Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 6 November 8 >

November 7[edit]

Category:Islamophobia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to category:Anti-Islam sentiment. An examination of the previous close on April 14 suggests it was not based on concensus; that debate had as many (and as many different) keep arguments as delete ones. There is significant support in this debate for a category based on anti-Islam sentiment. What there isn't support for is the term Islamophobia, which many people here consider a neologism. So I'm restoring it to its original title, and if people want to debate that without the fog of a questionable name, so be it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Islamophobia existed on Wikipedia before. It was first renamed to Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_31#Category:Islamophobia_to_Category:Anti-Muslim_sentiment, then renamed to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Category:Anti-Muslim_sentiment, and then deleted altogether per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14#Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment. As before, this category will only be a magnet for disputes and edit warring. "Islamophobia" is a controversial term, the meaning and appropriateness of which is the subject of dispute both in real life (see the article) and among Wikipedians (see the current protection of the page due to edit warring, neutrality disputes, and the never-ending Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia: started in July, still on-going). This category will only pour fuel on the fire. Additions of this category to any article are bound to be hotly contested on WP:NPOV grounds and seen as attempts to validate the term through the back door; no disclaimers like "Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is Islamophobic." on the category page will help. The recreation of a deleted category is thus utterly unhelpful to the project. Beit Or 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When User:Beit Or nominated this category, there was just one article in it. But now it has a sub-category and several articles. Please pay attention to difference between Category:Islamophobia and Category:Islam-related controversies. The former refer to pejorative sobriquet used against Islam and Muslims but the later refer to criticism against them. At present Category:Islam-related controversies contains both of these issues and it's incorrect. Thus by making a new category we can separate them.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or alternatively put those up for deletion with this.--T. Anthony 08:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those categories are not pejoratives. If there was a Christophobia category, your point would be valid, otherwise you're suggesting doing something that comes under WP:POINT. Not too good an idea.Nimmo 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how a Category:Anti-Islam would be any different than those. I'm not suggesting we keep this category under the current name. Although even with the "phobia" element Category:Homophobia survived four deletion votes. Yeah I know "that's different", but some would argue saying it's different is a kind of POV. That practicing Islam or homosexuality is both behavioral.--T. Anthony 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't argue Homophobia is any different- it's an imprecise term, and Islamophobia is even more so. Certainly there are irrational fears of Islam, and if they were significant enough to deserve a category then I would support that. Maybe a subcategory under Category:Anti-Islam would be appropriate. Apart from that, I have the same fear that it will attract, uh, militant and generally disruptive editing as others do. Yarkod 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CSD do not apply, for Category:Islamophobia was never itself deleted, there was only a decision to rename which was over a year ago. the nominator is quite incorrect in claiming that Islamophobia is a controversial term - it is an accepted topic of sociological study and is discussed in-depth in numerous academic publications, has been identified as a valid concern by the United Nations and European Union (i.e. EUMC report), is officially recognised by most European governments (cf. Jan '01 Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance). of course, he would know all of this had he considered reading or participating in the mediation discussion (which he has not), but as in the article, such claims exaggerate the scope of the dispute and serve to discredit the subject entirely. Category:Islamophobia is no less valid a category than Category:Antisemitism. i think the nominator is wrong in fortelling content disputes over which articles the category would be applicable, as Category:Antisemitism has already set an appropriate precedent in this regard, which the nominator does not appear to reject. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4, wikilawyering to the contrary, this category was renamed then deleted - it was deleted take it to DRV. Islamophobia is a neologism that is susceptible to multiple meanings, including intra-Islamic spats, denouncement of terror or violence in the name of Islam, etc. It's an easy mud to sling and will group together such odd characters as nearly every Shiite (as accused by some hard-line Sunni clerics), al-Qaeda and its members, Meir Kahane, Vladimir Putin, and Amnesty International. Not meaningful when it was deleted, not meaningful now. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I think Itaqallah made a mistake by making a category with just one article [1]. But it doesn't mean this category should be deleted. There are several articles like Eurabia and Londonistan (term) which can be put in this category. So we need this category and I complete Itaqallah's work by adding some other articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the reason for nominating this for cfd? The reason is it is a recreation after a closed cfd which resulted in delete. Yahel Guhan 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Criticisms of Islamism (such as the articles Islamofascism and the book Londonistan) have been added to the category; I don't think they are "Islamophobic" and I suspect if this category survives all articles criticising Islamic terrorism will eventually be added to it.--Johnbull 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to cut out things that didn't directly relate to hostility against Muslims, either the study of it or doing it.--T. Anthony 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per T. Anthony and Itaqallah. Islamophobia is a recognised term and used without qualification in mainstream media ([2], [3]). → AA (talk) — 11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The usage of the term antisemitism today too is controversial in many cases, and not controversial in other cases. Similarly, it is not the case that usage of the term "Islamophobia" has been always controversial; e.g. Runnymede Trust's report is widely acknowledged by the media to have been Islamophobic cf. "Exploring Media Discourse, by Myra Macdonald, Oxford University Press, p.185. also per T. Anthony and Itaqallah and AA. --Aminz 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This category is very much needed from both an organizational standpoint, due to the increasing number of articles that relate to the use of the term and concept of Islamophobia. Atari400 16:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votestacking like this is not appropiate. Yahel Guhan 00:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly, but feel free to lodge a complaint, if you like! Atari400 17:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong Delete, the term is a magnet for original research. Evidence such as the the recent history of Eurabia show editors throwing in the term with no reference or citation at all. This will only get worse. It is categories like this which will slowly poison wikipedia. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i wouldn't say Category:Homophobia or Category:Antisemitism (both, like Islamophobia, are internationally recognised forms of prejudice/discrimination) are OR magnets. while any category is susceptible to misuse, standard practice is to use the cat on articles where the topic has been discussed in the context of Islamophobia (or vice versa) by reliable sources, in which case there is no cause for concern. i oppose the cat's inclusion on any article where there have not been specific sources discussing the two topics together. ITAQALLAH 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because antisemitism is a well-researched phenomenon rather than a political epithet? Beit Or 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Islamophobia is an accepted topic of sociological study, and is internationally recognised by the EU, UN, and various governmental bodies. there are numerous reliable sources which verify this. ITAQALLAH 00:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Homophobia and Islamophobia are in the modern era very well researched. In fact, those who denounce the very notion and existence of either Homophobia or Islamophobia as valid, many times hold views that can be described as either Homophobic or Islamophobic. Saying that there does not exist an irrational hatred or prejudice by some against those who may be homosexual, or those who ethnically/racially originate from somewhere in the Muslim World, are both as illogical and silly as saying there is no such thing as Antisemitism. All of these notions exist and have existed throughout history, and are in fact very real social problems today. Atari400 23:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same thing as antisemitism. Yes, homophobia is real; and as far as I am aware there isn't reasonable criticism about whether the topic exists. Islamophobia is different. There is doubt as to whether the concept is valid. And neither of the two are the same as antisemitism. Antisemitism is also a prejudice against Jews as a race; not just a religion. Yahel Guhan 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me my position was to rename it either Category:Anti-Islam or Category:Anti-Islamic. Actually the second sounds more analagous to Category:Anti-Catholicism or Category:Anti-Judaism. That someone can be against Islam, or study those against it, is fairly solid as far as I can see. The constant comparisons to "Antisemitism" though are, I agree, worrisome and show a potentially disturbing misunderstanding. Muslims are not an ethnicity or culture. Muslims come from many cultures, ethnicities, and races. It really is more like the anti-religion cats.--T. Anthony 03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that a far more logical and encyclopedic term such as Category:Anti-Islam or Category:Anti-Islamic should be used. In fact, Category:Anti-Islam did exist, and was voted for deletion by many of the same editors who are doing so to the category Islamophobia right now. I am not comparing Antisemitism to Islamophobia or Homophobia, but rather only arguing that all three different forms of discrimination do exist. Muslims are certainly not an ethnicity, culture or race, but that is almost irrelevant to the existence of any notion or perception of what they are. In the U.S, many victims of anti-Islamic attacks this decade, have in fact not been Muslim at all, but rather Sikhs, Arab Christians, Hindus, Iranian Secularists and Atheists, and even Jews. One need only fit the "look" of Middle Eastern or South Asian to have experienced what the U.N has labeled as Islamophobia. In other words, in the case of the American public, many perceive Islam to be something it is not, such as a monolithic collective of people sharing everything from language to looks. Being against a religion is one thing, as I myself can very much claim to be rationally against Islam, and any other major religion on Earth, and I support others that are. That is not what this subject is about. It is about labels and being labeled, with the end result being discrimination. The fact that many of the editors now arguing for the deletion of the category Islamophobia, made the same arguments for the deletion of articles on Anti-Arabism[4] and no less than THREE attempts against Anti-Iranian sentiments[5][6][7], should make it very clear that this issue has moved beyond theological disagreement, and is now very much about bigotry and racism. Atari400 17:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Islamophobia was the same as either Homophobia or Antisemitism, but only that all three exist as very real forms of prejudice and discrimination. You, in fact, made a very similar argument during the deletion discussion for Anti-Arabism, under the now deleted user name Sefringle. In other words, since by your logic Anti-Arabism is just a form of Islamophobia, and Islamophobia does not exist, prejudice, discrimination and outright racism towards Arabs does not really exist. Interesting logic. Atari400 17:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mind WP:NPA. Yahel Guhan 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Then nominate those for deletion, but to insist that one bad cat should exist because others do is against wiki policy. Anyone using that logic care to tell me how Allegations of Israeli Apartheid exists, while allegations of other countries apartheid get deleted? It is not a good arguement. Yahel Guhan 23:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just "other stuff exists" it's that in some cases discrimination and persecution categories have been deemed historically valid or useful. On the Israel deal I'm not sure I understand this. I'm no more anti-Israel than I am anti-Liberia or anti-Turkey or whatever. Meaning I'm open to criticize all those countries, but I'm not against them. True some things about the creation of Israel strike me as troubling, but I'd say the same for Oklahoma being open to settlers. Regardless of that in our times Israel is a wonderfully free society by the standards of the region and I think the UN has been unfair to Israel. I feel like you brought it up to imply an anti-Israeli sentiment when I don't have it. On the Israeli article I'd suggest you put it up for deletion or see if you can create/source an article about one of the Allegations of apartheid made against other nations including several Muslim ones.--T. Anthony 00:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion has been tried 6 times based on that arguement; all of which have failed. The point being, just because other prejudice categories exist, that doesn't mean this one should. If you have a problem with the existance of Category:Anti-Buddhism, Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Anti-Christianity, Category:Anti-Protestantism, and Category:Anti-Hinduism, don't say this bad category should exist just because those do. That is WP:POINT (as I have found out from a recent arbcom case). Yahel Guhan 01:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted I might put some of those up for deletion. Although I'll have to wait on that or it'll look like a point violation.--T. Anthony 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep "Islamophobia" is a well recognized and globally accepted term even by the United Nations and EU. I believe Category:Islamophobia holds as much eligibility to be kept on Wikepedia as Category:Antisemitism because of terms' global recognition. Also, its a standard word in Oxford dictionary ~atif Talk 13:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan held a seminar "Confronting Islamophobia" in 2004 (read 1 and 2).
    • U.N. special investigator on racism, Doudou Diene, cited examples on "Islamophobic violence" in its recent report
      • "Islamophobia today is the most serious form of religious defamation," Doudou Diene told the UN Human Rights Council, which is currently holding a three-week session in Geneva. (read Islamophobia threat to world peace: UN expert article)
    • EU published the report titled "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia" in 2006(read)
  • Delete: Recreated category which was deleted before. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I am an agnostic" Not like it matters, but then why do you have a userbox that says "This user is a Sufi"? Are you a sockpuppet of User:Padishah5000? You seem to edit similar pages and have a very similar userpage as him. Yahel Guhan 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sefringle, you have linked to a user page that does not seem to exist, so I am not really certain how I should respond to your statement. As far a my own personal views on religion or spirituality that you find so matterless, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you though emails. I will not, however, allow you to turn my user page into a means of character assassination and bigoted accusations of taqiyya. If you do, I will be forced to leave notice with these folks. Please recall this policy. Atari400 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (First time I've contributed to this kind of discussion - don't even know if non-Administrator editors are supposed to participate.) Anyway, the article Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was already in the "Islam-related controversies" category (which is fine), but now has been added to "category:Islamophobia" by User:Syed Atif Nazir, who is busy adding many other Islam-critical articles to this category. I don't think this is going to lead to anything but bad tempers and revert wars. --RenniePet 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already discussed with you the reasons for the addition. Should Muhammad article be removed from Wikipedia because of frequent edit/revert wars (edit protected many times, also currently protected)? Answer is no. thanks ~atif Talk 16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Muhammad shouldn't be deleted, but there is a difference here. Muhammad is not labeling a group of people, and things as being "prejudice." Yahel Guhan 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying Category:Prejudices should be removed?--T. Anthony 00:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that? Yahel Guhan 01:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
obviously thats what you implied. Assuming, only this category will go through OR or edit warring, and not other "prejudice related" categories, then of course again you are wrong. ~atif Talk 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never implied that. In case you don't remember, I argued that this should be deleted, and antisemitism, hamophobia, racism, etc. should not be deleted. My arguement is the other cats accurately label prejudice and racist people and organizations a prejudice, while this category labels islam critical people, organizations, and events as prejudice when they usuaully are not. Just look at where you placed the category: that is a prime example of how the category is abused to label criticism of Islam as prejudice against muslims; all of those people/oragnizations/events is not prejudice at all. Yahel Guhan 19:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you did imply that. When I mentioned other anti-religion categories you said "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Then nominate those for deletion" So possibly what you are saying is religion is a special case and religious prejudices can't be categories. The only alternative is you are saying Islam is a special case and if that's true I would like some explanation as to why. Because I'd actually prefer this not be termed "Islamophobia" as I don't like these phobia terms. I'll tolerate it being called that if it's clear it just means fear or hatred of Muslims, or those who research it, and rarely is put on articles of living people. The kind of restrictions I'd expect for say Category:Anti-Judaism or Category:Anti-Protestantism.--T. Anthony 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I get it now. User:Syed Atif Nazir stated I wanted all prejudice categories deleted; that is not the case. What I am saying is with most prejudices, it is generally accepted that the things within the category are prejudice. With Islamophobia and anti-Islam sentiment, that is rarely, if ever the case. There are things which seem to be islamophobic to some, but to others are critical of Islam, or may be legitimite views which do not in any form imply prejudice. I suppose similar problems could occur for Anti-Judaism or Anti-Protestantism, but I have very limited knowledge on those topics or any controversy surrounding them, so I offer no opinion on that. Islamophobia may exist in some cases, but for the most part, the majority of the uses of the term are in my opinion ad hominem attacks used to dismiss Criticism of Islam, or muslim culture. The purpose of this category is in my opinion designed to label the pepole/organizations/events that point out these criticisms/concerns about Islam/muslim society as jsut that; prejudice against muslims, and that is very POV. I do not see that to be nearly as much the case with any other prejudice (or prejudice category). Yahel Guhan 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to find some kind of rename that will just make it specific to hatred or fear of Muslims and or those who study it. Otherwise what we're saying is Muslims are so different than other religions that it is impossible to discuss persecution or prejudice against them. Even if this is true it seems hard to justify with any sense of fairness.--T. Anthony 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to rename it? Or better yet, rename it to what? Any anti-Islam category will have the same problems. "Otherwise what we're saying is Muslims are so different than other religions that it is impossible to discuss persecution or prejudice against them. Even if this is true it seems hard to justify with any sense of fairness." That is like saying 'Israel is so differnet that it is the only country which can be accused of apartheid.' As illogical as both statements seem to be, wikipedia works that way at times. Islam is not the same as other religions, especially in modern times, so I do not think I understand your arguement. Yahel Guhan 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia is stupid and a waste of time is something you'll get little argument on from me. However what you're saying amounts to the idea that Wikipedia should acknowledge it is a stupid waste of time and I think that might be too much to ask. Reasonably speaking I don't think we can treat Islam as differently as you want without either saying Wikipedia should have a POV on Islam or that it must avoid some subjects because Wikipedia overall sucky. (It is overall sucky, but again asking it to acknowledge this is a bit much) Besides I'd favor a name like "Anti-Islam" even if that's not the academic term. It'd be a more neutral term though, like Category:Anti-communism.--T. Anthony 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I never said wikipedia is stupid. What I said is some of the ways wikipedia works seem strange and some of the occurances don't make sense to me; that doesn't mean stupid. If I truly thought wikipedia was stupid, I would not edit here. Anti-Islam doesn't work here; it has the same problems as this category and the other categories. Anti-Islam is just another synnomym. Anti-Islamism was suggested below as a possible alternative; that I have much less of a no problem with. Yahel Guhan 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My "Delete" vote was a spontaneous reaction to the misuse of the category on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. (Fortunately, all of User:Syed Atif Nazir's taggings have now been removed by other editors.)
Now I've had time to think more about the situation, and in my opinion there is a very fundamental problem with the whole concept of Islamophobia. My view is that there are many serious problems with Islam, and that I have the free speech right to criticize Islam. If the concept of Islamophobia is accepted, then Muslims can just shrug off my criticism by saying that I suffer from Islamophobia, that I'm the one with the problem, not Islam. This would be counter-productive to a free debate and the exchange of ideas. --RenniePet 16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is this will be limited to those who truly hate/fear Islam, persecute Muslims, or research the term "Islamophobia." If some editors will abuse that we can deal with it as warranted.--T. Anthony 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion of Islam, and as you perhaps are hinting, it is possible that this category could be abused. But are you also saying that there are no articles that could be legitimately tagged as having to do with prejudice or violence against Muslims? IronDuke 16:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"could be abused" It already is being abused. The article Islamophobia is fine, and covers the topic in as much detial as is necessary, mentioning the appropiate allegations. We don't need a POV labeling cat as well. Yahel Guhan 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. I've limited it where the only people on it are killers, researchers of Islamophobia, and people who say they're Islamophobic. Only the cartoon controversy is debatable. I even retracted my addition of Jerry Vines. If it was just any critic of Islam than Pat Robertson or Christopher Hitchens would be in it.--T. Anthony 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is it has a potential to get way out of hand (as evident by like tagging Faith Freedom International and by User:Syed Atif Nazir and Ann Coulter by User:Atari400 and similar taggings). Even if you limit it, that doesn't mean the other people who add the category will do so as well. Either way, it proves that even while this cfd debate was going on, the category is still being abused. Yahel Guhan 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All prejudice categories have a potential to get way out of hand. Either we reject them all or we trust that the problems will correct themselves. I'm not opposed to rejecting them all, but the lack of logic or consistency at Wikipedia is one of its annoying features. For now I'm just saying keep this and then later we can discuss these anti-religion categories in general. The only logic for treating this different is that Muslim editors are unusually untrustworthy. If that is true than I think we have a larger issue to deal with.--T. Anthony 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point I made with the Allegations of apartheid articles. That arguement didn't work. Apparently voting in that way violates WP:POINT. I never said "muslim editors are untrustworthy." I said "some muslim editors are untrustworthy". In fact there are some non-muslim editors who are untrustworthy as well. There are non-muslims who might abuse the category as well, depending on their POV. Likewise there are some muslims who may not abuse the category. Yahel Guhan 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't involved with any debates on that. If you want to create articles about "allegations of apartheid" concerning a Muslim nation feel free to do so and I will support it in any AfD.--T. Anthony 00:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may, but the community will not, and that is my point. The articles will be deleted, because it is WP:POINT to want a something to be kept as a "bargening chip" to keep or delete another bad category. If there are problems with the other categories, nominate them based on whatever problems are occuring with them; but I highly doubt they have as many similar problems as this category; then again, I know very little about the usage of those categories, so I won't get involved in that discussion. Yahel Guhan 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what the community will or will not do. I'm loathe to create such an article, but I might if I get the time. Or at least I'll do Racism in Sudan or something like that.--T. Anthony 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I do know what will happen, because it has been tried. It will be deleted, and I'd likely go to arbcom to have them decide what would happen because of this editing behaviour. The point being it is a repeat category, so it has also been tried, and the likely result of this debate will probably be the same. Thus it is disruptive editing on the part of the creator. If antisemitism was to be deleted, it would be disruption to recreate that article or to recreate an article called anti-Judaism. They are the same topic; just synonyms. Likewise, if Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is deleted, you don't go and create Category:Islamophobia. That is pure disruption. I am beginning to think if this is deleted, it (and synnomyms) may need to be salted. Yahel Guhan 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't know that. You don't have magic powers to predict what will happen to an article I've not even created yet. On the other deal if you want to quit this discussion with what amounts to pouting I guess that's your right. The fact of the matter is though concensus can change and articles or categories deleted can be revived.--T. Anthony 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one idea though. What if we made it like Category:Discrimination against Muslims. It'd make it a slightly different issue, but it would get rid of the problem of adding names of people who just criticized elements of Islamic society. They'd have to actually discriminate in some way, or study the issue of discrimination or be victimized, to be in the category. Could you accept that or would you oppose even that?--T. Anthony 06:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is mostly with the word "Islamophobia" itself. "A phobia (from the Greek φόβος "Phobos" meaning Fear), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, objects, activities, or persons." The key word here is irrational, implying that there is something wrong with the person who has the opinion. If the category name was "Anti-Islamism" or something like that it would be a neutral term, implying that the condition could be due to problems with the holder of the view and/or problems with Islam.
Consider, for example, "Ku Klux Klan Phobia" contra "Anti-Ku-Klux-Klanism". The first is wrong because it implies the holder of the opinion is the one that there's something wrong with, while the second is OK, as we can (hopefully) all agree that being against the Ku Klux Klan doesn't imply that there is something wrong with you.
So my vote is still delete, but that if this category is not deleted, it should at least be renamed to something neutral. --RenniePet 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A category on a notable and broad subject. Bless sins 23:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wow. So many keep votes; none of which respond to the reason for nomination. Yahel Guhan 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That this is a recreation of a deleted category. I've tried to respond to that. I think the deletion was a reaction, possibly overreaction, on the part of people worried about anything related to Islam. For example Category:Critics of Islam was deleted numerous times, but Category:Critics of Scientology has always gotten keep. One basis for this is that Muslims are unusually irrational and violent so we have to get rid of these categories or they'll misuse/abuse them. Interestingly I'm not going to argue against that idea, but I would like to see the support for it. Another reason is that criticism of Islam is not important in its history and I'd like to see some evidence for that either. Basically the categories deletion was wrong and deletion review is often just a rubber-stamp when it comes to deleting controversial matters.--T. Anthony 00:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it is a re-creation. You agree on that. So why don't you agree that the recreation was a clear example of bad faith on the part of Itaqallah? I think we are just repeating the same old discussion again. This cat should exist because other cats exist. This cat is a real concept. All are poor arguements to keep it. The result was delete, and re-creating stuff against the previous consensus is just waste of the communities time (which is exactly why there is a WP:CSD#G4), because we will just repeat the same arguements. The community has spoken. Yahel Guhan 01:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahel, Category:Islamophobia never obtained community consensus for deletion - it was renamed (which i was also unaware of actually), and i am certain that had the community been aware of the prominence of this term during that discussion then such a consensus for renaming wouldn't have surfaced. your attribution above is a straw-man. this cat should exist due to its prominent usage in mainstream sources (BBC, UK and international press) and widespread acceptance (by the EU, UN, and many world governments). previous categories related to specific types of accepted prejudice/discrimination (Antisemitism, Homophobia) merely set a precedent for this. the prime rationale for the deletion of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment if i recall correctly was due to the OR possibilities and the subjectivity involved in its usage (i.e. 'who defines what constitutes Anti Islam sentiment'?). that is inapplicable to Islamophobia, a term which specifically finds accepted usage in mainstream sources (see above). ITAQALLAH 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the community knew perfectly well or how accepted the term was when they voted to delete the article. The islamophobia article was perfectly well sourced back then, so I highly doubt the community was unfamilar with the usage of the term (especially conisdering the large number of inclusionists on wikipedia checking that information for themselves before voting delete). The reason the category was deleted is because it inaccurately labeled (as it is doning right now) people, events and other stuff as "islamophobic" and pushes a POV onto those articles through false labeling; virtually anything remotely critical of Islam has been labeled with this category. I am forced to go through many articles right now and remove the cat because people are being inappropiately labeled with the POV BLP nightmare cat. All the problems involved with the Anti-Islam category apply to this category as well. Islamophobia is just a synonym of anti-islam sentiment. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I am sure the community knew perfectly well or how accepted the term was when they voted to delete the article." which article did they vote to delete? and how is that connected to Category:Islamophobia? you are incorrectly under the impression that Category:Islamophobia on an article means "The topic of this article is Islamophobic!", erroneously removing the cat from articles like Runnymede Trust (the governmental organisation that coined the term).[9] addition of a category does not mean the topic is symptomatic of it, and this has long been accepted rationale (i.e. [10]) ITAQALLAH 14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They voted to delete this category. I know you know what I mean. It also seems like the consensus hasn't really changed from last time, but lets leave that up to the closing admin. Yahel Guhan 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the recreation was a bad or good idea I think this category may have validity. I'm open to deleting all these anti-religion categories, but I'd rather we have that discussion. Just singling this one out seems potentially biased as it did last time.--T. Anthony 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I don't see who it is inaccurately labeling. I've tried to restrict its use on people and the only names it remains on are: People who say they are Islamophobic, people noted for researching "Islamophobia", and a criminal I just added who killed a guy because he wrongly thought he was Muslim. The organizations in it are largely hate groups who hate all kinds of "false religions" or researchers of hate-groups. If there's someone or something in wrongly remove it.--T. Anthony 11:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What validity does it provide? It just labels people. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It provides a category for those interested in this topic. It is not Category:Islamophobes, it should only apply to people when they are notable for the topic as with any category. As for it "labeling" all religion or political categories run the risk of doing that to some degree.--T. Anthony 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not Category:Islamophobes. However it is being used the same way as such a category (naming every organization remotely critical of Islam with that cat) Already, even while the category is about to be deleted, some muslims are trying to abuse this category by placing every Islam critical person/organization/event with it.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] This is a serious problem that cannot easily be solved with POV labels like Islamophobia. Yahel Guhan 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse can be dealt with and it occurs in these other anti-religion categories too. If you think it doesn't it just means you haven't dealt with those. If you're stating we have a few highly biased Muslim editors we should deal with that problem rather than restrict ourselves.--T. Anthony 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahel, don't make it an excuse to justify your delete voting - if you disagree, remove it - that's what this open Encyclopedia is about. Second, same kind of so called "abuse" is done and is possible for Category:Antisemitism,Category:Anti-Buddhism, Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Anti-Christianity, Category:Anti-Protestantism, and Category:Anti-Hinduism, so pls do not single out Category:Islamophobia to further your points. thanks ~atif Talk 05:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way, way too subjective a term. The.valiant.paladin 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in what way is identification of Islamophobia by reliable sources subjective? it shouldn't be editors connecting topics to Islamophobia. ITAQALLAH 14:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what constitutes a "reliable source"? I've already seen this category misused just because some halfcrazed fanatic scream "islamophobia". In just about any case concerning valid criticism of islam someone is going to call it "islamophobia".The.valiant.paladin 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sources are weighed in the light of WP:RS. this would be mainstream media, or academic sources. that does not include what you characterize as fanatics engaging in political smearing. do you believe that discrimination or prejudice against Islam and Muslims does not exist? if you accept that it does,[18][19] then surely you can concede that other specific discrimination related categories - which are well accepted- are open to the same type of abuse as this is? the category also includes those organisations that have made efforts to identifying the level of the problem or actively working against it (Runnymede Trust, European Fundamental Rights Agency). ITAQALLAH 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This term, despite being a quite new one compared to say antisemitism, have already seen plenty of abuse on Wikipedia. A long list of articles have already been branded as related to "islamophobia", and the word is mostly used as an way to attack and brand critics of islam.

Now, the phenomena exists, no doubt about that, but the word itself is way to subjective and way to misused to be neutral in any way. It's like the word "islamofacism". Should we categorize say articles about Muhammad, islam, terrorism, Bin Laden and Iraq because some call the violence connected to those topics as examples of islamofacism? Again, this is way to subjective a word to useThe.valiant.paladin 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We must have a category that includes articles about prejudice/violence against Islam/Muslims; I cannot see how folks can assert that other religions/ethnicities are victims of prejudice but Muslims somehow aren't. I don't love this as a title for it, and would prefer a Rename to Category:Anti-Islam, but failing that, I !vote Keep. (NB: Please, everyone: if this category is kept, try to keep it from being used as a POV hammer. I do understand that's a risk here, but all cats of this type carry the same danger.) IronDuke 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree, if it is assumed that only this category will go through OR or edit warring (used as an excuse for "Delete" voting), and not other existing "prejudice related" categories, then it is obviously wrong. ~atif Talk 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- missnamed, and not needed. would be ok with a catagory Anti-Islam instead --T-rex 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring this, how is this in any way the same as those cats? Yahel Guhan 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same as the antisemitism category and I think anyone saying it is similar should stop. This is what caused problems for previous anti-Islam categories. There's a feeling, that I think is supported by the actions of some Muslim editors, that this is a "tit for tat" on their being an antisemitism category. This is not what this should be about. However what it could/should be about seems the same as Category:Anti-Christianity to me. How do you think it's different? One of the people who voted delete at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14#Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment said "Delete, but if and only if Anti-Christianity is deleted."--T. Anthony 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They all belong to wikt:religionism.--Raphael1 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I say this with some regret, but the term is in use. The equivalent for Judaism is Antisemitism. These terms will not fit into a "tidy" system where articles and categories have a parallel series of names, but that is how language has developed. I have not looked to see what is in anti-christianity, but in Christian theology, "Antichrist" referes to a prophesied future world ruler. Since the articles are probably not about his alleged adherents, any anti-XX articles and categories should be renamed. It is inevitable that such articles will be attacked for [[WP:POV}, but many will in fact be discussing widely held Points of View, which are themselves legitimate encylopaedic subjects. Peterkingiron 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The term is controversial, if not in itself but certainly in its applicability to various phenomena. It is okay to have an article on this, but there shouldn't be a category. Placing something in the category would automatically state "this is Islampophia" and there are numerious instances were this would be controversial and therefore POV. A "controversy" category does not suffer from that setback. (Speedy as it has been deleted before.) Str1977 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i don't agree that adding a discrimination-related category means that the topic is an example of that discrimination. see Category:Antisemitism. ITAQALLAH 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I agree with Str1977 and many others above. There should certainly be an article for this topic, but the creation of a category for this is rather problematic and opens a very wide door for original research and WP:NPOV violations.--C.Logan 04:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original research is a concern a few editors have highlighted here, but i would like this point of contention to be explained further. where is the original research if multiple reliable sources discuss one in the context of the other? if the connection with the topic of "Islamophobia" (specifically) is verifiably established, either because the subject has issues reports on Islamophobia, campaigned against Islamophobia, or has been accused by multiple reliable sources of Islamophobia, then where is the OR? the issues you and others seem to be raising are flaws universal to category usage. ITAQALLAH 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are lots of categories that open up original research issues. An example would be Category:Antisemitism. Although certain topics do belong in that category, others don't, but will be placed in that category anyways by certain editors relying on their original research. The proper thing to do then is to discuss and achieve consensus.Bless sins 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't want to outright delete this... because I think that: Runnymede Trust, Chris Allen (UK), and some others who discuss the issue of Islamophobia deserve to be in this category... Frank Roque, Philippe Servaty and the like do not. We cannot categorically classify people as Islamophobia since it is not clear and carries lots of baggage. But, I also don't think my views are inline with how we are using these categories. I disagree with a lot of what is in Anti-Catholicisim, Anti-Judaism, etc. I think the category should only be used with works that deal with the subjects... not to call a certain book anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic... I think that violates NPOV. gren グレン 06:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Servaty might be debatable I suppose. However I put Frank Roque in because he actually killed a guy because he thought he was Muslim. He is currently serving life in prison so I don't think he's in much of a position to do a libel suit. Granted he could be like Snake Jailbird and decide to attack me for editing his Wikipedia article, but I don't know of actual murderers doing that. (That said I'm open to the idea that Roque fits Category:Anti-Arabism better. He does not fit Category:Islam-related controversies, in my opinion, as killing Sikhs because one thinks they are Muslim is pretty much universally condemned and not a matter of debate)--T. Anthony 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (this should just be speedy deleted per G4) The word Islamophobia is a neologism and in particular a controversial one. Wikipedia has no business helping to establish a controversial neologism by utilizing it as though it were a word that has entered into the lexicon of the English language (ever looked up the definition of the word in a dictionary? Chances are a given search will turn up nothing). A category named Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment would make more sense. 83.202.31.229 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • — 83.202.31.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ITAQALLAH 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i presume your question was rhetorical - had you checked the newer versions of the OED, you would note its presence. Islamophobia is a neologism, yes, but it has received widespread acceptance by most governing authorities who recognise it as a form of discrimination. ITAQALLAH 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • as anonip missed it, here is the link for "Islamophobia" entry in Oxford dictionary ~atif Talk 17:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it interesting that 83.202.31.229's first edits ever were to this page and discussion. Possible sockpuppetry, and an attempt at gaming the system, perhaps? Atari400 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not get into accusations and recriminations. To 83.202.31.229 I would agree to a rename to "Anti-Muslim" or some such, but it would be easier to do that if this survives. If it's deleted we'd have to start from scratch.--T. Anthony 01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again chances are a given search in any given dictionary will return nada, see:
1. Cambridge dictionary for "Islamophobia"
2. Merriam Webster's for "Islamophobia"
3. MSN Encarta for "Islamophobia"
4. Newbury House of American English for "Islamophobia"
5. Infoplease for "Islamophobia"
6. Factmonster for "Islamophobia"

There's nothing prohibiting one from contributing to a deletion discussion via an IP address. And to ensure that there's no gaming going on I encourage you to request a sockpuppet check. 90.24.208.248 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— 90.24.208.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When you log in with your account, it puts to rest the issue of "sockpuppetry". Short of that, there is no certain way to be sure that your are not using your user name and your IP address separately to "game" the discussion. Atari400 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what is a "sockpuppet check"? Do Wikipedia administrators have access to the IP addresses of those of us who use usernames? Does anyone? --RenniePet 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCU is what you want to peruse. Also WP:SOCK. To strengthen my argument: Google's human reviewed search result for the term "Islamophobia" has us (Wikipedia) defining the term ("Wikipedia encyclopedia article defines the term, summarizes its history, and gives examples. Includes links."). This despite a specific policy again "defining terms" and "introducing neologisms". So we (Wikipedia) define a term and then go on to utilize it? That sounds like self referencing if ever I've heard it. 86.212.23.215 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — 86.212.23.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
on what basis do you claim we are "defining terms"? please try reading the article. it was Runnymede who coined the term in 1991. since then (and i am curious to know how many times i've wrote this) the term has been accepted as a form of discrimination by the EU, UN, international govts, a large number of reliable sociology-oriented sources, mainstream media, and so on (what more do you want!?). i see no such original research. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— 80.93.211.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ITAQALLAH 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I struggled over this one, and reviewed the discussion on several separate occasions before I finally reached the conclusion that it is simply too inherently problematic a term to be appropriate for a category. I sympathize with the intent of its supporters, because there clearly is such a thing, but it's just not suitable for a category. Much better, in this case, to link to related articles through the main article.

On a related issue, I've been struck by the absence of a category for anti-Islamic hate crimes, and would have created it myself but for one slight problem: where are the articles for that category?? There have been plenty of such crimes in the last 6 years, but the articles have not been written. Cgingold 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but a comment for Cgingold: I have The Siege on my watchlist because I made some edits half a year ago or so, after watching the movie. Since then there have been several attempts to remove the statement "It also seemed to predict the anti-arabism in the USA that occurred following 9/11", typically by annonymous users who justified the removal by saying that there had been no backlash, on the contrary, that 9/11 brought people together. I'm not sure what the motives are of this "head in the sand" claim - or am I wrong here? Anyway, I'm the one who found the FBI report referenced as reference number 1 on that article, and it indicates a serious backlash towards Arabs in the USA after 9/11. Just in case this information is of use to you... ---- RenniePet (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of the category is clearly notable. The length of the article and the talk page both show there are various views on the subject as well. User:T. Anthony has provided many examples of other categories.Vice regent 20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories aren't kept (or in most cases even made) because the category's topic is merely "notable". You've essentially got zero reasoning here. Here's an example (almost absurdo ad reductum but still valid): The internet Lolcat phenomenon is "notable" therefore the existence of Category:Lolcat would be valid because of the notability of the phenomenon. Basing a decision to keep a category based solely upon the notability of the category's topic therefore is not valid. Were you confusing this category discussion for an article discussion? -- 90.24.211.187 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC) — 90.24.211.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • No I was not mistaken. And notability isn't the only reason I've given. My other reasons are precendent (such as the category on an Category:Anti-Hinduism). Another reason is this topic is quite broad enough to include articles of interest.Vice regent 01:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be a clear criteria for inclusion and it's lists at least some categories. Looke OK to me. // Liftarn (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ivan Yefremov[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ivan Yefremov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Umberto Eco[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. At this point, there is not enough material to justify an eponymous category, and Eco's publications belong in Category:Works by Umberto Eco. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Umberto Eco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eponymous category. Doczilla 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fwiw. Eco (I almost wrote "Erdos", heh) is (like Erdos!) uncommonly significant in contemporary scholarship (here, literature), as both an academic and a best-seller. Lot's of Docotoral dissertations are written about him, his works, and his field, which he named himself, "semiotics". These things interrelate. I think the category must be usefull to Literature, Linguistics, Iconography, and others. I'd advocate checking on the Talk pages of such subjects before pulling the trigger, but he has plenty of fans, no reason for me to intrude. Pete St.John 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:K. W. Jeter[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to category:Novels by K. W. Jeter.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:K. W. Jeter to Category:Books by K. W. Jeter
Nominator's rationale: Rename - everything in it is a book. No need for an eponymous category for the author. Otto4711 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kernel methods for machine learning[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kernel methods for machine learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete ill-defined category, with subjection inclusion criteria apparently; does not add to navigation between similar articles; these seem sufficiently diffuse that see also's would likely be the best way but this category is not a good idea. Carlossuarez46 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The definition may be weak, but this sounds like a particular approach to machine learning. I have parented it in Category:Machine learning, and if the category is going it should be upmerged there rather than deleted; but it looks to me more like a keep. It would be good to have input from someone who understands a bit more about the technologies in this field. Any idea where we could ask for help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because case for deletion isn't strong. Doczilla 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japan Post Group[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japan Post Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for a parent company and its 4 or so subsidiaries, which could/should be linked from the parent and each other - most are stubs now but could grow; we generally don't do this with corporate subsidiaries any way, no reason to break precedent. Carlossuarez46 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 09:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they weren't corporate subsidiaries until last month, when Japan Post was privatized. The privatization process was a major national political issue and continues to be a major news story. I think this serves a purpose, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do other than leave a neutral comment. Dekimasuよ! 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Glancing through the category, it looks appropriate. It has enough member articles. Doczilla 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has enough articles, and has potential to expand as well.Vice regent 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paul Tsongas[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paul Tsongas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Not warranted for the material. Otto4711 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UK real estate[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 delete WP:CSD#G7 by User:Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK real estate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category created in error. RichardVeryard 19:34, 7 November 2007 (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:John Edwards[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Edwards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. All of the material is extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized. Main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eponymous category. Doczilla 07:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what's the precedent for a category like this? Also, I'm a little concerned the category would become fertile soil for trolls and attacks. Current politics has a way of bringing out the worst in people. 64.231.195.228 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the primary category for the break out articles, so deleting it is an attack on the whole basis of categories as a major organisational device. Ravenhurst 13:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- all articles link right to John Edwards already, no need for an extra catagory to say what is already in the header --T-rex 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - The article contains all the necessary cross-references, so that itsappreaance as a category is redundant. Peterkingiron 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Larestan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Larestan County; no consensus for upmerging. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Larestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as premature, or at least Rename to to Category:Larestan County, to match Larestan County. -- Prove It (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; it'll develop probably over time. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. Doczilla 07:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to "Fars" or "Fars province", according to the outcome of the next discussion, but without projudice to recreation if there are enough articles to warrant it. On the other hand, if the creator can assure us that enough articles will be created soon to all the other counties of Fars, it could be kept for the moment. Peterkingiron 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fars[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Fars Province. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge / Redirect into Category:Fārs, please do leave a redirect; the macron is difficult to type. -- Prove It (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't it be the other way around, because of the macron difficulty? Even the article on Fars Province does not have a macron. 132.205.99.122 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. If the macron is difficult to type, yep, it should be the other way around, and I don't understand why macron difficulty should be a reason not to redirect. In fact, if you mean the merge/redirect exactly as you said, then the macron difficulty should make a redirect essential so people who can't type the macron could still reach the article. Doczilla 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into Category:Fars Province, to match Fars Province, the other Category:Provinces of Iran should be standardized as well. It's sort of halfway there already. -- Prove It (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into Category:Fars Province per revised nom. Johnbod 18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legal academics by specialty[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename both. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Legal academics to Category:Legal scholars
Propose renaming Category:Legal academics by specialty to Category:Legal scholars by specialty
Nominator's rationale: Rename - In law as in many other fields, many "scholars" are not academics. (Note: While the by nationality category tree is all "academics", the more organically developed "by specialty" tree is primarily (3 out of 4 categories) "scholars".) While the category trees for scholars & academics show that the terms are sometimes used synonymously, using the narrower term poses problems for categorizing many scholars. For instance, Richard Posner is not, strictly speaking, an academic (he adjuncts at Chicago, but that's teaching not scholarship); William Patry is counsel at Google but a treatise writer; the Nimmers; and so on. Journalists, too, often end up writing scholarly works of biography or legal history but do not fit within the narrower "academics" category. Interdisciplinary scholars are also often a weird fit. lquilter 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Support - per nom. Rename seems appropriate. Rudget Contributions 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Johnbod 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom, and maybe get to cleaning up the "jurists" categories too. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on academics right now ... what's the jurists problem? --lquilter 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nomination and common usage of terms. Doczilla 07:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both There is no real need to differentiate someone who works within the formal academic establishment. Additionally, in this case it's impossible, because people keep moving in and out. DGG (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mad Men[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mad Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series, also an inappropriate image gallery. Otto4711 16:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per overcat. I'm surprised by this, why is there so many images? :) Rudget Contributions 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's one image for each episode article, said articles consisting entirely of variations on "(Episode) is an episode of Mad Men. It originally aired on (date)." Its entire contents along with the entire contents of the characters subcat is up for deletion. Otto4711 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also, the category's name should more readily make its meaning apparent. Doczilla 07:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:School massacres in North America[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:School massacres. Additional discussion will probably be needed to determine the fate of the individual, by-country categories. On the one hand, categorisation by country for less than three articles may be overcategorisation. On the other, categorisation of school massacres by country allows such categories to be placed into the appropriate subcategory of Category:Massacres by country. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Two for deletion:[reply]

Unnecessary and U.S.-centric distinction; Category:School massacres contains school massacres by country. Is there any utility in further separating the U.S. and Canada from everywhere else? Dylan 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American, infact i'm against American Imperializm and Globalization, and yet i say it's mot ethnocentric. It's a fact that most of those massacares take place in north America, and when talking about school massacares it's practicaly always assosiated with north America in the peoples minds. So as i said, it's exacxly the category split which is needed. It's more easy to woek with it.

Additional note: When nominating this, I thought that Carcharoth was simply taking the by-country categories and placing them within the nominated categories; instead, s/he has taken the articles out of country categories and put them in here. So, to clarify, my nomination is to delete these and to restore the by-country categories. Dylan 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorize and Delete - I was about to nominate this category myself, but you beat me into it. I don't see the point of having a whole category illustrating that some of the events did happen outside of USA and Canada after all - It's better to have articles fitted into their own country categories instead, including the current articles in this category at the moment. ~Iceshark7 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. I was in the middle of trying out a new category structure. Is it possible to wait until I've finished? The reason for the new structure is that is seems pointless to have 9 country categories with only one or two articles in them. Better to merge them all together. Like it or not, there is an imbalance here, and the category system may have to reflect that imbalance. Carcharoth 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion was here. Carcharoth 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would argue that your new system makes it less precise. When you look at Category:School massacres outside North America, it's impossible to tell where they occurred, except outside the U.S. Given that both systems seek to categorize massacres by geographic location, I think your system is much less precise and informative. Categorizing anything by country is pretty standard. Dylan 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if the decision was "keep" for by-country categories, why change it now? Dylan 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is nearly a year later, and consensus can change. Carcharoth 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one's arguing that, I was just confused as to why you would cite it if supported the opposite of your argument. Dylan 23:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American, infact i'm against American Imperializm and Globalization, and yet i say it's mot ethnocentric. It's a fact that most of those massacares take place in north America, and when talking about school massacares it's practicaly always assosiated with north America in the peoples minds. So as i said, it's exacxly the category split which is needed. It's more easy to woek with it.
    • That would mean having ten categories for eleven articles. Is that sensible? Unfortunately, when it comes to school massacres, the topic is US-centric, and the category system shouldn't hide that by pretending that a single massacre in a country outside the USA and Canada warrants a "by country" category for that country. Carcharoth 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I feel like we're confounding two different aspects of categorization here. The first is categorization design, which in this case is geographical, and logically lends itself to by-country subcategorization. The second is utility, and while I agree that many of these subcategories would have only one or two articles in them, the utility is better in the sense that navigating the categories provides an easier, clearer, informative, and more logical system of organization if done by country than by the binary U.S./non-U.S. system. Dylan 19:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If others feel the same way, I wouldn't mind deleting the sub-categories that are underpopulated and simply merging them into Category:School massacres (leaving the countries with enough articles, the U.S. included, as subcategories thereof), as Johnbod proposed above. But in any case, I'm strongly against the North America classification as a non-NPOV manner of classification. It brings a very definite editor's perspective to the table, even if there are more articles in the North America category than in others. Dylan 19:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new cleaned up versionTaprobanus 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't know why this is US-centric, but we categorize events by country, not continent (Antarctica & Australia excepted). Carlossuarez46 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and now Finland. I still say have one main category, with subs for the US and and Canada and any other country that reaches 3 articles. There's no need for intervening layers here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - two of the articles turned out not to be school massacres (one was of refugees in a university, the other was very unclear as to the causes). I've also been working to make things clearer now than it was before. The current state is that the US and Canada categories are unchanged, as they have been all along, while the other "by country" categories are now in Category:School massacres outside North America - a total of seven categories (with an eighth, the "Scotland" category, inside the UK one). All nine non-North America articles are both in their country categories and in the non-North America category. I've also added this academic paper as a reference to the List of school-related attacks. As I said in the previous debate, subcategorising by date, or weapons used, would make more sense than a "by country" subcategorisation. If a "by country" subcategorisation is to be used, then it should reflect the imbalance. I agree with Johnbod: have one main category, with subs for the US and Canada and any other country that reaches 3 articles. If this is what is decided, I can prepare a list of categories to be deleted and relist them. Carcharoth 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification (I'm staying neutral/impartial to the discussion.) - So what you (Caracroth) are proposing is essentially: "Merge all" to Category:School massacres, except the US and Canada ones, which would exist (separately or together?) as one or two subcats of Category:School massacres? - jc37 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, yes. USA and Canada as two separate subcats is fine. I see people elsewhere talking about "break-out sizes" for categories, and these are the only two "by country" ones that come close. I would also be happy to see them categorised by year and a few other metrics, but ultimately a list may handle all this better. Carcharoth 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have an excellent List of school-related attacks, which is indeed the place for these extras. Johnbod 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I'm not American, infact i'm against American Imperializm and Globalization, and yet i say it's mot ethnocentric. It's a fact that most of those massacares take place in north America, and when talking about school massacares it's practicaly always assosiated with north America in the peoples minds. So as i said, it's exacxly the category split which is needed. It's more easy to woek with it.
  • Delete Frivilous overcategorization. - Gilliam 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization +Cat not required. Chessy999 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete these two sub-categories as unnecessary for navigation or help to the reader; keep the categories by country which allows this information to be placed in the category structure for each country. Hmains 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - over categorized. Chessy999 00:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete U.S. centric. Ravenhurst 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subcategorisation - where a country does not have three massacres, I would suggest categorisation initially by continent. Peterkingiron 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from the Inland Empire, California[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename, without prejudice to subsequent renaming, merging, or deletion as part of a general cleanup effort related to these categories, as suggested by Vegaswikian. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Inland Empire, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from the Riverside-San Bernardino Area, to match Riverside-San Bernardino Area. -- Prove It (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American baseball players[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Although an article titled African American baseball would not be viable (unlike, for instance, African American music), the broader topic of African Americans in the history of baseball in the United States is a subject of cultural interest, as demonstrated by the sources provided by lquilter and Hit bull, win steak. In the words of WP:CATGRS, the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American baseball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category was merged and deleted by CfD on 3 August. DRV overturned in the hope of a more full discussion of all relevant issues. Specifically, although "race occupation" intersections are typically considered overcategorization, it is possible that the special significance of the African American baseball players to the social history of the United States warrants an exception. It is possible to consider this category a viable supplement to History of baseball in the United States. For further discussion on these points, see the DRV. Deletion remains on the table, pending other opinions on a possible exception. Xoloz 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is not true that "race occupation" intersections are "typically considered overcategorization". WP:OVERCAT ad WP:CATGRS both state that the standard is whether the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." If it is "at least ... reasonable" to create "a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list)" then the category can be created. --lquilter 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The history alone of African-Americans in American baseball can support a lengthy article, and has already supported numerous full-length books and many, many academic articles. Per WP:CATGRS this is clearly a notable topic that can serve as a head article for an appropriate biographical category. --lquilter 17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting references per WP:CATGRS: Relevant books include: William Kirwin, Out of the Shadows: African American Baseball from the Cuban Giants to Jackie Robinson; Lew Freedman, African American Pioneers of Baseball: A Biographical Encyclopedia; a number of books on the Negro Leagues (which is logically a subcategory of this one); many books on Jackie Robinson and integration of white leagues. That's just the first books that popped up in a top-10 google search of amazon. There's also a lot of academic literature on the history, on present-day aspects of race in baseball and (including some widely reported research from the past few years on role of race in sports calls), and on sports as careers for African Americans. --lquilter 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure one could write a whole article and support it with verifiable articles on the topic for just any Fooian involvement in any endeavor, but regardless, that's the standard. (See WP:CATGRS) Dismissing such intersections as inherently non-notable is no more helpful than automatically asserting them as inherently notable. If you're unhappy with WP:CATGRS I suggest you raise your general objections to this general kind of category there. (Again, your question do African-Americans play baseball any differently than non-African-Americans? than any other Fooian-Americans? suggests you are limiting the acceptable criteria for a relevant article & category far beyond what WP:CATGRS does.) --lquilter 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is a misunderstanding of WP:CATGRS, and is directly contradictory to WP:CATGRS#Special_subcategories and WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Let's see, according to those guidelines: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." If African-American baseball playing cannot be written, this category cannot be. And it can't be written. Moreover, to be considered is " If a category is not otherwise subdividable into more specific groupings, then do not create a gender/race/sexuality subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically subdividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories." What other races of baseball players are we going to have that can sustain articles about them to avoid the ghettoization that this creates against the guideline? Again, none. Carlossuarez46 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OCAT summarizes WP:CATGRS, first of all, so WP:CATGRS is the source policy to look to. Secondly, you quote from policy (If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.) and then say If African-American baseball playing cannot be written, this category cannot be. Surely you see that this juxtaposition is a confusion between people (the intersection that's being discussed here and in the policy) and a subject that is not under discussion and has never been proposed (African-American baseball playing)? In this category, African-American modifies baseball players; it doesn't modify baseball playing. As has been pointed out repeatedly, there are many other issues besides "style of play" that are picked up -- e.g., history of baseball, demographics, and so on. You can see this in Category:Female baseball players, right? The category captures "females who play baseball" not "people who play female baseball". (And as with African Americans, a lot of books and articles have been written about women baseball players.)
Thirdly, I think you're confused about the last point about ghettoization. You quote from the section but left out the bold explanation at the top that states that a GRS subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. It's not surprising you're confused, because take out of context that's practically incoherent. Here's your quote, in context, but it's even easier to read in WP:CATGRS: Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, a gender/race/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise subdividable into more specific groupings, then do not create a gender/race/sexuality subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically subdividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories. Thus, taken in context, the language you cite doesn't mean we have to create multiple ethnic categories; it just means that we don't disperse people down into by their specific CATGRS categories and out of the parent category. Here, for example, people in Category:African American baseball players also get Category:American baseball players. That avoids the ghettoization issue. If there were no Category:African American baseball players then they would be added to Category:African American sportspeople. If you understand this, then it's clear that these categories really are best thought of as ethnic (or gender or sexuality) categories with occupational subcategories. As a convenience we also list them under the occupational trees. --lquilter 04:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hit bull, win streak. Snocrates 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. Doczilla 07:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- whatever happens with this, do make sure in the future to at least merge these deleted categories in to the appropriate ethnic categories, i.e. Category:African American baseball players would need to be merged in to Category:African Americans AND Category:American baseball players (otherwise their ethnic background is lost in the process when it comes to categorization). So many of you administrators continue to merge these very specific categories only to the nationality and/or profession categories while neglecting the ethnic one. --172.167.129.204 07:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I stand by my reasoning, elaborated in more detail in the DRV. Again, I don't think every reader viewing the Jackie Robinson article is going to want to see a list of every other professional African American baseball player, but that's true of any category. No need to set the threshold especially high -- it's just a category and as such distracts from the rest of the article only in a very minimal sense. — xDanielx T/C 09:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a culturally relevant category, for reasons adequately explained above. DGG (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. And as also explained above, a category specific to the Negro League can more accurately cover the cultural and historical relevance. Doczilla 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y'all talking about the Negro League do realize that there's more to the history and sociology of African Americans in baseball than that, right? The integration of the major (white) leagues, for instance...? --lquilter 04:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to insert two paragraphs that I originally posted a couple of days ago in the CFD for Category:Jewish American scientists, which are equally pertinent here, because they address the fact that this and other related topics have "already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources", as it says in WP:CATGRS:
There's an additional factor that needs to be taken into consideration with regard to this and other ethnic-related categories. Here in the United States, it is entirely commonplace for school teachers to give assignments that involve researching notable individuals of one or another ethnic background. Moreover, the education standards in most (if not all) states require that particular attention must be paid to the history and contributions of different (often specified) ethnic groups. And most of the history and social studies textbooks that are adopted by school systems in the United States must meet requirements in this regard that have been spelled out by the boards of education for major states, such as California and Texas.
I've always assumed, without really thinking about it, that most of this was common knowledge which didn't need to be mentioned. But it occurs to me that many editors -- especially those who don't live here in the U.S. -- are probably not, in fact, aware of this whole aspect of the issue. (I've never seen it referenced in any of the CFDs for ethnic-related categories that I've seen.) If Wikipedia is to truly serve the needs of its readers -- a great many of whom are American middle and high school students -- then surely this should weigh heavily in our considerations. Cgingold 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not much notable in this combination of race, nationality, and occupation --T-rex 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not find it notable, but if we use the definition of notability that we do with WP:N, then all the authors of books & articles on the subject would disagree. See cites, above. ---- Lquilter (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the decline of the number of African-Americans in baseball is an important discussion going on in the United States in the present day. There is a concerted effort in Major League Baseball to encourage more young African-Americans to play baseball instead of basketball, football, etc. Corvus cornix 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Our deliberations on issues like this should not be conducted as though Wikipedia exists in some sort of hermetically sealed realm, separate and apart from the real world, where such supposedly outdated and perhaps bothersome concepts as race and ethnicity must not be allowed to intrude. I think two paragraphs I wrote for the original CFD on this category are worth repeating:
Just because there has been real progress in race relations in this country in the last 3 or 4 decades doesn't mean that categories like this are no longer needed. And just because current day black ballplayers aren't generally subjected to that kind of abuse, doesn't mean that this category can now be consigned to the dustbin.
Merely because a handful of editors wish the whole "ethnicity thing" would just go away, doesn't mean that their personal agenda should be imposed on all of the hundreds of thousands or millions of Wikipedia readers who would be severely frustrated by the difficulties they would encounter in finding what they're looking for, were this category (and others like it) to be deleted. An awful lot of editors and readers will be dumfounded if this category is deleted. And I suspect they will make some fairly obvious inferences as to what's going on.

It's abundantly clear that much of the opposition to this and other similar categories is rooted in a fundamental dislike or aversion for ethnic categorization in general on the part of various editors -- who are most assuredly entitled to their views on such things. But their personal views and feelings should not take precedence over all of the other considerations that support having these categories; nor should they dictate whether categories of this sort are allowed to exist.

I submit that the real question here is whether Wikipedia exists to properly serve the needs of its readers, including ethnic minorities (as discussed in previous remarks by myself and other editors) -- or is it enough to satisfy the preferences of a small number of editors? Cgingold 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In closing, I want to point out that WP:CATGRS is not, in fact, an official "policy" -- as it has been mistakenly referred to -- but rather, a guideline. There is a significant difference: guidelines are advisory, whereas policies are pretty much binding. And this guideline, in particular, has been consistently misused with regard to ethnic categories: instead of reflecting the current consensus -- which it clearly doesn't -- it has been used prescriptively as a device for compelling adherence to that non-existent "consensus". That is completely contrary to what is clearly stated at WP:POLICY: "The purpose of a written policy or guideline is to record clearly what has evolved as communal consensus in actual practice, rather than to lead editors prescriptively toward a given result." (emphasis added) Furthermore, as lquilter has ably pointed out, its meaning has been repeatedly misconstrued and its purported requirements greatly overstated. In short, WP:CATGRS should not be used to override the compelling rationale in support of retaining this category. Cgingold 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per CGingold and lquilter. It is patently obvious - not just "reasonable" - that not just an article, but many articles - not just a book, but many books - can and have been written specifically on the subject of African American baseball players, which more than satisfies the guideline's suggested criteria. Guideline. Suggested. This category is so clearly appropriate - an aid to researchers and more casual readers in navigating through our vast encyclopedia - that one can only guess that the reason this category is in question lies with a more fundamental philosophic dislike of such categorization. As CGingold says, Wikipedia is here to serve the needs of its readers, not of a small number of editors who dislike a method of categorization. Tvoz |talk 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I certainly thing that "race occupation" categorizations can be rather random attempts to make a point, this one isn't. There is real history behind the subject. And the subject is definetly broad enough.Vice regent 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This was largely a rather fruitless debate, because so much of it focused on questions such as nitpicking over the fact that WP:CATGRS is a guideline rather than a policy, or on some rather POV perspectives on race. WP:CATGRS provides a well-tested framework for assessing the appropriateness of these categories, and the only clear attempt to address that was near the top, when Lquilter provided a very persuasive list of references to allow the creation of a head article establishing this as major cultural topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Cumbernauld[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Cumbernauld to Category:People from North Lanarkshire
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, single-article category. It seems that there are not yet enough biographies of people from Cumbernauld to require this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Xbox Live Vision camera supported[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete; a list is available at Xbox Live Vision#Compatible games. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xbox Live Vision camera supported (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as non-defining, should be listed in the Xbox Live Vision article. -- Prove It (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Queens in film[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queens in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mild delete, as non-defining. -- Prove It (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:LGBT-related films Oh wait, wrong queens. Delete as non-defining. The presence of a queen in a film isn't necessarily significant. Also vague and ambiguous, could refer royalty or to the borough of New York City among other things. Otto4711 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto, and darn, I was going to add to my netflix. :-) Carlossuarez46 —Preceding comment was added at 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bad precedent to start categorizing works by type of character! --lquilter 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining, terrible precedent. Doczilla 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles needing coordinates from November[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles needing coordinates from November (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Articles needing coordinates from November 2007, convention of Category:Articles needing coordinates. -- Prove It (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Airports in the Inland Empire[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airports in the Inland Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Airports in California, or Rename to Category:Airports in the Riverside-San Bernardino Area. Please note that Inland Empire is a disambiguation page. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German cannibals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to both category:Cannibals and category:German murderers. I'm also proactively merging category:Korean cannibals the same way. There's definitely support for the category:Murderers to be subdivided by nationality, but not murderers-by-action-after-murder. I'm also presuming that the articles are about people who killed and ate their victims. If there are articles about people who ate other people's victims, they should be removed from the murderers subcategories. (Now I need a shower.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German cannibals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Upmerge into Category:Cannibals, which currently contains only 44 members. I think the parent is too small to split by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almost all the cannibals are German, Russian, American or Korean, which is interesting in itself. I don't see any reason not to divide by these, if anybody can be bothered to. If merged, should also go to German criminals/serial killers cats. The Hindu demons sub-cat should not be there as they are not human. Johnbod 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the good categories are divided by nation, so ought the bad ones. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nomination. The category doesn't have other by nation subcats. This doesn't seem sufficient to justify. Doczilla 07:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It now has Koran cannibals. Although I agree that it is not enough.Vice regent 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Cannibals or Category:German murderers. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. Unless other subcategories can be created in Category:Cannibals on the basis of nationality, I don't see the reason to categorize one or two nationalities.Vice regent 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tasmanian Composers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tasmanian Composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Australian composers, or Rename to Category:Tasmanian composers or Category:Composers from Tasmania. -- Prove It (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ian Irvine characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ian Irvine characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary layer of categorization. The single subcat for characters from a specific series is already categorized with the series. Otto4711 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ian Irvine[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ian Irvine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Materials are appropriately categorized and interlinked, category not warranted. Otto4711 13:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Washington Irving[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington Irving (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The materials in it are interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 13:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-standard Extra tracklisting templates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-standard Extra tracklisting templates to Category:Song articles with infoboxes with non-standard extra track listings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarity and consistency. The proposed name is a bit long, but the "with infoboxes" bit tries to make clear that this applies to extra track listings in the infobox as opposed to in the article. See precedent at Category:Song articles needing attention, as well as other CfR nominations for the proposed names Category:Song articles needing infoboxes and Category:Song articles needing single infobox conversion. --PEJL 09:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles in need of Song Infoboxes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles in need of Song Infoboxes to Category:Song articles needing infoboxes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarity, consistency and precedent at Category:Song articles by quality and Category:Song articles needing attention. Populated by {{Single infobox request}} and {{WPBeatles}}. --PEJL 07:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Song articles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Song articles to Category:WikiProject Songs articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and Category:WikiProject Songs. Populated by {{Songs}}. --PEJL 07:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is Songs capitalized? Doczilla 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. WikiProjects have their own naming conventions, which are slightly different than the usual Wikipedia ones. Both the F and the P in WikiProject Foo are capitalized, and the main category exactly matches. -- Prove It (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computer research[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created March 2006, this category now has two entries, one of which is incorrect (a person, not a research project). Computing has many research projects, it is one of the most active areas for research and those projects are all across the computing categories. While this category may have seemed like a good idea to someone, the reality is that the user community is not using this category, thus it only serves to clutter lists and should be deleted. The two references can be deleted without any loss. tooold 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tolkien[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated, without prejudice to reorganisation of the category scheme as necessary and appropriate, and leave a category redirect.

While renaming to Category:Tolkien topics or Category J. R. R. Tolkien topics would mostly take care of the need for reorganisation, two factors argue against a "rename" close. First, while those particular options were noted, they weren't really discussed. Second, the necessity of including the word "topics" in a category name is questionable. It is implied that Category:J. R. R. Tolkien includes articles about topics related to J. R. R. Tolkien, just as it is implied that Category:Literature includes articles about topics related to literature.

Incidentally, it may be possible to simplify the situation somewhat by reducing what may be redundancy in categorisation. For instance, Category:Tolkien lists contains three members, all of which are already in the Category:J. R. R. Tolkien category tree via other pathways:

It may also be worth evaluating the extent to which Category:Tolkien artists constitutes categorisation of performers by performance. ... Of course, that alone may not be sufficient justification for deletion if "Tolkien artists" constitutes a distinct genre of sorts – a distinct possibility, given the popularity of Tolkien's work.

Please note, however, that the scope of this discussion (and thus, this closure) extends only to the merger of the two categories. Any particular reorganisation plan, including the options noted above, is left to editors' discretion, or to another, more focused CFD nomination. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tolkien to Category:J. R. R. Tolkien
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories apparently are meant to distinguish topics related in any manner to Tolkien and his works ("Category:Tolkien") from those relating more directly to Tolkien, his life and activities ("Category:J. R. R. Tolkien"). I don't think this distinction is intuitive from the category names, and additionally, such a distinction only serves to create an unnecessary category layer. Some discussion about this has taken place on the talk pages of both categories (Talk:T, Talk:JRRT). --Eliyak T·C 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge - the distinction is useful. Most categories named after a person contain articles about that person and their works, rather than about the later, related matters, such as artists, fandom and studies, which are not directly related. If anything, Category:Tolkien should be considered the primary category, with Category:J. R. R. Tolkien being a subset of that. I admit that the names are confusing, so maybe they need to be renamed. Consider Category:William Shakespeare - it is difficult to find there the articles related to his life and times, as opposed to the ones about his later legacy. In my view, the ones about Shakespeare the man, should be in Category:William Shakespeare, while the ones about Shakespeare the topic should be in Category:Shakespeare. Quite how these sort of categories relate is sometimes unclear. When you talk about writing about Shakespeare, do you mean the man or the topic? I sometimes thought about what the names should be, but it is difficult. The essence of the problem is that it feels wrong to have articles about people and objects and events that took place after the author died, placed in the same part of the category structure. Maybe Category:After Tolkien might work? I also see that this merge will take all of nine edits to accomplish. Would it be acceptable to do this quickly (to see what the merged category would look like), and then revert myself? There is also some useful history at the Category:Tolkien page, and people may recreate it by accident, so maybe a "soft redirect" could be left there if the decision was to merge? Carcharoth 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename with better names to better distinguish content. 132.205.99.122 21:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and soft redirect. Nobody is going to know that "Tolkien" and "J. R. R. Tolkien" are supposed to be two separate topics unless they actually look at the categories. -Sean Curtin 06:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or find a more descriptive name for at least one of them. Doczilla 07:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - I would be happy to carry out a manual merge and reorganisation of this area if merge is the verdict. If so, could you please contact me on my talk page when this discussion is closed? I find bots don't do this sort of merge very well, and would prefer to carry it out myself if possible. Carcharoth 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. There is ample precedent for the distinction "Tolkein (biography)" and "Tolkein (literature, history, and Anglo-Saxon)". I think it's resonable to have multiple categories (as multiple articles) for something so notable and broad. I concede that good divisions aren't obvious though. I wish you all the best reaching a consensus. Pete St.John 04:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hong Kong dramas[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong dramas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category for (questionably notable) cable tv stations in Hong Kong that show dramas; there are parallel categories for TV shows that are dramas but not for the channels that show such shows Category:Drama television series by nationality. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Government ministers of the PNA[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Government ministers of the PNA to Category:Government ministers of the Palestinian National Authority
Nominator's rationale: Rename per usual naming convention to spell out the abbreviation and as per the main article (Palestinian National Authority) and parent category (Category:Palestinian National Authority). BencherliteTalk 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename That's fine. I only shortened it to PNA because the proposed was lengthy, but it does correspond with other categories with similar endings and length is not a real problem. Go ahead and move it! --Al Ameer son 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom and creator. Snocrates 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per creator. Doczilla 07:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_7&oldid=1127488364"