be propaganda. So you can stick this label arbitrarily onto most of Soviet people with wikipedia articles. Of course, there was a profession of "propagandist", but vast majority were hardly notable persons to have wikipedia articles. I could write more here, but I am not sure it will be interesting to people whose goal is to stick accusative labels of various kinds rather than write articles with information. `'Míkka 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, propaganda was supposed to be omnipresent, and conducted by everybody. In practice, it wasn't that way, of course. Similarly, there are religious creative people who declare that everything they do is an act of worship. (Some even say that everything *anybody* does is an act of worship, the difference only being the object of worship.) That doesn't mean Wikipedia should consider everything created by them religious evangelism.
As for the "slur" part, as pointed out by Martintg, the term should be taken in its context. After all, in modern English, "communist" is all too often used as a derogatory remark, and yet, Wikipedia doesn't delete Category:Communists. Digwuren 19:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Soviet propaganda was a high art form, their practitioners should be honoured. 235,000 google hits [6], 2120 books [7], 2,320 hits in Google Scholar [8], 3,850 images [9] Martintg 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martintg.--MariusM 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since npov delimitations would be impossible. It should be noted that 'propaganda' had a positive connotation in the Bolshevik discourse, but the meaning in English has changed over the last century and as a wikicategory I see little need for labelling all Soviet artists, writers and politicians as 'propagandists'. --Soman 11:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious approach to dealing with shifting meanings of words would be to 'translate' them. I'd say that what Soviets meant in 'propagandist' matches reasonably well what modern English means in 'evangelist', but I'm uncomfortable making an official proposal to rename in absence of an WP:RS actually saying that. Digwuren 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propagandists were esteemed professionals within the Communist Party carrying out essential and important party work during the Soviet era, we should stick with the terms of the period and not impose out 21st century views and values upon that period. Given the volume of propaganda material it would be wrong not to note talanted people that created it. Martintg 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Digwuren 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Category:Soviet professional propagandists, in line with the preceding comment by Martintg. This would define the cat more narrowly and eliminate POV concerns. Cgingold 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above. The category at present contains several people who would not fall into that group such as Vladimir Mayakovsky--who certainly worked to propagate Soviet ideas, but was primarily known as a poet. Stalin, who is not included, also wrote & edited material for the purpose of propaganda, but his p rofessional concern was much broader than that. DGG (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto (without prejudice to a rename, though it should be applied to the entire hierarchy); as always categories should be based on referenced content, but the simple possibility of its misuse doesn't necessitate deletion. Tewfik^Talk 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Russian propagandists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete - many people have different viewpoints. A debate would occur. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. KNewman 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A loaded term. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wildly POV category. Johnbod 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep, as above. Digwuren 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary POV. "propagandist" is not a profession, it is a political slur. `'Míkka 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect. Consider the entry on House of Political Education from the Handbook of Party Worker of 1957, for example. The operative quote:

“

In Houses of Political Education, the propagandists, lecturers, speakers and instructors of agitative collectives can get methodical aid. Many Houses of Political Education have cabinets for dealing with the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, political economy, international questions and other matters. Led by the Party Committees, the Houses organise preparation and continuous retraining of propaganda workers and work on studying and promoting the positive experience of party propaganda.

”

(Old Soviet texts are rather hard to translate from Russian to English, as the semantic maps of Khruschev-era Partyspeak and modern English are rather different. But it shouldn't be a problem, as Mikkalai is certainly able to read the original Russian. Digwuren 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to describe a producer of Propaganda as a "propagandist" without its being a slur? Because that flies in the face of reason. Otto4711 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto4711. We have Category:Soviet propagandists, for example. There is no logical justification to keep a category for one country, and do not keep it for another.Biophys 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC) By the way, propaganda is an important social phenomenon present in all contries, including modern US, etc. This is widely accepted.Biophys 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711 and Biophys. 45,800 Google hits [10], 805 books [11], 339 scholar [12], 1480 images [13] Martintg 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In each particular case can be discussed the inclusion, but no reason to delete the entire category. No doubt propagandists exists.--MariusM 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comment on 'Soviet propagandists'. --Soman 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there should also be cfd on Category:Propagandists as a whole. --Soman 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and its not clear why people in this category considered propagandists. -- DVoit 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for POV concerns. To my knowledge, there are no people publicly identified as "professional propagandists" in Russia. Unlike Category:Soviet propagandists, which I suggested renaming to Category:Soviet professional propagandists, I don't see any good way to eliminate the POV issues for this cat. Cgingold 14:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as despite Otto's comments (and mine above), the usage here seems less grounded in RS, where the term does not seem to be contemporary. Tewfik^Talk 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users with BLOCKPROOF[edit]

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)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pointless vanity Category Q ^{T C} 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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