Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11[edit]

Category:Masters of Evil Members[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 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Masters of Evil Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, possibly speedy. As per previous consensus and precedent, comic book characters are not categorized by team membership. As far as speedy, I'm fairly sure that this specific category existed during the previous discussions and was deleted as a result, making this a recreation. J Greb 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I saw this one earlier today but didn't have the time to nominate it. Per all of the other members categories that have been deleted. Eddie's Teddy 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 13:02, 12 October 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:Fictional characters who can fly[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 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can fly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category was deleted on 3 Jul 2006 here, recreated by a bot. Original nomination stated: "Way, way too broad; this could include thousands of superheroes in comics, film & TV, and countless mythological and folkloric characters." Consensus was nearly unanimous: Delete; seems unlikely that reasons to Keep have surfaced. I add that the definition "characters who usually travel by..." is vague and requires OR, and one of the means of travel is "technological", which would include just about anyone who uses a plane, invisible or otherwise. HalJor 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) HalJor 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category is vague. Birds can fly, so most fictional birds would fit. If we limit it to humans, do Tinkerbell and Superman fit? Some superheros can fly, but only with the aid of a device. If they count, every fictional character taking an airplane counts. Some superheros need energy from the Earth's sun to fly, if they count, is that a device? Does energy from being fired out of a cannon count? Is a fictional robot a character (e.g. Johnny Socko's Flying Robot)? If so, is an aircraft with some form of intelligence a "character" as well? What level of intelligence? - Mdbrownmsw 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block recreation enough already; this is vague/non-defining, and most special powers of fictional characters have been deleted on those bases to date. Carlossuarez46 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Though it was deleted, consensus can change. I actually tried putting a very good description on this cat., it just needs to be corrected (see the nice entry at Category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength). Tinkerbell and Superman should be categorized in the appropiate flight categories, they're not humans BTW. As for device usage, I'm unsure of that at the moment. And people who fly by use of aircraft are certainly not in this category (see the explanation given at Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds as another example). Guys, let's just work on the description eh? That's all that needs work. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Sesshomaru. It's the description that needs to be touched up, not the category itself. --Piemanmoo 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone correct the current entry on Category:Fictional characters who can fly? Just follow a similar format from the two other categories I referenced. That way confusion can be avoided. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably by a different name. Category:Fictional characters who can fly without wings has a bit more precision to it. As long as it contains birds and bats, it's likely to return to CfD. Want to be impressive? Come up with a name for humanoid characters with wings - (Oh wait, it looks like I just did : ) - jc37 09:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a bad idea. Though we could instead name it something to the effect of Category:Fictional characters who can fly by energy propulsion methods. We could also have a more overly specific cat, something like Category:Fictional characters who can defy gravity by energy propulsion methods. How does that sound? We need to come up with the shortest name possible though. Let's discuss! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unfortunately that would be as bad, or worse than the last rename which you suggested: Category:Fictional characters who can defy gravity see here. And I stick by my comment of that time: renaming this and it subs is a sure way to get them deleted. Right now they're generic in approach, add specifics and the cat will need to be patrolled and cull regularly and there well be valid call to listify since citing of sources will be needed for inclusion. - J Greb 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You're right, and I do recall that discussion well. I was just throwing out ideas here anyway, nothing really serious. Maybe it is just the description on the current category that needs specification. Two other cats came to my mind after precision was mentioned earlier above: Category:Fictional characters with physical flight and Category:Fictional characters with energy propulsion/propulsive flight. I would say create these and a Category:Fictional characters who can defy gravity for characters who don't fly, per say, like the soul reapers in Bleach. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately there is a lot of work, and some potential problems, with that.
          Right now the cat has 13 subs, 9 of which would be of little problem since they would migrate wholesale. The other four though would wind up needing to be split to match the new schema. That adds a degree of unneeded complexity in the cat structures: ie would DC Comics characters who can fly by mechanical means (wings) sub to DC Comics characters who can fly, Fictional characters who can fly by mechanical means, or both? Also, would there be room for Fictional characters who can fly by artificial means for rings, belts, rocket packs, etc, where they are a regular aspect of the character? I can see an argument being made for that one if the parent is being split.
          And then there is the problem of articles that are for either characters that transition from one method to another over time or cover multiple versions of a character using different methods. Right now those article get 1 cat, split it and they add what are essentially redundant cats. - J Greb 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what idea(s) are you proposing J Greb? I'm assuming it should stay the way it is then. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, grudgingly, as per the result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14#Fictional characters by power. The CfD indicates that the consensus of the July 3, 2006 had changed. As such, the "recreation" argument does not seem very valid. Beyond that, any tinkering is going to wind up in a situation of needing to justify the limitation of the category. That is the purview of Lists. - J Greb 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite longstanding doubts, the category has remained stable and practical.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:45, 13 October 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:Philippines actors[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. Kbdank71 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Philippines actors to Category:Filipino actors
Nominator's rationale: Category:Philippines actors duplicates the much broader Category:Filipino actors, which has a number of subcategories such as Category:Filipino child actors, Category:Filipino character actors, Category:Filipino silent film actors, etc.—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Snocrates 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For discussion: Though one currently duplicates part of the other, the categories are not necessarily perfectly nested. There can certainly be actors in the Philippines who are not Filipino and Filipino actors who do not act in the Philippines. A merge of the lists would require a stance on the criteria, violating one of the lists. - Mdbrownmsw 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Delete Philippines actors The categories should not "Merge", because they are not the same. I certainly agree, though, that Philippines actors should be deleted. - Mdbrownmsw 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Snocrates. Category:Philippines actors, as a category for actors in the Philippines, is overcategorisation of the type "people by location". Current place of residence may be a defining factor, but it's something that's virtually impossible to keep track of, especially in light of privacy concerns. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:33, 12 October 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:Muslim hip hop groups[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 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Muslim hip hop groups to Category:Islamic hip hop groups
Nominator's rationale: Per the title of the parent category (Category:Islamic music) and the main article (Islamic music). Also, the groups themselves are not Muslim; the proper adjective is 'Islamic'. See also the 2007 Sep 27 CFD that renamed Category:Muslim music to Category:Islamic music. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and precedent. "Muslim" is a person; "Islamic" is the adjective. Snocrates 05:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Snocrates' helpful observation that "Muslim" is a person and "Islamic" is the adjective doesn't actually to resolve the issue. If these groups are producing Islamic music (defined in the article as religious), then the correct adjective is "Islamic", but from reading the article in this category it seems that none of these groups are producing religious music: they are bands of muslim musicians, producing music for both muslim and non-muslim audiemces, but their themes are social, political and cultural rather than religious. The adjective therefore applies to the band members rather than to the music, so "muslim" is appropriate here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, shouldn't the category simply be deleted as overcategorisation? After all, it amounts to categorising groups by the particular affiliations (in this case, religion) of their individual members. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per BrownHairedGirl, and remove articles that don't fit the description. This one was kind of tricky -- almost went the other way. There are four groups whose members are Muslims, but only three of them (Mecca2Medina, Native Deen, Soldiers of Allah) appear to perform "Islamic music"; the fourth (The Brothahood) appears to perform music about social issues facing Muslims. The group DAM is Palestinian, with one Muslim member and two members whose religion is not mentioned. Outlandish has two Muslims and a Catholic; Closer Than Veins is merely one of their albums. Cgingold 13:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just realised this was created before category:Muslim musicians was deleted. But could there still be precedence for deletion based on that Cfd? Spellcast
  • Comment. Given the comments above by BHG and Spellcast, I no longer think that renaming is the right course of action; outright deletion seems to be more appropriate, since this category categorises groups by the particular affiliations of their individual members. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing my !vote), as recreation (thanks to Spellcast for the research). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Vegaswikian 22:40, 15 October 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:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism[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 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism to Category:Haredi anti-Zionism
Nominator's rationale: This category was created [1] by a banned user known for his use of sockpuppets and for creating POV magnets for disputes (Eidah (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet of Daniel575 (talk · contribs)) openly violating WP:POVFORK. This category is only about some Haredi groups and individuals who do not "self-identify" as "Orthodox" nor do the vast majority of Orthodox and Haredi Jews agree with the positions of those extremely fanatical Haredim who are vocally "anti-Zionists" so that the "Orthodox Jewish" is totally inappropriate and redundant as well. Indeed this category has to rely on another article Haredim and Zionism as its lead article, that is much less controversial. During a recent vote Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism a number of editors suggested that the category be renamed to a more specific name. If this cannot be done then the category should be deleted so as not to benefit Troll (Internet), see WP:TROLL. IZAK 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user was not blocked for sockpupetry in of itself. nor was he a Troll (Internet), nor was he opening POV magnets for disputes and nor was he openly violating WP:POVFORK. He is blocked because when he was attacked by the Wiki-Project Jews he could not handle it cool and lost his temper, and consensus was never that he wasn't right to be hurt, fact is other users have protested at the time, that he should not be blocked at all. Izak tried to delete already once this cat, now that the creator is blocked he impunged motives to persuade this second attempt. This article does not rely at all on Haredim and Zionism this isn't its lead article.--יודל 09:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? He was not a saint and he dug himself into his own hole. Being permanantly blocked proves how bad his behavior was over a long time (and for a long time I even tried to help him change his ways, and even though he may be one of the Lamed vav tzadikim he still has to abide by Wikipedia norms.) He has only himself to blame and please do not attack all the editors on WP:JEW, as that is a huge violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF against many reliable and responsible users, that includes some admins. If he could not handle his cool, then the least he could have done is not curse expletives and swear blasphemies. How revolting, and you want to justify that? Anyhow, you are playing "tricks" here, since, sure now you can say that Haredim and Zionism is not it's lead article after you just changed it [2]. Not nice to do that. You are also mixing up what I have stated in the nomination, that he was a sockpuppet and that he was blocked. All true facts. And then I have added more information required as part of this nomination. It's all above-board and stop violating WP:AGF and stop the Mickey Mouse tactics, as everyone sees through them by now. Thank you, IZAK 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. About my edit to that article; please look back in the history and see that i put that there, and i forgot to change it back. It was put there regarding the last talk subject look and see the context of the edits that it was an attempt to reach consensus about the overall structure of the article. it failed and this did not happen.
  2. About user Eidah it wasn't i who was involved so much, i suffered from him just like others, it was other Jews who have expressed their concern that his blockage should not be done at the time, so how my explanation of how he was blocked is a personal attack on Jewish editors fails me. I don't think i was breaking any policy in chronocling the events.--יודל 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read your own words above again. I need not say more here. IZAK 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism to Category:Haredi anti-Zionism

:Nominator's rationale: Rename, adding template for discussion (I was not the nominator.) Yossiea (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename or Delete for above reasons. IZAK 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and No rename when it will have 5 subjects (without the list article and the biography article) we should recreate with this same very good name--יודל 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a category is not needed here. The article referenced is enough. Yossiea (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename to Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism per Cgingold, supported by several others, in the previous debate. This was the clear favourite choice of those wanting a rename then. Johnbod 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Johnbod: The name you suggest is precisely the wrong one. Simply because the groups involved do call themselves "Orthodox" and they are shunned by the rest of the "Orthodox" and indeed it would be offensive to them and to the Orthodox to call them "Orthodox" and therefore Haredi is the correct name, if at all, simply because that it is what they are referred to by themselves and others. IZAK 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you said last time (plus much else); I & many other editors did not find it persuasive then either (no more abusive messages to my talk page please - I am well aware of your position). Johnbod 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most Orthodox do only shun one subject the Neturei karta. Satmar is respected by most Orthodox Jewish people. But i do share Izak's concern that since we don't have yet enough subjects in this cat it should not be renamed yet.--יודל 16:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yidisheryid: Do not mix up what I have said. I am saying that it should be renamed to Category:Haredi anti-Zionism, and if that cannot be done then it should be deleted because the name "Orthodox" does not describe the people in it, since 99% of Orthodox Jews are not such fanatics as to call themselves "anti-Zionists" the way some radical Neturei Karta elements do in the media especially. IZAK 05:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for clarifying your stand on this, i disagree that this opposition has anything to with Hareidi more then orthodox, 99 percent of hareidim are in your eyes just as repulsed by Neturie karta then 99 percent of orthodox, I see now that you are very open in this POV against neture karta which is unfortunate, we should not change names to prove personal hate here. I will now clarify my position more accurately to keep and not rename, the name is a good name it is only that the cat is not to populated with subjects to have a separate cat. But the name is perfect.--יודל 09:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi Yidisheryid, you are free to flip-flop yet again! As I have told you many times, I do not have hate for anyone (and you violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF by saying that.) I do not have a POV against the Neturei Karat either, why should I, they exist. What I am concerned about is accuracy in naming articles on Wikipedia and alternately that names and language not be used in "tricky" ways to hijack entire subjects and areas for themselves artificially. The name "Orthodox" is very broad, and it includes many sectors, from Modern to Hasidic, and 99% oppose the Neturei Karta, as you have admitted. At least if the word "Haredi" is used it gets closer to the point. I would actually like to use the word "Ultra-Haredi" but that would be a backwards step because a long time ago it was decided not to use the word/s "Ultra-Orthodox" or "Ultra" in any way because it's used in a negative pejorative way. Thanks, IZAK 13:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Izak, you keep on telling me i am flip flopper yet you fail to comprehend the whole process of this page, this is not an election, this is a page where we talk and talk and try to convince ourselves and others to reach consensus. I have not changed my opinion here in regards to the name of the cat, this is the best name in my view and if you look back on the privies CFD nomination, this was then my position that the subjects here are not that enough to have a cat, i think this is policy that minimum 5 subjects must be worthy of its own category, but if we are discussing names, lets see because this subject fits more relative into your limited discussion we have to move it? next week you will have a third nomination to move to satmar like you wanted with that JAZ org? this process is clearly what it is to get the opposition to Zionism as far away as the word Jew, come on, live with facts there are Jews who are opposed to Zionism. It is a neutral non point of view fact. they are indeed a fringe lunatic few, but they made it in the world's awareness as an important and notable JEWS not Hareidim and not Satamr and not lunatics, people in Niagara, people in Siberia and people in India, the whole world when they are talking about these people they refer to them as JEWS, so this cat is the best name for a NPOV wikipedia.--יודל 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nope, this is more than just a "talk page" and if you think so, you are violating WP:NOT#CHAT and WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#ANARCHY. Of course there are Jews who are opposed to Zionism, why not, it's a free world (mostly, hopefully), but there are also people who want to turn all Orthodox and Haredi articles on Wikipedia into sub-categories of just one idea "anti-Zionism" spouted like a mantra. That would be just as bad as Zionists who would want to twist all Wikipedia articles about Judaism into pro-Zionism articles. I for one do not pick sides but it is clear as you have said many, many times that you think and function only from an "anti-Zionist" POV, which violates WP:NPOV! Wikipedia is a place where accuracy is important, so what if the whole world thinks that "Jew" or "kikes" or "Yid" is curse word, Wikipedia would never give in to that kind of twisted logic (actually lack of basic thinking) which violates WP:LIBEL. As for you flip-flopping, well sure, once in a year or so people change their minds on a vote or something, but you do it almost compulsively so that no-one can be sure what your position is and what you wish to really say so that the end result just looks like violations of WP:DISRUPT and WP:REICHSTAG. Sincerely, IZAK 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No user should try to make Jewish articles into Anti-Zionism, and i think nobody is currently doing it. also i have a POV and it is my life. That say that my POV is the ONLY think driving my being is ludicrous. So if i ever said such a think please do not repeat it out of context, because it makes me look very silly, and therefore a Personal Attack. Now back on subject if most people call a Kike a Jew a NPOV would be to make it into the cat Jew.--יודל 14:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This is wrong: "if most people call a Kike a Jew a NPOV would be to make it into the cat Jew" because it would not. The Jews would still be Jews (no matter what people called them) and the people who called them names would be categorized as antisemites. Just a clarification, IZAK 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • A name of thing may have many reasons for its origin, but if the name is excepted to call it like this, Wikipedia will not fight with the dictionary.--יודל 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Whatever. IZAK 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename to Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism, which is an improvement on the current name. I am no more persuaded by Izak's arguments than I was in the previous CFD. Izak's assertion that it's inappropriate to use the word "Orthodox" when referring to the Haredim is not reflected in the article Haredi Judaism. "Haredi" is an obscure term for the vast majority of readers, whereas "Orthodox Jewish" is widely used and understood. Cgingold 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism, as suggested by Cgingold. Using the name Category:Haredi Anti-Zionism will mix people up and might lead to incorrect assumptions.--JewBask 12:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Haredi anti-Zionism since that is how these groups (and individuals) self-identify and it is more in line with the related article Haredim and Zionism. --MPerel 06:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine if the term was widely understood, but I seriously doubt if one person in a hundred would even have a clue what it (Haredi) means. I don't even think it's very well known among Jews. There's no serious problem with using this term within the context of Judaism, so if it were purely a sub-category of explicitly Jewish categories we could consider it. But in this case, it's a sub-category of Category:Anti-Zionism, which the average reader will, for obvious reasons, assume refers to non-Jewish people, groups, etc. -- in other words, there would be no contextual clues as to what it might mean. Whenever possible, Wiki categories should have names that are meaningful to the average reader -- which is why Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism is the best choice here. Cgingold 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cgingold: The word Haredi has gained wide usage and recognition, and certainly on Wikipedia it is used rather than the pejorative term "Ultra-Orthodox" which by consensus over the years has not been used in any Wikipedia articles. So the problem with starting to throw about the name "Orthodox" is that when one will then want to talk about the right-wing, the pejorative phrase "Ultra-Orthodox" would be deployed and to avoid that would be another good reason to use the term Haredi that is accepted by both the Haredim and the world at large, as it it's already gained wide usage in the media and academia. IZAK 10:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, as you know full well, nobody is suggesting use of the term "Ultra-Orthodox", so for you to throw that into the discussion is nothing more than yet another red herring. As for your assertion that "the word Haredi has gained wide usage and recognition" -- that is unquestionably NOT the case anywhere except for Israel. If you don't believe me, just try a GoogleNews search on "Haredi". The results are so clear that there is simply nothing to dispute: the only places where the term appears are Israeli publications. Even on regular Google, virtually all of the websites that turn up are either Israeli or Jewish. No matter how many times you insist to the contrary, "Haredi" is indeed a very obscure term.
You've made it clear that your underlying objective is to completely dis-associate Orthodox Jewry from anti-Zionism. But you can't change the facts to suit your preferences -- and you shouldn't try to impose your personal POV on this category. I think any disinterested person would agree that Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism is an improvement over the current name precisely because it focuses on the word "groups", rather than perhaps seeming to hint at a substantial relationship between Orthodox Judaism and anti-Zionism. In short, this glass is at least 98 per cent full, IZAK. You should be saying, "Mazel Tov", not "Oy gevalt!" Cgingold 13:29, 17 October 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:Novelty Items[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 13:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novelty Items (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Novelties, to match Novelties. -- Prove It (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inclusion is entirely subjective, the list of what might constitute novelties at our wonderfully unsourced article there show the difficulties with the category: antiques are novelties, so generally anything over 100 years old is considered antique (or so I've been led to believe). It's also not defining. If something is notable, presumably it's got something other than being a novelty (as defined in our article) to say that it's important and such should be sufficient for categorization purposes. Carlossuarez46 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changing my !vote) Delete per Carlossuarez46. I can't actually see any meaningful way of using this category, because just about everything was a novelty once. (Gee! Looks like we got a new material for our axes heads! It's called iron - what a novelty!). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Keep very well-established trade term for (essentially) toys for adults, though you would never know this from the article. Johnbod 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a standard term--though it seems that some of the articles related to it need improvement. DGG (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally ambiguous. The only entry, Kit Cat Clock, is in no way, shape or form a toy so having this with a parent of Category:Toys is simply confusing. Novelties for some is more likely to meet ice cream products. Vegaswikian 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename Deletion, however, is not opposed. "Novelties" is a lot more ambiguous and subjective. As seen in the comments above, it can be taken to mean "new" things, but "Novelty items", however, is well-established term and people know what it means. I mean we have novelty stores and novelty gifts... yes, the word wikt:novelty can mean other things, but "novelty items" is well understood. Rocket000 10:01, 16 October 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:Turkish volleyball teams[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. Kbdank71 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish volleyball teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Turkish volleyball clubs, or the reverse. -- Prove It (talk) 14:16, 11 October 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:Kid Frost albums[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 rename. Kbdank71 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kid Frost albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Frost albums, to match Frost (rapper). -- Prove It (talk) 13:46, 11 October 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:Voodoo science[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 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Voodoo science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Does it get any worse than this? I believe I will simply let the name of this category speak for itself. And, no -- it's not a category for articles about the scientific study of Voodoo or Vodou, nor is it a subcat of Category:Vodou. Cgingold 13:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—nominator has given no rationale for deletion. (This category is intended to group together various types of bad science discussed by Robert L. Park in his book Voodoo Science.) Spacepotato 16:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Term is ambiguous due to its relative obscurity. Do we really need a category for topics discussed by one author in one (not-so-famous) book? If kept to categorize the articles, surely a less ambiguous and better descriptive term can be concocted. Snocrates 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't categorize things based on what one person's thoughts are about them generally. Carlossuarez46 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Delete (changed - see below) to the less provocative Category:Bad science. The category contains only articles on concepts:Junk science & the old & proposed titles etc, so Carlos's objection is not applicable here. These articles would otherwise have to be added to 3 or more categories each. Johnbod 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to renaming this category if a suitable name can be found and agreed on. Category:Bad science, though an improvement on Category:Voodoo science (and what wouldn't be??), still renders an explicit and very categorical value judgement -- not really appropriate for a category name. The best I've been able to come up with (after rejecting several ideas) is Category:Questionable science. I'm not entirely sure that it's suitably "encyclopedic", but I think it might do the job. Cgingold 13:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category is defined by being "bad" or whatever - the value judgement is the point. Note again only general articles on ways science can be bad are included - no specific theories etc. Questionable is just a weasel word here. Johnbod 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that, regardless of what term we might agree on, in order to restrict this category to the sort of articles that it currently contains, the name would probably have to be changed to something along the lines of Category:Types of xxxx science. Otherwise, it would invite use for articles on science topics that Editor X or Y has a negative view of. Cgingold 13:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got it -- why don't we rename to Category:Types of scientific fallacy? What the... hey, it already exists! <smile> Somehow, I/we overlooked this category -- which already has ALL 4 of theses articles in it. I think we can wrap things up here, and send this poor excuse of a category off to virtual oblivion. Cgingold 14:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - changed above. Well spotted! All the parent categories were different, though, & the ones here seemed appropriate, so I have added them to "Types". Johnbod 14:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem is that only one of the articles in the category being discussed actually talks about a scientific fallacy. The other three are political terms with no standard definition in the scientific community. --DachannienTalkContrib 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well they were all in it already, along with rather a mixed bag of other stuff of the same sort. I think our work on the nominated category is done. I'm no expert, but I suspect if you are looking for "standard definition(s) in the scientific community" of this sort of stuff you are wasting your time. I see Richard Feynman invented Cargo cult science, but this can hardly have a "standard definition". Johnbod 20:39, 14 October 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:North Carolina election results[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 13:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Carolina election results (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It's empty and its contents have been moved to Category:North Carolina elections. —Markles 12:48, 11 October 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:North Carolina General Assembly election results[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 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Carolina General Assembly election results (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: it's empty and its contents have been moved to Category:North Carolina elections. —Markles 12:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Murdered hip hop musicians[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 to category:murdered hip hop musicians. Kbdank71 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered rappers

Nominator's rationale: move both to share one complete title, Category:Deceased hip hop musicians. A "murdered rappers" category appears incomplete. Likewise, anyone could claim to be a rapper and there are about two to three non-rappers in Category:Murdered hip hop musicians. In this proposed category I would like all dead hip hop musicians and rappers who not only were murdered, but also died from natural causes, freak accidents, intoxication, and any other incidents. (*Note: If this proposal is granted, please have the bots sort out the musicians who are categorized in both murdered hip hop musicians and rappers categories respectively) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:35, 11 October 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:Battle of the Isle of May[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 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle of the Isle of May (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Redundant category has only two articles in over two years. Name of category is inappropriate (better would be Battle of May Island, see Talk:Battle of May Island) but it is not worth renaming it. Thincat 10:24, 11 October 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:Landing craft repair ships of the United States[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. Kbdank71 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landing craft repair ships of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This cat is a duplicate of Category:Achelous class repair ships but uses a non-standard naming convention (all other cats in the parent cats of Category:World War II auxiliary ships of the United States and Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States are listed by class except one, and that one because it contains several different classes instead of just one like all the others). Also, the Achelous class is the only class of "landing craft repair ship" ever built so this cat has no other possible purpose than to list Achelous class ships. "Landing craft repair ship" is also an informal and inaccurate title, the official name for this class was "Auxiliary Repair Light" (ARL) and the ships were used to repair all kinds of small craft, not just landing craft. Gatoclass 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "merge" implied that there was content in one page that could be merged with the content in another. But there is no content in Category:Landing craft repair ships of the United States that is not already in Category:Achelous class repair ships, so I don't see what could be merged. It looks like an outright delete to me, but then admittedly I am unfamiliar with this process. Gatoclass 13:57, 12 October 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:Presidents of the United States who died in office[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 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of the United States who died in office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, not every list needs to be a category, see list of United States Presidents who died in office. -- Prove It (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an instance where a short list is clearly better for dealing with a fixed number of entries. Ephebi 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as list already exists. Onnaghar talk.review 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list is sufficient. Carlossuarez46 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a listcruft category? Well no. But redundant. Bulldog123 06:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, that's what I meant, it's a useless cat. I don't know what I was thinking when I said listcruft. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Catcruft? Rocket000 10:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In contrast to Presidents who have been assassinated, merely dying in office is not terribly noteworthy, so it doesn't really merit a category. I think it's also worth noting that there is no parent Category:Heads of state who have died in office. In this particular case a list is sufficient. Cgingold 23:58, 16 October 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:Madripoori[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 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - This article lacks a topic of notability. In addition, charcters are inaccurately listed as being "from" Mandipoor. All but three characters (Aardwolf, Baran, and Corrigan) have either their real place of origin listed in their respective article, and/or explictly state that the characters were traveling to Mandipoor, not that it was their home. This problems rests most heavily on the Wolverine, Karma and Spider-Woman characters, who are explictly stated not from Mandipoor and are the most notable characters to populate the category. The category does not deserve to exist in whatever name or conception. 66.109.248.114 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American shows rated TV-14[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. Delete. And delete. Kbdank71 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American shows rated TV-14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as both non-defining, and lacking global scope. -- Prove It (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it would be nice to having a categorized listings of all the shows that have this rating. It's just easy access to all these shows in the same page. WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) WED OCT 10 2007 8:30 PM EDT
  • Delete as non defining. This is also a management nightmare since it is based on the assumption that all shows in a series will only have this rating. Since the rating can vary by eposode, classification by series is not advisable. Vegaswikian 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - We'll just have to apply the shows to multiple categories, and we can also put an asterisk next to each title. WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) WED OCT 10 2007 8:38 PM EDT
      • You are allowed to 'vote' once. Please remove one of your two votes to this point. Vegaswikian 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand your proposal with the asterisk, this is not something supported by the software. Vegaswikian 02:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ProveIt and Vegaswikian, as non-defining potentially misleding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per myself. There are all kinds of categories, why can't this one exist??? It's not fair!!! WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) WED OCT 10 2007 10:23 PM EDT
      • You are allowed to 'vote' once. Please remove two of your three votes to this point. Vegaswikian 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegas et al, and WP:NOT. Johnbod 12:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegas. Onnaghar talk.review 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, per nom and per Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 03:20, 12 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_11&oldid=1138388999"