Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20[edit]

Category:Eight-thousanders[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eight-thousanders to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is not well known. How significant is this, anyways? Perhaps it should be deleted. --Eliyak T·C 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. See Eight-thousander and Reinhold Messner. Many many Google hits. THF (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason that we need both the category and the article? The list in the article seems to be head and shoulder better then the category for navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's true for most categories, but. THF (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per THF's guidance. Seems to put Munros and Category:Munros very much in the shade. It's part of a categorisation scheme for mountains ... the lists are complementary. Occuli (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though the climbers should be in a separate sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is certainly notable for the mountains involved to be eight-thousanders. What would be a good name for the people category? 'Eight-thousander climbers'. Is there is a professional name here for the climbers? Hmains (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:8000 metre peaks. I thought that is what it must mean, but it is not immeidately obvious. Present name should be kept as redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. Something that has not been explicitly raised is that the criteria create a rather arbitrary cut-off, but apparently it is one that is widely-used outside of WP. Do we generally have other categories with arbitrary criteria that we keep only because the arbitrary criteria are in use outside of WP? I know in baseball at least, we've deleted categories like 3000 hit club, even though the achievement of the arbitrary criterion is widely seen as significant in the baseball world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess that's the reason why I'm uneasy about keeping the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per the comments of GO'f. AFAIK, no other geographic features are categorized by arbitrary size/length/mass/etc. Neier (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. - Stepheng3 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arbitrary comments above. No one has pointed me to any categories we keep that are arbitrary, even if the arbitrariness is a common standard outside of WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary inclusion criteria. Why not choose 7,000 meters instead? This point is probably best raised by Category:Munros which has a much lower threshold. Why does being higher then some height make a mountain notable? You could well make that case when it is the hight point in a range but over a random height? I think that Good Ol’factory makes the case in his comment above. I might have said listify, but I think the list already exists and it's quality shows why a category is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (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:Destruction TV[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 (category was also empty at time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Destruction TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The textual content is a sourceless essay. The only member of this category is the creator's user page. Until there's a main article on the subject, this category does not serve the encyclopedia. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (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:16th-century Spanish people[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: keep. Kbdank71 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:16th-century Spanish people to Category:16th century Spanish people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These non-hyphenated category names are not typographical errors. They are the best category names because most people guessing or looking for category names will not know or think of the rule that adjectives are hyphenated, thus will not hyphenate them and this would make Wikipedia harder to use-- see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules vs. this CfD. --Carlaude (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We just went through the discussion on this issue twice in the past month (1, 2) with the same result, so I'm thinking it would be weird if there were a change of consensus on this already. My position is unchaged from the previous discussions: adjectivals in this form are correctly hyphenated in both UK and US English. The fact that some users may not know that seems to be a poor reason to depart from proper usage in this case. And if the mistake is made when searching, the WP search feature is good at identifying the category with the hyphen that was searched for without the hyphen. To me, it would make as much sense to use Category:1st millenium rather than Category:1st millennium, because, after all, a lot of people misspell it that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re: The WP search feature is proves to be of spotty help, at best, at identifying the category with the hyphen that was searched for without the hyphen. I searched, for example. for 6th century people, 7th century people, etc. and got nothing to indicate the new category name. --Carlaude (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- While I regard the hyphen as over-pedantic, it is correct. The multitude of similar ones strictly ought to be changed too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This seems to be akin to arguing that Dwyane Wade should be moved to "Dwayne Wade" because, hey, most people misspell it. faithless (speak) 09:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per above, Good Olfactory in particular. Occuli (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create category redirect instead of renaming. That should resolve the issue for punctuation challenged users. - Stepheng3 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category redirects don't work they way you think. In any case, the names should all follow one style for the categories that actually will contain the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing raised here says that the previous decisions are incorrect. So there is no reason to retain the grammatically incorrect form. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2009 (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:Olivia Newton-John[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: No Consensus - This is made even more clear by the past CfDs noted by Occuli and User:Otto4711. And Otto's final point is well taken. At this point, it looks like there should be a discussion somewhere concerning what (in general) the dividing line should be for an eponymous performer (parent?) category for it to be to be "acceptable" and therefore retained. - jc37 08:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Olivia Newton-John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. All this does is duplicate the contents of Category:Olivia Newton-John songs and Category:Olivia Newton-John albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 06:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yikes, what a mess! Whatever made the cat creator think it would be a great idea to add every single song & album directly to this category? I was leaning toward "delete", but the problem is, I spotted several items that aren't either songs or albums -- and there may well be others scattered among the welter of songs and albums. So it's impossible to say with any certainty whether this category should be deleted or kept. I think I will ask the creator to go through and clean out all of the duplication, so we can see what's left. Cgingold (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template does the job here. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – some are videos which should go in Category:Olivia Newton-John videos (cf Category:Video albums by artist), others are films (and we don't categorise by film). Q is then whether 3 subcats is sufficient for an eponymous cat and my view is 'yes'. (The template is exemplary.) Occuli (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a rather strange comment, TPH. If I didn't know better, I would think that you had never encountered such a thing. But of course, you took part in a whole bunch of recent CFDs for similar categories that were all kept on this very basis. Cgingold (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's get physical -ly deleting this unnecesssary eponymous cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My thanks to Occuli for combing through all those articles and pulling out the ones for videos. There are now 3 substantial sub-cats, plus the film articles, plus at least 4 other articles -- in other words, more than enough to justify a category. Cgingold (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization which, minus the improperly categorized articles for films and other projects that violate WP:OCAT does not have sufficient material to warrant a category. Looks like there are a grand total of four articles currently in the category (discography, tours, and two dodgy articles of dubious notability about her daughter and some band that covers her songs for video games). Substantial templates exist and leaving the category with its bulk of miscategorized items sets a precedent that such categories are acceptable in violation of extensive consensus and precedent against them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just to comment on this "three subcats = category" notion, not only has that not been widely accepted as a standard, IMHO given the automatic nature of some category structures (albums/songs by artist, novels by author, etc.) it likely should be actively discouraged as a standard. Any recording artist with one album and one song is two-thirds of the way to an eponymous category so the three subcat doctrine is going to see an explosion of categories named after artists for artists who really don't need them for any legitimate categorization purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it over-categorisation to have 'Category:Olivia Newton-John' appear 7 times, in 3 subcats and 4 articles? What exactly is being cluttered? Occuli (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A perfect parent for the three well-constructed subcategories contained therein. The usual excuses of overcategorization foisted to disrupt the category system are ludicrously applied here, given the well-constructed subcategories. The standard of creating these "eponymous" categories should be strongly encouraged as an aid to navigation, the intended purpose of categories. Alansohn (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Well-constructed subcategories" does not appear to be anywhere in the policies and guidelines that address categorization. The subcategories are beyond adequately parented as well as being linked through the main article and several templates. WP:ILIKEIT is no reason for an otherwise useless eponymous category. Otto4711 (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, we have a rather simple deal under which you do not reply to me and I will not reply to you, an agreement that has worked rather well to help prevent endless efforts to convince me of the error of my ways. While I am more than prepared to debate you ad infinitum, I can assure you that your repeated insistence that this category is "useless" simply because you have decided so will not sway me at any point nor does it appear to have had any influence on the other participants here who agree that this is a category that productively aids navigation by a defining characteristic. If you have any further explanation of why the deletion of this category will improve navigation using categories, I encourage you to share it with anyone else other than me, per our agreement. Please let me know if there is any further issue regarding our rather clear deal that is causing a problem. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say something that is in error, I will continue to point out your error, regardless of whatever "deal" you think is in place. The simple fact of the matter is that "it has well-constructed sub-categories" is nowhere to be found in any policy or guideline relating to categorization and such misleading comments mandate a response whether it's you who make them or not. Otto4711 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The category tree is entirely appropriate. The problem is that articles should not both be in parent and child categories. Accoddingly, either this category should be purged of the "child" articles or the "child" categories should be deleted. We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the category so that anything belonging in the subcategories is not also in the parent; now everyone can more easily evaluate what would properly be contained in it. I don't have an opinion on the CFD. Postdlf (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good on you for doing the cleanup, Postdlf. I left a note on the cat creator's talk page asking him/her to lend a hand, but to no avail. Cgingold (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really have to say, at this point -- with 4 sub-cats and 7 articles -- I find it incomprehensible that anybody would seriously object to this category, which easily exceeds the minimum requirements for a category. Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the improperly categorized film article, it's five articles (one of which is a soon-to-be-deleted stub, another of which is of dodgy notability at best, so really four and possibly as few as three) plus one template. There is a massive template covering the article subject in general plus two smaller templates covering songs. I find it somewhat incomprehensible that anyone would seriously support this category. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You repeat the same points like a broken record. The ones you cite are either not similar (all but 2 or 3 were trivially small) or not recent (the 'many 100s'). No-one supports the existence of small eponymous categories. Everyone agrees there a line to be drawn between the Beatles (keep) and Alexandra Burke (delete). There is no general consensus to delete substantial eponymous categories like this one with over 100 items in several subcats. Occuli (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to sound like a broken record, repeating points that have been agreed to in CFD after CFD after CFD (unlike the noise some other people I could mention are spouting), there is a general consensus against eponymous categories, as summed up at WP:OC#EPONYMOUS: In general, avoid creating categories named after individual people, or groupings of people (such as families or musical groups). Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question. Counter-examples where eponymous categories may be warranted included Category:Alexander the Great, Category:J. R. R. Tolkien and Category:William Shakespeare. Olivia Newton-John, even if she does have a sub-category for pictures of her album covers, hardly strikes me as the equivalent of Alexander, Shakespeare or Tolkien. Anyone interested in finding Newton-John albums through the category system is likely to start with an album they already know, thus finding the extensive template, or with Category:Olivia Newton-John albums, not with a category for Ms. Newton-John herself. And again, every single one of my examples were deleted after every single one that you cite in support of the non-existent consensus in favor of eponymous categories and within one of your cited examples at least one of the categories has since been deleted,which rather puts the lie to any notion that consensus has shifted in any general way in favor of these categories. Otto4711 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2009 (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.

Ni-Vanuatu[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 15:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ni-Vanuatu anthropologists to Category:Vanuatuan anthropologists
Category:Ni-Vanuatu diplomats to Category:Vanuatuan diplomats
Category:Ni-Vanuatu poets to Category:Vanuatuan poets
Category:Ni-Vanuatu singers to Category:Vanuatuan singers
Category:Ni-Vanuatu gospel singers to Category:Vanuatuan gospel singers
Category:Ni-Vanuatu women's rights activists to Category:Vanuatuan women's rights activists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The demonym and adjective used by people from Vanuatu to refer to themselves is "ni-Vanuatu". However, English-language speakers have invented and used the term "Vanuatuan" for the same purpose. I propose we choose one or the other to use consistently, since right now we have a mix of "Vanuatuan" and "ni-Vanuatu". Both "ni-Vanuatu" and "Vanuatuan" are found in the Oxford English Dictionary. I think "Vanuatuan" is probably better used in WP, simply because of the unfamiliarity of "ni-Vanuatu". (I realise that is a subjective assessment, though.) You could also make a WP:USEENGLISH argument, since "ni-Vanuatu" comes from an indigenous language. Note that some organizations, like the National Geographic Society, have adopted guidelines that allow for the use of "Vanuatuan" in their writings, so it would not be unambiguously "wrong" in the way that using "Kiribatian" would be. (Note: If there's a consensus to use "ni-Vanuatu", that's also fine with me, and I will nominate the categories that use "Vanuatuan" for renaming to this form.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree for need for consistency. My sense is that Vanuatuan is preferable, but I can be persuaded in the other direction. THF (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or with concensus. Like THF, I prefer the standard English form Vanuatuan. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. If the English one isn t a neologism, let s use it of course. Mayumashu (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (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:Kurdish terrorists[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: Keep - (Note that I also closed the Tamil CfD noted in the discussion below).

A few things should be noted, especially since it would appear that there is at least "borderline" edit warring concerning these and other similar categories.

First, these categories should be repopulated (per this closure), and anyone is welcome to help out by doing this. Note that depopulation immediately prior to, or during, a CFD tends to be frowned upon.

Second, edit warring is in no way helpful, and may lead to the editors engaging in such activity receiving further sanction (such as being blocked). Start a discussion at a talk page somewhere and try to achieve consensus.

Third, per WP:CAT, no category should be added to a page without a reference/citation from a verifiable reliable source. And if there is such, then persistent removal of the category may possibly be seen as POV pushing, which also may possibly lead to further sanction.

Those with continued interest in this topic, and/or editing the encyclopedia in general, may also find Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial to be helpful. - jc37 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kurdish al-Qaeda members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category that does not fit in the Category:Terrorists by nationality structure of categories. The category was only used for Kurdish members of Al-Qaeda, an entirely non-sensical distinction. Whats next? Azeri Al-qaeda members? Gujarati al-Qaeda members? Punjabi al-Qaeda members? Baloch terrorists? This is overcategorization, plain and simple.Pectoretalk 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that right there on the CFD notice that you posted it says: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." As I've explained to all too many other editors, when you empty the category it preempts the CFD process. So please be good enough to restore the contents so your fellow editors can properly evaluate the merits of this category. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are certainly Kurdish terrorists that are not al-Qaeda affiliated. The failure of Wikipedia editors to use a legitimate category or to create articles about PKK leaders does not delegitimate the category. There's no reason to exempt Kurds from the 50 other existing categories of terrorists. The lack of a formally recognized Kurdish nation does not mean there are not Kurdish terrorists; there are categories for Basque terrorists and Palestinian terrorists, and should be one for Tamil terrorists. See also Category:Al-Qaeda_members_by_nationality. THF (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The lack of a formally recognized Kurdish nation" is the key here. One cannot categorize by nationality if there is no nation. As for these other ludicrous half-truths; there is not "Basque terrorist" category (paramilitary != terrorist), Palestinian is not an ethnicity as much as a nationality, since there are strips of land considered "Palestine", and you created the Tamil terrorists category because Tamil terrorists are somehow special? (when compared to Gujarati, Malayali, and Javanese ones).Pectoretalk 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are Javanese separatists engaging in terrorism, I fully support the creation of that category. I'm not aware of any, though. I note that there are "strips of land" considered Kurdish. THF (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Category of terrorist very sensibly calls out that it needs to categorize people by their nationality not by their ethnicity, religious orientation, sexual orientation or by the zip code. I am glad that Wikipedia eventually finds its even keel. This category needs to be replaced by appropriate nationality not by race. Taprobanus (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - as most of us learned in grade school Social Studies, for a nation to exist, it does not require a political entity. A lot of nations certainly felt that way when they were part of the Soviet Union, and the Tibetans would also agree. --David Shankbone 05:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again basic math tells us that nation is not equal to nationality. This category is by nationality not by nations or sexual orientation, or religious orientation. Taprobanus (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even nationality, a tiny, unsourced article compared to nation, says "Nationality is a the relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty." Your eyes appear to stop reading after "state of origin"? --David Shankbone 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In your wildly relativistic view, everyone is a nation unto themselves. The contextual use of nation here implies some sort of government or land, maybe thats why there is no Category:Arab terrorists (though arab nationalism exists) or no Category:Naga terrorists (though Naga nationalism exists).Pectoretalk 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An administrator should take action against Pectore for that very clear violation of WP:EW. There's a CFD pending, and one doesn't stack the results by vandalizing all the related articles. THF (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whining for administrative action doesn't change the fact that the Kurds are not a nationality. THF wants to stifle discussion on this issue merely out of of spite.Pectoretalk 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- several strong arguments for keep here. If someone thinks other categories for nations that weren't recognized as states should not have been deleted, then request DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reaping what you've sown, folks. If you want Category:Kurdish people and all the subcats thought of positively, you get to reap the negative ones too. WP's categorization of people by ethnicity is just plain wrong, eventually this view will be majoritarian but for now everyone gets to enjoy the wikidrama of every ethno-religious group trying to delete their terrorists categories. Shame, really - we should be building an encyclopedia not re-fighting the real world's conflicts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The deletionists seem to be more interested in scoring points from other arguments they have lost rather than in evaluating the usefulness of these categories to help WP readers navigate to these articles. Worriers about the future should stop worrying and deal with what is here and now. The historical truth of identifying these people is found in the articles; categories are here to navigate, not try to obscure the truth by not being present. If there were other articles in these categories that were deleted by the nominator, they need to be restored. Further, the nominator's attempts to change the article contents to justify this deletion nomination simply shows the the bad faith involved in this process. Hmains (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only bad faith involved here is from users unable to keep their ethnic biases from coloring their edits here. We already have a working Category:Terrorists by nationality that works just fine, thank you. If by "scoring points", you are referring to pruning bad categories that don't even fit in established structures, then yes we are scoring points. I removed the categories because I was going to put it up for speedy, until users with strong ethnic hatreds decided to make a point by trolling, in an attempt to further the lifespan of another discriminatory and unneeded category. Interestingly enough, the only pages in this worthless category were pages on Al-Qaeda members who were incidentally Kurdish, pages which perfectly fit into Category:Iraqi terrorists, but of course some can't grasp logic when spurious allegations of "terrorist whitewahing" and worthless unexplained links to irrelevant Wikipolicies are bandied about.Pectoretalk 04:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the most inflammatory comments I've ever come across in a CFD discussion. I haven't even been involved in a substantive way, yet I find them extremely offensive. So I would like to request that Pectore apologize and strike-through the offending passages, which it seems to me put him at risk of being sanctioned. Cgingold (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think that's bad, everyone voting "Keep" in the related Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_18#Category:Tamil_terrorists discussion is getting called a racist. Some real canvassing going on there. THF (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2009 (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:The Simpsons guest stars[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: speedily deleted as re-created material. Previously deleted 6 times under various names: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Simpsons guest stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a re-creation of at least two previously deleted cats. Each time it is deleted because of category creep. The show does not play a major part of most actors careers. This is similar to the many modeling credit cats that were added to Cindy Crawford's article. The total at one time reached over 75. Dismas|(talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also listing Category:The Simpsons guest stars, season 1 and Category:The Simpsons guest stars, season 2. Dismas|(talk) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you point us to the two previous CfD disscussion entries? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Have too many tabs open as it is. Gimme a sec.... Dismas|(talk) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to use wild cards in searching the logs is slowing me down because I can't recall the exact wording of the cat names. But that aside, here's one instance. I'll see if I can find the other... And the Second Dismas|(talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (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:Notable People from Tuticorin[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 just removing the "notable" for now. I'm not sure if it needs the ",India" as well, if so it can be renominated if it does. Kbdank71 15:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Notable People from Tuticorin to Category:People from Tuticorin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Notable" is redundant and thus not necessary in the titles of categories: if the individuals in the category were not notable, they would not have articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (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:Notable cavalrymen[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 15:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Notable cavalrymen to Category:CavalrymenCategory:Cavalry commanders
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Notable" is redundant and thus not necessary in the titles of categories: if the individuals in the category were not notable, they would not have articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (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:Beyoncé concert tours[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beyoncé concert tours to Category:Beyoncé Knowles concert tours
Nominator's rationale: For consistency; main article is Beyoncé Knowles, not Beyoncé. All other categories use Knowles' full name, including: Category:Beyoncé Knowles, Category:Beyoncé Knowles albums and Category:Beyoncé Knowles songs. DiverseMentality 01:13, 20 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_20&oldid=1140543151"