Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Category:Swans[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Swans to Category:Cygni
Nominator's rationale: To dab from Category:Swans (band), turn this into a disambiguation category, cf. with Category:Eels. It appears that there is inconsistency on the convention of naming animal categories after Latin-based genera names and naming them after common names, but this one is justified by the disambiguation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and precedence.--Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.
  • Keep as is. I really object to the way obscure expressions of popular culture usurp the established names of real phenomena. The category already has a disambiguation hatnote to the music group category. That is quite sufficient. __meco (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we already have Category:Cygnus for the species articles within the genus. The category under discussion is correctly holding the articles about management of swan populations along the species articles under their common names. This looks to be in accordance with the guidelines agreed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. I note also that in 2007 the two categories were merged and then immediately unmerged with the reason: 'These are two different category "trees"! One with scientific classification and one with common names. Coscoroba swan for example goes in Swans but not in Cygnus.' Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hatnote is adequate. Cjc13 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We all know what swans are, but most of us do not remember the Latin name. I have not heard of the band, and a hatnote is a good enough dablink for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 30 September 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:Anorthosis Famagusta Volley[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anorthosis Famagusta Volley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category (for now). Many sports clubs have their own category as a parent to the players and managers categories. This is not the case here and seems unlikely in the near future Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no need for a category for one entry and the category is not categorized. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:46, 27 September 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.

Zbrojovka Brno[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 3 October 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:Archaeological sites in Samaria[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 as named. Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Archaeological sites in Samaria to Category:Archaeological sites in the northern West Bank
Nominator's rationale: See WP:Naming conventions (West Bank), the name of this category violates clause 6 of those naming conventions by asserting that these places are "in Samaria" Nableezy 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samaria is not common among English speakers who are not Zionists. Besides, they weren't archaeological sites IN Samaria but living sites. They are now archaeological sites in the West Bank.--TM 13:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the category asserts that a place is "in Samaria" it does in fact violate that naming convention. The NC says The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria". This category does exactly that. nableezy - 22:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to add this qualification to the cat page. Just because it is not there yet is not a reason to move/delete. --Shuki (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are archaeological sites in Samaria. Samaria has been called Samaria since, well, at least since the time of the Samaritans.[1] It is the name archaeologists and scholars use. "West Bank" is a neologism concocted by the Jordanians after their conquest of Samaria. Let's use the name used by the indigenous people, the Samaritans, not by recent conquerors.AMuseo (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename as current title is more widely used. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Alansohn. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Samaritan sites in the West Bank per Category:Roman sites in France and other examples? This way we can retain the historical name while denoting that they are in the West Bank.--TM 04:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Samaria is thousands of years old. "West bank" is a term made up less then 50 years ago to replace the term Samaria. Nothing archaeological came from anything called the West Bank. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- West Bank is only meaningful in contrast to the east bank (Transjordan). The use of the term for the area today is a pro-Israeli POV, but it will be appropriate to use it for the period for perhaps 1000 years from the exile of the ancient northern kingdom of Israel and its subsequent resettlement by non-Hebrews, who were despised by the returning Judaeans after theri exile as not being proper Jews. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 September 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:Establishments in the United States by year[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Establishments in the United States by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization with awkwardly worded name, Establishments is so vague that it serve little purpose, and things being added here are across a whole spectrum of items, from images of a divided highway opened in a year to organizations started in a year. I would have no problem with "Organizations established in the United States by year, but this is no ridiculously huge that it serves no useful purpose. Do we include births, since those are the establishment of life? Without any accompanying article or explanation, there is no clear criteria for inclusion, even for companies it is not specified whether it means they started in the US in X year or if they became established in terms of conducting business there. This CfD includes all subcats. Terrillja talk 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator of this hierarchy. Nominator is obviously unaware of the well established Establishments by year hierarchy which is well developed and has been functioning for years. Why nominate a subordinate structure when the grievance so obviously is with the entire Category:Establishments by year hierarchy? Nominator states he would have no problem with "Organizations established in the United States by year". this again shows nominator's lacking knowledge and understanding of the category-creation process. I too would be just thrilled to see that category created, but we can't start there, obviously. That's simply not how large category structures evolve or get developed! For instance, this is the present progression of one well diffused hierarchy:
  1. Category:Establishments by year created on August 7, 2005
  2. Category:Organizations by year of establishment created on November 2, 2007
  3. Category:Government agencies by year of establishment created on January 27, 2008

We don't start up creating one category way down in a hierarchical structure when that hierarchy hasn't yet been developed. Obviously, when one of the lowest level categories, such as Category:2001 establishments in the United States is starting to get big with dozens of companies or organizations or music groups in it, THEN we start creating those categories, not before.

Also, nominator's rhetorical (I hope) question of whether births should be included in this scheme again shows how blatantly uninformed he is about what already exists and has for a long time. __meco (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are too pessimistic. My experience with starting these mega hierarchies, and I have some, is that as long as the scheme is viable, it only needs some birth help, then the community will take over the category population effort. __meco (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Were the subcategories emptied out of process? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nominations has a somewhat troublesome pre-history. You can start by checking out the message by me on your talk page that was deleted by the nominator. Basically a lot of steps were taken that were inappropriate, but it would be fair to state that this CfD was not conceived of when those categories were emptied. __meco (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the subcategories were emptied before any CfD request was made. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is right, and they are as full now as they have been, unless someone should start emptying them again. __meco (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were emptied after the discussion here and a notice here that were both ignored with no response. When no further categories were created for a few days after that, I emptied them and considered the issue resolved as there had been no further response from Meco or any other users. --Terrillja talk 00:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well established as useful hierarchy. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found these categories helpful in the past and I think they are useful. However, the further explanation for what goes in them should be more discriminate than "other things."--NortyNort (Holla) 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but that is an issue pertaining to the larger hierarchy. From what I have been able to grasp the distinction is between "establishments" and "introductions" and which is which may be a matter of customs and linguistic traditions. I'm not sure if anyone has made a formal distinction. __meco (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Establishments by year alludes to Introduction date with a see also, and the nominated category has no description on the category page whatsoever. Perhaps if you added some criteria for inclusion, people could actually comment on whether or not the criteria (and thus the category) seems sensible. --Terrillja talk 20:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still don't have a position on this. However if this is kept, I think I would do this on the condition that only subcategories be by year and not further sub categorized. Using established in the US in a given year is fine, but if we start subdividing by hotels or golf course or whatever, the utility of the category would be dimished in my mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, it isn't "established" It's "establishment", which is quite awkward wording. Organizations established in the US in X year is well worded and logical. Establishment just sounds like Government and punk rock anti-establishment. --Terrillja talk 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't you taking a very anti-establishment approach to this whole complex? No seriously, your latest point is a valid one, but this nomination is not the place to raise it since it concerns the entire Category:Establishments hierarchy. __meco (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily, establishments could contain Orgs established in X on Y date. A high level category of "Established" sounds ridiculous, but Establishment makes sense in as a top level category in the sense that Establishment is a type of event, and established pertains to the action on date/year it happened.--Terrillja talk 18:00, 28 September 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:English Poets Laureate[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) 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English Poets Laureate to Category:British Poets Laureate
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom has evolved out of the post of Poet Laureate of England and several have not been English at all. Deb (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - in that case simply create a supercategory for the British ones, but retain the current category as a sub-category for the English ones. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the 'English' parent categories (which are wrong at present, eg Carol Ann Duffy not being English) need to be changed if the nom is upheld (but not if Mais oui's advice is followed). Occuli (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the problem comes from a misunderstanding of the word "English". Nearly all the external refs (remember Wikipedia official policy folks?) refer to the post as being English, certainly up until the late 20th century. Indeed Duffy is the first from north of the border (her appointment in the dying days of Gordon Brown's premiership was political point scoring by a fellow Scot). It might be more accurate to call the cat the same as the Wikipedia article: Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom - my only objection being that this is a dire neologism (being unfortunatly propogated by Wikipedia itself). I suppose that 3 cats could be created: Poet Laureate of (the Kingdom of?) England, Poet Laureate of (the Kingdom of?) Great Britain, and Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, but I just find all that pedantism so tedious. William Wordsworth was the English Poet Laureate and nothing else. He may have been appointed during Victoria's reign, but both she and he would have looked askance at you if you had referred to a Poet Laureate of the UK. Victoria was English, the Poet Laureate was English, and Wordsworth was so quintessentially English it almost makes one cry. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Deb's original suggestion and oppose splitting up the category, with only 27 members dividing up this category will hinder navigation. Tim! (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on earth can we call Poets Laureate appointed by the pre-Union (pre-1707) English Government "British"? And as for "hindering navigation", does Category:English popes (with only one article in it) "hinder navigation"? Nope. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you very well know the Kingdom of England is not the same as modern England; you will also find that all Popes are also categorised in Category:Popes for obvious reasons. Tim! (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to claim that Ben Jonson was anything other than the English poet laureate? If you claim that Ben Jonson was somehow a "British" (sic) poet laureate then you had better produce some rock-solid reliable external references, per Wikipedia official policy. Good luck with that, as there was not even a British government in those days to make the appointment. If you google "British poet laureate" you find an absolute mass of Wikipedia links and mirrors. The WP:COMMONNAME usage is "English poet laureate", and this entire naming issue is a massive breach of Wikipedia official policy, on several levels. Worth having a look at WP:TEND too. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you have descended to name calling, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. Tim! (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Name calling? What on earth are you talking about? I note that precisely zero reliable external refs were forthcoming. I wonder why that might be? Ho hum. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support British is a usefully ambiguous adjective, which can refer to Great Britain or UK. This was a royal appointment by the King of England and Scotland. James I wanted to unite his two kingdoms, but did not manage to. Complaining that Ben Johnson was English but not British is too nice a distinction. Chaucer and two other medieval poets laureate came from the island of Great Britain and it is not stretching the point excessively to call them "British". The improvement that I would like to see is a list article (or a list in Poet Laureate) and succession boxes added to the articles. If there is a relevant disticntion to be drawn the appropriate date is the union of the crown in 1603, not the union of the Parliaments in 1707. The few earlier versificator regis are too few in number to matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"British" prior to 1707 (and even up to the present day) is very far from "ambiguous". It is a highly-charged political term, often pejorative, which has no place in a reference work, for example an encyclopaedia. I request that the proposers of this renaming provide reliable external references (per official Wikipedia policy) in support of their contentions. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:32, 30 September 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:South African statesmen[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: Merge and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:South African statesmen to Category:South African politicians
Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Statesmen are dead politicians". There is no category tree for Category:Statesmen—we categorize them as politicians (or in some cases, diplomats). "FOOian statesmen" categories have previously been deleted for Japanese, Greek, and Arab "statesmen". Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A "statesman" is not necessarily a dead politician (Nelson Mandela?), nor even necessarily a politician. Some of those included in the category were officials (eg envoys). Jimmy Pitt talk 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they should be divided among "politicians" and "diplomats" categories. The "statesmen are dead politicians" comment was made somewhat facetiously and is a famous quote of someone—who I can't remember—perhaps it was Berkeley Breathead. Not famous enough, I suppose. My question to you is this: how do we decide if a politicians or a diplomat has become a "statesman"? It seems to be a relatively POV and arbitrary decision to elevate someone to this status; basically it's a way for media outlets to say, "we like and respect this person". Currently, the category only contains dead people—mostly those who were involved in the governance of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – the politicians into 'politicians' and the others into something suitable. "Statesman" is a subjective term. Occuli (talk) 22:44, 23 September 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:Rain 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: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rain albums to Category:Rain (entertainer) albums
Propose renaming Category:Rain songs to Category:Rain (entertainer) songs
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Rain (entertainer), and to disambiguate, as there's also Rain (Japanese band) and Rain (American band). — ξxplicit 07:23, 23 September 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:Illegal settlements in the West Bank[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Illegal settlements in the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Nominating per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 15. Category was created, emptied out of process, deleted, brought to DRV, restored, and now listed here. Primary concern seems to be POV. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep; the illegal (or "illegal") settlements are certainly a relevant category as distinct from other settlements. Perhaps people with a POV issue could suggest an alternate name for the category? Roscelese (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per GOF. Roscelese (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for enlightening me, for some reason I thought things in Israel would also appear under "Israeli settlements." Roscelese (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be because an unusual name is used: Populated places in Israel—it is similar to "settlements" in its kind of generic vagueness. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Israeli settlements in the West Bank per Good Ol’factory and repopulate. Occuli (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrap, or at least rename. If all the settlements are illegal, it is not necessary to state it as part of the name (redundant wording--no gain of specificity). Highlighting the status in the cat-name is POV--even if it's true, the statement here does not lend any clarity to what the topic is. The editorial question is whether Category:Israeli settlements should be subdivided with more specific Category:Israeli settlements in the West Bank and [[:Category:]]. I weakly think "no" (my gut says that "$x in $y" intersection doesn't seem like something readers would be looking for. Definitely want to find the $x, definitely want to know the $y of various specific $x, but we already have cat for $x and every article states its specific $y. For readers interested in "other nearby or regional $x for a given one", we already have things like Category:Gush Etzion Regional Council and Category:Judea and Samaria. DMacks (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: per the Israeli settlements article, settlements in East Jerusalem are also illegal. That's not part of the West Bank is it? Hobit (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on who you ask. Yes, East Jerusalem was initially part of the West Bank. The 1949 "greenline" border goes through Jerusalem. But Israel has officially annexed East Jerusalem and so it regards it as part of its sovereign territory, unlike the rest of the West Bank, which it acknowledges it is occupying. The problem is that the annexation probably violated international law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Israeli settlements in the West Bank per Good Ol’factory. __meco (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep proposed rename makes it unclear what to do with settlements in East Jerusalem, so I don't think that will work (though if folks have a good answer that's fine). And illegal is a fairly important and descriptive thing for a town/village/settlement. Seems like a reasonable category. I suppose we could have "settlements or towns deemed illegal by the UN" or some such and go beyond this part of the world with it... Hobit (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'illegal' cat. Redundant POV category to the existing Israeli settlements cat, per DMacks. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The purpose of this CfD is not clear seeing the confusion in the responses above. I think it is for 'deletion' not renaming since no alternative given. Another thing, it is an interesting suggestion to add two new cats 'in WB' and 'in Golan' that would then be sub-cats to the main 'Israeli settlements'. Then 'Populated places in Israel' could also be placed under 'Israeli settlements' and that would satisfy many people. But would need another discussion for that. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "illegal" is inherently and inappropriately POV. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV pushing. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant category seems to be POV attempt LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore to all articles. The illegal status of various settlements in the West Bank is not an opinion; it is simply formed a match between the way International Law is written to the way it is followed. This is a straight-out fact, and is clarified by some text in the category. It is no more un-neutral than saying Australia and New Zealand are countries in the Southern Hemisphere. Everyone has their own opinion on this highly controversial topic, but no opinion is expressed through this category. I am saying this as a pro-Israel Jew who is all for the settlements. Linda Olive (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above or delete. The entire term "illegal settlement" does not make any sense. A person or perhaps even a country can do something illegal, but an entity cannot be an illegal entity. In other words you can build a house illegally, but the house is not an "illegal house." You can build a settlement illegally, but you cannot have an "illegal settlement."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure you can. There are illegal drugs for example yes? "Illegal settlements" gets 100,000 ghits, so it seems in fairly common use. Hobit (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How on earth can illegal be a POV when not being illegal would be a fringe opinion (I think only the one nation claims they aren't illegal)? If you've got the UN and your closest ally agreeing they are illegal, I think that calling them illegal here is perfectly reasonable. Am I missing some wider dispute here? Hobit (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Israeli settlements in the West Bank. There's no need for status claims in the title. If one things that all the settlements are illegal then that's covered. Incidentally, there's an advantage to this also in that there's some confusion about what is legal and what isn't. While it is true that Israel is the only country which actively takes the position that the settlements are legal, few other countries have actually said they are illegal (although the ICJ has taken the position that they are illegal as has the EU). Complicating factors include the fact that some settlers have on occasion built settlements without government permission and the Israeli government describes those as "illegal" so using that term in this context may be unnecessarily confusing. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Israeli settlements in the West Bank per Good Ol’factory and repopulate. But accusations of "POV pushing" are uncalled-for here. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Israeli settlements in the West Bank. They are illegal accoring to international law, but many (probably not all) are legal according to Israeli law, which they as occupying power are perhaps entitled to apply. The suggested target has a NPOV. WP is not the right place for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 30 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_23&oldid=1136463107"