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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by fraternity or sororoity" category, which have all been deleted (see here) as not fostering collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per the previous discussion, and per the wider consensus to keep wikipedian categories which group editors by broad areas of interest, but delete those based on membership of any particular organisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 11 April 2010 (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:Wikipedians who participated in iGEM[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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Does not help the project to categorize users who participated in some past event such as this. VegaDark (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Individual user category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2010 (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:Consolidated City and Counties in the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale:Consolidated city–county suggests that this is a US-specific concept, so "in the United States" is redundant; Unusual capitalization; use more correct/grammatical name. Cybercobra(talk) 21:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. It was going to do the same after I noticed the error. Rhatsa26X (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other countries use the "city-county" nomenclature, I don't see how there'd be ambiguity. --Cybercobra(talk) 18:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several Countries in Asia, like China and Japan use the term Prefecture-level city. Prefectures are the Asian equivalent of counties. Rhatsa26X (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but as you say, they're called "prefectures", not "counties". --Cybercobra(talk) 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as BHG. The precise term is US-specific, but the concept is probably not. UK used to have County Boroughs (some of which - such as Liuverpool and Birmingham - had city status). With the abolition of metopolitan counties, the status (though not the term) has eben resumed. I would not wish to rule out places in other countries being erroneously placed in what should be a US category if "US" us not included. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BHG. Always best to remove all doubt beforehand than clean up the mess afterward. — Huntster (t@c) 02:17, 15 April 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete because consistent consensus has been to delete categories that label people, organizations, media, etc. as "homophobic" and I think the same rationalle should apply to "Hate groups". Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Listify: The advantage of a list is that footnotes can be given. Also, the list page itself can be watched so that we can ensure that people, organizations, and categories are not included without adequate sourcing.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No possibility of objective inclusiuon criteria, and every chance of them being used as attack categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree there's a possibility of these being used as attack categories, we have ways of dealing with vandalism. Unlike homophobia, there's a pretty good definition of a hate group. See The Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance. And since there are tons of reliable sources regarding hate groups, I'm pretty sure a standard criteria can be found. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some countries have legal definition for hate group, and lists of those that are hate groups in their countries. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind that would be a pretty solid basis for a national category. Any idea what nation's have such a definition? - Schrandit (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - I strongly disagree with deleting either. Please see the below definition and evident description of Hate Group.
Hate Group is definable. Groups in this category are organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a group of a race, religion, disability, national origin, or sexual orientation.
This category includes malicious threats, damage to property, defacement of property, and/or physical contact specifically intended to intimidate or harass another person because of the person’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin
This is similar to the Category for Criminal. If someone isn't a criminal, it is pejorative to put them in that category, however if they are one, just because they don't want to be known as one, doesn't change the fact that they are.
If there are organizations in this category thatshould not be there, then they should be removed.Please provide verifiable supporting references.
for the unsigned comment, please provide said examples of "some countries legal definition" of Hate Groups--DCX (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This category includes malicious threats, damage to property, defacement of property, and/or physical contact specifically intended to intimidate or harass another person because of the person’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin" - this quote pretty well illustrates the problem with this category. This is one man's definition and while I find it very reasonable it is not definative. The SPLC's lists include many organizations whose publications are of a hateful nature but who have undertake no actions to further their cause. - Schrandit (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Now compare that with "hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." from the SPLC. Does one have an edge over the other? I don't know and I don't want to identify groups as such unless we have a solid answer. - Schrandit (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the two definitions don't contradict each other. The term "Hate Group" has been used at least 30 years old and its meaning is well understood, but let's be honest about what this is really about, hate speech directed at LGBT people was somewhat tolerated in the past and now it is looking obviously very ugly, especially if there is some preamble like "we hate the sin, not the sinner" only to be followed a little later with "but God says we must kill the deviant, destructive homosexuals and we must follow God's word". We've all heard it, we all know the games with the disclaimers and word play, like saying you're FOR one thing when you're really just AGAINST something else.
That's really not what this is about. - Schrandit (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if an organization is labeled as such, the reasons there needs to be examples in the article supporting the reason and not just labeled "Hate Group" because SPLC says they are. But if SPLC states the reason(s) and that can be verified, then I don't see why it's an issue. But the semantics games get old and it's pretty obvious when someone is using them disingenuously (I mean organizations, not editors). --DCX (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both what would be an objective criteria for this? SPLC is good start but they are a private organization with political interests. - Schrandit (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cannot really comment on USA matters specifically, but as long as there are reliable sources that refer to a group as such, and including an article on them is not based on WP:OR, then the category will either be populated or empty. If it were empty, then I'd agree it is a pointless category; if used for attack, then that should be addressed on an individual basis. If there are legitimate reasons for including within the category (and that it is not empty suggests there are), I don't see hypothetical misuse of the category as a valid argument for removing a category within which articles about hate groups are legitimately placed. When the category is proven redundant (i.e., devoid of content), then this could be looked at again - but unless it can be demonstrated that not one of the articles included is placed there legitimately, it should remain. Mish (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Too subjective and is obviously open to abuse. The SPLC provides a "definition", but as noted it is not a neutral source without political interests in the area. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The category is a magnet for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Perhaps if there was a disclosure paragraph at the top that read; "These organizations have been designated as 'hate groups' by the SPLC or the U.S. government..." We would then have to have a consensus that these two organizations were legitimate sources. We would also have to confirm that all the categorized articles had such sources noted.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sounds like a potential parent for ATTACK categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term Hate Crime has been used actually since 1969 when the first US Federal Civil Rights Law was passed. If these groups have violated any of the provisions of a Hate Crime law, then deleting the category seems to be a bias abuse in itself.--DCX (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But pre-1969 entities are included here, including the Know Nothing group, which existed in the mid-1800s. This category goes far beyond classifying groups that have been convicted of violating a hate crime statute. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reason for challenging inclusion within the category, not a reason for challenging the category. Mish (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what would definitively warrant inclusion in the category? - Schrandit (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is easier where I come from - as there are laws that cover this, for example, Al Muhajiroun; clearly there is a problem that once a group is proscribed this way, by being legitimately identified as a hate-group, it ceases to be allowed to exist. Representatives of groups that are considered as inciting hatred are refused entry to this country. The problem is that freedom to speak in a way that incites hatred is considered sacrosanct in one country, under some constitutional amendment, so designating a group that incites such hatred as a hate-group and seeking to curtail their ability to speak is seen unreasonable for some reason; in my country, people do not have this freedom, and such groups and their representatives are listed as hate-groups and either banned and/or their representatives not allowed entry. So, for me, it is quite straightforward, a group being referred to as a hate-group (or equivalent terms, such as a group known for incitement to hatred) in a reliable source would be sufficient for its inclusion in the category. WP:OR based on a group or its representative's hate-speak alone would not be sufficient - it needs a WP:RS stating that the group is such. Mish (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories work best when it is prima facie obvious that an article belongs in it. When we need to be concerned to a high degree about finding reliable sources to justify their inclusion, categories begin to be problematic. I would like to see a well-referenced list article first, where it can be clearly explained on the one page why the group is being called a "hate group". If we can be convinced that your proposed system is viable and avoids any problems of bias or POV, then perhaps a category based on the list could follow. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the List is a good idea,, I have no doubt that the legitimacy of such a list will be challenged just as vehemently as the legitimacy of the Category. --DCX (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. But then at least we could have easy access to the sources that everyone is referring to and they would be grouped all in one place and referenced with respect to individual groups and it would make it far easier to assess whether this is a NPOV grouping. With the category, it makes it very difficult. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, we could ensure that there has to be text within the article citing the WP:RS that categorises them as a hate group - and that would be suffiecient to have them included in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs)
This seems to bring us full circle to the start of this discussion. That's a possible approach, but a little more difficult to manage and assess. As I mentioned above, "Categories work best when it is prima facie obvious that an article belongs in it. When we need to be concerned to a high degree about finding reliable sources to justify their inclusion, categories begin to be problematic."Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a list with established criteria and verified sources (other than SPLC) before adding groups to Hate Groups CAT and suggest a moratorium on using the Category until topic is resolved and/or list is created.--DCX (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support a list I did some work on these categories just before this nomination because only a category existed. Now who is going to start the list if that is the conclusion? Hmains (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support a list I agree with this. The category is not objectionable, but I doubt that we can make consensus on what the inclusion criteria ought to be. With well-defined criteria, such as self-identification, inclusion on a federal government list, or inclusion on lists created by organizations of a certain high status, then this category could be useful. But without that kind of criteria, this is going to be an OR magnet, and regardless of whether criteria exists the category is going to be continually abused anyway. I am not sure if it is worth the trouble, but if the category stays then it starts with some definitive inclusion criteria. BlueRasberry 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Extremist Groups" as a synonym for "Hate Groups" might be less emotive. Hate group is starting to sound a little "traditional"...--DCX (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ALF is regarded as an extremist group, but is not a hate group, in the sense that it does not incite hatred against a specific ethnic/social/sexual/religious group. Mish (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MishMich's comment noted. Their is a distinct difference between "Hate Groups" and "Extremist Groups", although possible to be both, "Hate Groups" target a specific group of people with specific tactics, while "Extremist Groups" are labeled as such based on their tactics alone and not for the focus of their agenda which may or may not target groups of people, therefore not synonymous.--DCX (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. I see a clear consensus for not keeping the category. Listify and the information is kept available and it can be sourced to make the contents less subjective. If not listified, then Delete and do not keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. As requested by the user Occuli. The category itself is useful, but by now it is more or less empty. It could be populated renaming the category reguarding its places (towns, villages...). 79.26.6.93 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category created by the same autor of Category:Gersheim 1 year ago. By now it contains only Medelsheim, which is not a city, town or municipality, it is a village (Ortsteil). So, really it could be considered an empty category. Redundant or at almost wrong-named. There are categories for cities, towns, municipalities and villages of Saarland. Renamed, this category could contain all municipalities and villages of Saarpfalz. 79.49.8.123 (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unnecessary level of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Tiny German village (around 7,000 inh.) with 2 pages in its category (Gersheim and Medelsheim). Gersheim page (and also Medelsheim) is a mini stub, it could be useful for encyclopedia to enlarge the article (and future/possible related pages) before thinking to create a cetegory. By now it is totally redundant and useless. --79.49.8.123 (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: All contents of this category have been deleted, category no longer in use. Falcadore (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete C1, then. No need for a discussion about an empty category that has nothing left to categorise. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unnecessary level of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Its parent category was previously nominated and deleted. As Pcap pointed out there, the site a project is hosted on is not a defining characteristic. Reach Out to the Truth 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Hosting location is not a defining characteristic of a software project. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 11 April 2010 (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.
