Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

July 2[edit]

Categories classifying stars by spectral type and luminosity class[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's proposal. Stars can be classified by spectral type (O, B, A, F, G, K, or M) and luminosity class (I, supergiants; II, bright giants, III, giants; IV, subgiants; V, main sequence stars, also called dwarfs; and VI, subdwarfs.) We currently have a number of categories with names of the form color size (e.g., Category:Orange dwarfs) which classify stars in this way. However, these names are undesirable for two reasons:

Many of them (e.g., Category:Yellow-white subgiants, whose name gets exactly 0 hits on Google Scholar) are rarely used in the astronomical literature.
Worse, some of these categories have names which are used by astronomers, but not in the same way as they are in our classification scheme. For example, the term red giant is used in our classification scheme for stars of spectral type M and luminosity class III, but in reality may include stars of spectral type either K or M. Similarly, red dwarf, used in our classification scheme for stars of spectral type M and luminosity class V, may also include stars of spectral type K. (See e.g. p. 189, Firefly Astronomy Dictionary, John Woodruff, 2003, ISBN 1552978370.) This causes confusion and misclassification.

Therefore, I am proposing the following renamings:

Another possibility would be to use the Roman numeral of the luminosity class rather than its name, leading to the following renamings:

For previous discussion of these names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Category:Orange-red_giants.

Spacepotato (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support using roman numerals. 70.55.86.39 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either proposal. My one concern is that, for viewers that are not familiar with astronomical notation, roman numerals (for the luminosity class) might not be as clear as the text names. However, we could manage that via an explanation on the category pages.—RJH (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either proposal, with a preference for using English names for luminosity classes. Roman numerals are rather obscure jargon. (The OBAFGKM classes are also obscure, but there isn't a widely used alternative in English, whereas there is for the Roman numeral luminosity class.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult unblocks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Speedy deleted per CSD#G5, creation by a banned user. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pointless empty category, created as a first-edit by an SPA, I assume to prove a WP:POINT regarding the "Admins willing to make difficult blocks" category. In my opinion, the solution to a problem that doesn't exist – if there's a consensus to unblock someone, they'll be unblocked. – iridescent 22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale of someone besides the nominator It's not pointy. Most admins are busy. A few may be willing to sit and contemplate. This category would be for them. If we delete this category, then one could conclude that admins conspire with each other. It would be better to delete this category if it remains empty for a week or so. Why the rush? More discussion at WP:ANVoxtel (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by an SPA to make a point about the legitimate WP:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. Enigma ^message 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a SPA. Made a deal with an admin to remember my name rather than editing a few days then forgetting my name after a break. Not a sock because I don't ever edit the same articles and if I do, I search the history to find the username that I used. So its BRA, not SPA (bad record keeping account). Also, not a POINTY but trying to fill a void. This cat. would prove that there are a few admin willing to sit and contemplate a difficult unblock. Voxtel (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OTHERSILLYCATEGORIESEXIST. That doesn't mean we need this one. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant WP:POINT violation. Nakon 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so we don't have to deal with this again. It's clearly never going to be populated due to the blocking policy and the community's (and my) dislike of admin wheel warring. --slakr^\ talk / 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Price index[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Price index to Category:Price indices

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from speedy rename section. See initial rationale and creator's response below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Price index to Category:Price indices. Change to pluralization. "Indices" seems to be preferred over "indexes" in other subcategories of Category:Index numbers. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I chose "Price index" over "Price indices" because I intended for the category to cover different articles related to price index theory. "Price indices" implies that the category consists of articles related to different types of price indices. I'm open to renaming the category, but I'm not sure "price indices" covers the subject matter any better.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename discussion ends here. Add new discussion immediately below.

Rename per nom. 2 of the 3 articles seem indeed to be about "different types of price indices". There are loads of articles in the parent Category:Index numbers that should added. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are articles to support it, there's nothing wrong with creating Category:Price index theory. Rename this one to the plural. Otto4711 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:1989 Films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 13:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:1989 Films to Category:1989 films

Nominator's rationale: Merge, strays from film category naming convention. No more common of a typo than that for any other year. Category is currently empty.. KathrynLybarger (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirects are cheap. Category would be empty, as bots patrol redirected categories and correct articles placed in them. Bencherlite^Talk 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as I understand it, category redirects are _not_ cheap, page redirects are cheap. 70.55.84.66 (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and don't keep the other title as a redirect. Redirects are tricky enough with categories as it is without encouraging more of them. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:2003 Albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 13:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:2003 Albums to Category:2003 albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge, strays from album category naming convention. No more common of a typo than that for any other year. Category is currently empty. KathrynLybarger (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and don't keep the other title as a redirect. Redirects are tricky enough with categories as it is without encouraging more of them. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Cartoon Network television movies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cartoon Network television movies to Category:Cartoon Network television films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Films preferred over movies see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Tim! (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Managers of Japanese baseball teams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Managers of Japanese baseball teams to Category:Managers of baseball teams in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per WP:NCCAT#Sport, sport teams in a country are named in country, and not as (nationality) teams. Neier (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with it; cat was just renamed about a month ago, see previous discussion. MisfitToys (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Places on Long Island[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant category. See Category:Geography of Long Island, Category:Towns on Long Island, etc. Mycroft7 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Jim.henderson (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as duplicative and unnecessary Hmains (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Types of scientist by nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 16#Category:Types of scientist by nationality. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Scientists by type and nationality. The original name is slightly off the mark -- doesn't properly specify what the category is actually used for. Cgingold (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Other people categories are named in this fashion, such as Category:People by occupation and nationality. --Eliyak T·C 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom so the most significant word 'Scientists' comes first Hmains (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These meta categories are all confusingly named. At the lower levels, they all take the form "X by Y", in which the Xs are constant, and the Ys change. So someone familiar with the naming convention would expect that everything after "by" would be the variable in the listing. The higher level categories are not named this way. This one (and many similar) are actually backwards from the naming convention at the lower level. I've never been particularly fond of the "X by Y and Z" alternative, because at first glance you would expect both Y and Z to vary in the listing. Once you realize that only one varies, it isn't obvious which one that should be, Y or Z. I don't have a good suggestion about what the rename should be. The best I can come up with is Category:Scientists by nationality categories or Category:Index of scientists by nationality (by type) or Category:Scientists by nationality (by type) or Category:Nationalities of Scientists by type. The confusion is around how to parse the names of these categories so that it is clear what they contain. You can parse the current name as "(Types of scientists) by nationality", which is contrary to the naming convention and confusing or "Types of (scientists by nationality)" which is not confusing but still contrary to the naming convention. Perhaps we should just use commas for these meta categories. In this case, we could call it Category:Scientists by nationality, by type -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last seems the best to me. There is, or is thought to be, a rule against punctuation in category titles, though I can't actually see it in WP:CAT or WP:NAME, but this type of name is justified as an exception imo, if such a rule exists. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh -- and I always thought I was the only one who ever had a problem parsing those categories! LOL - I would certainly agree in principle with Sam's suggestion. However, in this case I believe the proper name would actually be Category:Scientists by type, by nationality, since the scientist cats are first broken down by type -- and then further broken down (internally) by nationality. Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion continues. In most "X by Y", categories it is the "by Y" that varies. All the subcategories in Category:Astronomers by nationality are astronomers and they are listed by nationality. In the category we are discussing, all the subcategories are Scientists by nationality and they are listed by type. Hence, Category:Scientists by nationality, by type -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Well, I can see how that particular application of logic yields that result. But I guess the more important question is, Is that the most compelling bit of logic to apply, in the first place? The real point being, we could debate competing logics all day, without necessarily arriving at a good solution. In this case, the formulation you're suggesting yields a category name that would probably be counter-intuitive for most readers. If you look at the super-cat, Category:People by occupation and nationality, the emphasis is implictly on the first term, which is how the sub-cats are sorted. I think that, regardless of our precise choice of wording, readers will generally expect sub-cats to be sorted by the first term they encounter. So I would suggest that that is what should take precedence here. In the final analysis, I think we may be better off staying with the naming system we've got, rather than switching over to commas. Cgingold (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are getting at, and I suspect that there isn't a perfect solution to this that will make intuitive sense to every one. To me, the current name is more intuitive than the suggested replacement. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, so we've come full circle. There's some truth to your last remark, except that it doesn't address the reason I brought this to CFD in the first place: Categories for "Types of Xyz" are generally used for articles that are about Xyz Type1, Xyz Type2, Xyz Type3, etc. -- not for articles about people who do/are Xyz Type1, etc. So by the customary use, this category should be for articles about the various types of scientist -- and not for bio articles about individual scientists. Cgingold (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of a way to address your concern by filling in the blank in "____ of scientists by nationality"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to throw a monkey wrench in to such a productive discussion, but I can't see a consensus yet to close, and you're all just trucking along, so here's my opinion. Per the supercat Category:People by occupation and nationality, rename this to Category:Scientists by occupation and nationality. True, "Astronomer" is a type of scientist, but that will be conveyed by the word "scientist" in the title, and any of these could be considered an occupation. "What do you do? I'm an astronomer." --Kbdank71 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting suggestion... but not really an improvement over "Scientists by type and nationality", when you think about it. Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Scientists of various nationalities by type? No commas, I can only parse it one way, and it follows the "by Y" convention. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn -- another worthy try... but I just can't bring myself to sign off on "various nationalities" in a Category name. Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph. It's really quite amazing how many different names we've come up with -- without hitting on a really good solution to this. But we haven't exhausted the possibilities using parentheses. What about Category:Scientists by type (and by nationality)? Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Type of scientist by nationality. "Types" should be "type". And I think that that's straight-forward enough. Though I'm wondering if "nationality" is the most commonly used word for its intent. - jc37 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Jewish anti-Zionists[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

I am closing this discussion as delete. None of the people advocating the keeping of this category have rebutted the sound rationale of the nominator. We have guidelines (WP:CAT, WP:OCAT) that specifically discourage these types of categories, and there is a long history of deleting them. There is nothing to stop editors from creating cited lists with this material, and that is, by far, a much more appropriate way to include this information in Wikipedia. I don't believe in closing discussions by counting votes. Instead, I believe the arguments made during the discussion must be weighed against any relevant policies and guidelines. If people disagree with the policies and guidelines, they need to make cogent arguments for why the guidelines are wrong or do not apply in this case. That has not happened here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There already were votes to delete these types of categories, see (1) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24#Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists, it was decided that: "The result of the debate was Listify and then Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion about a question or issue. As was made abundantly clear by the discussion(s)..." there (per User:Jc37). And (2) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 16#Category:Anti-Zionists: "This category is continually being added to articles... based on the wikipedian's view that this very libellous category is appropriate for the person. The whole category is just as bad as Category:Racists in being a POV magnet." (per User:WikiTownsvillian). Therefore, there has been an avoidance of this type of contentious "category" for some time now. The general category of Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism survived and has been kept as the best catch-all category for this topic, if need be. In addition many of the people who are thrown into this category are not provably Jewish and it makes no sense to lump secular people some of whom do not openly admit to being Jewish with very religious Orthodox ones. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Gilabrand (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename CAT:Jewish anti-Zionism. CAT:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionism should be a sub-category. Sure there are many differences but there are differences among Conservatives or Radicals. There are also political similarities. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Few of the listed articles would fit in Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Category:Jewish anti-Zionism per Itsmejudith -- it's a logical intermediate category between Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism and Category:Anti-Zionism. Cgingold (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator of this category needs to stop with the racist creations. Enigma ^message 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enigmaman: Can you please elaborate on this because it seems many people are not aware that the creation of this category is part of a bigger pattern. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should see User talk:Comradesandalio and his contributions. He (?) has a long and established pattern of creating disruptive and racially-motivated content, whether it's a category or an article. Look at all the deletion notices on his page. Look at the fact that all his edits seem to be geared towards a specific POV. I do not have any history with the user and thus don't have experience with him dating back for any decent length of time, but I have looked at his edits and I am not pleased. Enigma ^message 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial comment certainly got my attention, Enigma, so I took a good look at the user's talk page. And there's no question that he has a long and troubling history of highly POV editing. That said, I don't think it was appropriate to slap the label of "racist creations" on this particular category. Like any other category, this one should be evaluated on its merits, not on its creator's apparent POV. As the aphorism points out, "even a broken clock tells the right time twice every day." Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in keeping with my past comments advocating the deletion of all categories identifying people by religion. Where relevant, these identifications are much better handled in the applicable articles and (if necessary) in lists that then link to the articles on the individuals. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename to Category:Jews opposed to Zionism -- a valid category simply because there has been much opposition to Zionism by prominent Jews both historically and in the modern age. Just because it's controversial doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. --Wassermann (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wassermann, for people who have made clear public statements etc on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep a perfectly reasonable way to group people for navigation and organization. Hmains (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - magnet for POV pushers and promoters of original research, per IZAK. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unsourced lawsuit waiting to happen. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. It's an encyclopedic topic, though I wonder if "Jewish opponents of Zionism" would be a more appropriate title. CJCurrie (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the cat in of itself has survived many numerous attempts to delete it by the same user its time he should give up and recognise that there are jews who r opposed to Zionism and they r real and not ashamed at all about their vocation, thus very worthy of the biggest freest encyclopedia in history of humans--YY (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Israeli atrocities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: snowball delete. Acalamari 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Irredeemably POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, atrocity is a word to avoid in categories given POV issues. See this CFD for British atrocities (deleted). Bencherlite ^Talk 06:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, heavy POV category; had this category been added for Palestinians/Arab/Muslim "resistance" activity, all hell would break out. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE. IZAK (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Nudve (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A slight hint of POV in its title... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Gilabrand (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor categorisation as it is not within higher-level categories relating to warfare. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By its nature, it is POV. All of these atrocity categories need to be removed, not just this one. Terrorist atrocities/Militant Atrocities/Non-Geneva Convention Atrocities or something like that. Sposer (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly POV category. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was even placed on something related to Jewish and not Israel... Amoruso (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mycroft7 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete So many things wrong with this. Wow. POV, inaccurate, contains the wrong articles, not categorized properly, etc. Enigma ^message 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE. -- RyRy (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.