Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha

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 speedy close, wrong forum. Transferring to WP:UCFD. Non-admin. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose speedy renaming: Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha → Category:Wikipedians who like InuYasha

Nominator's rationale - Per all InuYasha-related titles, this one was misspelled, badly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:55, 24 September 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.

United States Senate elections by state

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 all. the wub "?!" 09:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:United States Senate elections by state

Propose renaming Category:Foo United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Foo.

Propose renaming Category:Arizona United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Arizona

Propose renaming Category:California United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in California

Propose renaming Category:Connecticut United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Connecticut

Propose renaming Category:Delaware United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Delaware

Propose renaming Category:Florida United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Florida

Propose renaming Category:Hawaii United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Hawaii

Propose renaming Category:Indiana United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Maine United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Maine

Propose renaming Category:Maryland United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Massachusetts

Propose renaming Category:Michigan United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Minnesota United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Mississippi United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Mississippi

Propose renaming Category:Missouri United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Montana United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Montana

Propose renaming Category:Nebraska United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Nevada United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Nevada

Propose renaming Category:New Jersey United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in New Jersey

Propose renaming Category:New Mexico United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in New Mexico

Propose renaming Category:New York United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in New York

Propose renaming Category:North Dakota U.S. Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in North Dakota

Propose renaming Category:Ohio United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Rhode Island United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Rhode Island

Propose renaming Category:South Dakota United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in South Dakota

Propose renaming Category:Tennessee United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Texas United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Texas

Propose renaming Category:Utah United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Utah

Propose renaming Category:Vermont United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Vermont

Propose renaming Category:Virginia United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Virginia

Propose renaming Category:Washington United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Washington

Propose renaming Category:West Virginia United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in West Virginia

Propose renaming Category:Wisconsin United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Wisconsin

Propose renaming Category:Wyoming United States Senate elections to Category:United States Senate elections in Wyoming

Nominator's rationale: It's just better use of grammar and more easily found on search engines. Also, the Presidential and U.S. House categories should be renamed as well as the articles. I will nominate all of those (Prez & Reps) if this (Senate) cfr is approved.—Markles 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for clarity and better grammar, and to match Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and BHG. LeSnail 20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. · jersyko talk 00:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we need more of a consensus from the population and especially from the members of the U.S. Congress Project. I've also noticed that the nominator is (was?) moving a bunch of specific election articles. Again, I think this would need more of a consensus; possibly even a separate nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Matté (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 September 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:Domestic territorial disputes of the United States

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. the wub "?!" 10:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Domestic territorial disputes of the United States to Category:Internal territorial disputes of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match Internal wars of the United States; trying to clarify state-state disputes v. Texas-Mexico, Maine-New Brunswick situations... jengod 19:13, 24 September 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:Works by women writers

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 listify to List of works by women writers. Kbdank71 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an ill-conceived notion to divide Works by author along gender lines, a non-defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Works by women writers have been and are separate subjects for study, and considerable scholarship has been done on the subject. This has been outlined in numerous prior cfds. This category has been around and being used for 6 months, and is part of a comprehensive categorization scheme relating to women writers. I also note this was created as a subcategory of Women Writers, and was not turned into a subcategory of Works by Author until ProveIt did so (and it is fine as such a subcategory, but the language suggesting it was created as such is inaccurate). A Musing 18:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization by sex. While it is true that literature by women is the subject of academic study that doesn't mean that categorizing every work by every woman writer as a work by a woman writer is tenable. Otto4711 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and reorganise. This is not a division of Works by author, which indeed should not be divided by gender - all the members I checked were in that too. Category:Women writers has a number of non-biographical sub-cats and articles, and a new supercategory Category:Literature by women or similar is needed, of which both this and a bio-only Cat:Women Writers should be sub-cats. To Otto I would point out that this only categorises at the "Works by" level; not at the "every work" level. Johnbod 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to look at the category again. It has Works by, Books by and Novels by subcats, along with Category:Feminist literature (huh, first time I'd heard that only women have written feminist literature) along with many, many articles on individual works. I strongly disagree with the notion that a Literature by women supercategory is necessary or desirable. Otto4711 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it categorises only at the highest existing level for that writer. Johnbod 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons given elsewhere here. I strongly agree with Otto4711 that Category:Feminist literature should not be a subcat (though a 'see also' cross-link might be useful for navigation) Dsp13 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of evidence that "Works by women writers" is a significant area of study, on which a substantive head article could be written, and this is clearly part of a comprehensive categorization scheme relating to women writers, to which a numbe of editors have devoted a lot of scholarly effort. I think that the category could do with some more work: its scope needs clarification, and it seems to be unresolved whether it it should include article on individual books, or merely serve as a container category for "Works by X"-type categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should not be a subcat of Works by author. If we keep this there should at least be a companion Category:Works by male writers. I tend to think this is over categorization, also if we are having both then the category name should thus be Category:Works by female writers to avoid linguistic problems surrounding the meaning of the english word "Men". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - on further though I can see few advantages of such a categorization on sex. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created the category Category:Literature by women, and agree it should probably be removed from Works by author, where it was only added by the nominator. That is a different issue from deleting it altogether. Johnbod 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely two separate issues. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OCAT, there may or may not be differences between works by men and by women. Do transsexuals' works pre-transition differ markedly than those afterward. There are lots of anonymous works - can those who are experts at what differences there are between works written by men and women tell us which sex the anonymous writers are? Of course not always - assumptions may be made based on stereotypes or subtle hints but the experts cannot be sure so the differences cannot be so defining to make categorizing proper. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over categorization. Now if someone would propose a category for those works that are notable as 'separate subjects for study, and considerable scholarship' or some other form of notability, then we can keep that category. As it now stands this category is simply gender based. Vegaswikian 23:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, you want a cat for "Literature by women that is studied in universities"? You would vote to delete that in a shot! Johnbod 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category is overly broad, and once it is fully populated, it will be enormous and have very little utility. I do agree that "literature by women" is a significant area of study, and that it should have an article (in fact, we do have Women's writing in English). That said, only a small proportion of the works written by women are studied based on that fact. For the vast majority of works, the gender of the author is not an important characteristic. ×Meegs 12:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & make appropriate lists; Comment - Leaning towards "delete" because I agree with Meegs that "only a small proportion of the works written by women are studied based on that fact." In other words, either this becomes a very large, unwieldy and comprehensive category that is not useful, or it becomes a very selective category with some hidden criteria that are unevenly applied. Comment to deleters: Several folks have alleged that there are no useful distinctions in literature by people based on sex/gender -- but it's self-evident that publishing practices and access to resources has resulted in gendered publication patterns, and probably gendered writing as well. Moreover this is a well-studied and useful are of scholarship. And accepting all that doesn't require one to accept any particular theories of gender--sexist, feminist, gender-blind, whatever. But although I think that women writers is a very important category scheme (especially as divided by historical eras), "works by women" or any other permutation isn't going to work as well as a category scheme. The problem, I think, is that the category has to capture something that works as a set.) I'm sympathetic to User:Johnbod's point that this category works as a subset of Category:Women writers, but I think that well-manicured lists are going to work much better, and be much more useful than a category structure. --lquilter 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is that those large, subdivided and well-organized categories are very useful for navigation, as discussed quite extensively in the many prior discussions on categorizing women writers. A Musing 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree for women writers, but I distinguish works. Women writers are discussed as such, and individual works will be used as examples of women's writing -- but any book by a woman is as liable as any other to be discussed as an example of work by a woman writer. And for the vast, vast majority of works, their authorship by a woman is not their defining quality. (I gladly grant that gender is a defining quality for the actual writer her- or himself.) So what would the criteria be? Logically the entire set of works by women writers would have to get added to this category. That just doesn't strike me as helpful as having, for instance, lists of significant 19th century spiritualist novels by american women writers; or natural philosophical treatises by enlightenment-era european women writers; bestselling or popular works by 20th century Arab women writers; etc. (I'm not immovable on this. Wikipedia is already a fairly limited set of works by women writers, so it's not as crazy as it sounds to add it to all the books. It is probably thousands though.) --lquilter 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty seeing the intellectual difference between categorizing the works and the writers; after all, at the center of any study of the writers will be the works. Of course it is possible to navigate categories by going from writers to works, but that can be extremely cumbersome. I happen to believe there is commonality in many cases, even across cultures, to themes developed by women writers and thus to many (certainly not all) works, and it is these commonalities and differences that make the body interesting. I would suggest that as this category is built it be subdivided, as are other similar categories. A Musing 14:49, 1 October 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:Amusement parks in Egypt

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 as unused. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: After half a year there's still nothing here -- may have originally been meant as a joke; recommend this page be deleted, as it server no purpose Captmondo 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a joke, and I'm sure it'll be needed in the future, but it is empty right now. It looks like it was created for Fantazy Land, which was prodded in April. ×Meegs 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can easily be recreated for the first one that shows up. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 03:49 Z
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD C1 as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 26 September 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:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists

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 Listify and then Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion about a question or issue. As is made abundantly clear by the discussion below, references/citations are obviously needed to clarify this topic (not to mention inclusion criteria). So per WP:CLS, (and WP:BLP, for that matter), this should be a list. See also Anti-Zionism. - jc37 13:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is similar to a previous deleted category, and furthermore, I don't think we need a category for every sub-group, especially a sub group that can have 10 at most entries. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All - or at least most if it - relevant arguments debated here are not relevant here.--Shmaltz 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - Although I (reluctantly) supported deletion of Category:Anti-Zionists in the recent CFD, those arguments do not apply to this category, precisely because it is much better defined. Furthermore, I have just added the missing parent cat for this category -- Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism -- which recently survived its own CFD. Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists is an obvious sub-cat of Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and shouldn't be in any way controversial. However, it should be renamed to Category:Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists to be in line with the parent category. (I think the parent needs a speedy renaming to Category:Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism). Cgingold 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Cgingold: I also voted for the deletion of the wider category, but if kept restricted to those clearly against the whole idea of Zionism, this category is fine. Johnbod 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ and rename I was the creator of this category thinking it was the consensus decision as a good rename, but if the community thinks it is still a negative category that they deem as against their interest i will not fight, i can only tell you that i am a anti Zionist Jew which is not at all bothered by this cat.--יודל 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last comment may leave people confused. If you're trying to say that you support keeping and renaming the category, you should cross through the word "delete", which seems to indicate that you now want to see it deleted, rather than kept. Hope that's clear! Cgingold 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done.--יודל 14:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's still too vague, because, believe it or not, essentially all Hasidic and Haredi rabbis and Jews oppose the notion of secular Zionism and oppose it. However, in reality almost all of them, even the most avidly anti-Zionist ones, enjoy the benefits of or live in the secular state of Israel quite happily. The majority of the non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Haredi and Hasidic rabbis are not so vocal and only speak out on public issues when immediate issues arise (mostly to do with funding, schooling and the army) and they have two of their own political parties in the Israeli Knesset (Agudat Israel and Degel HaTorah) and they sit in most Israeli governments --at the same time that they are "anti-Zionist" -- yet the extremist Haredim would label them "Zionist" for co-operating with the Israeli government. So that is why this category is bound to create major havoc and chaos for those not so well-versed in the nuances of internal Orthodox (actually in Haredi) politics. What the creator of this category means to imply by creating it is to have a "categeory" for the most vocal and sadly publicity seeking extremists and this should really be a category about Category:Extreme Haredi anti-Zionists and then that would either drag in or exclude (depending on the editorial direction and religious ideology of the the one doing the "categorizing") concerning all the other Haredi and Hasidic rabbis and personalities putting them in a place where they should not and would not want to be. This is just not that simple and their are no easy "formulas" to label rabbis who are essentially apolitical and not "anti-this or that." This is crazily akin to creating a category for Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-atheists, Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-nudists, Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Communists, Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Nazis, Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Feminists, Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Murderers etc all of which would be true about all Orthodox rabbis and leaders but that would never justify any such weird "categories" about them being created for any rational person. (Oh yeah "anti-Zionism" is a hot media topic and often verges on and merges with antisemitism so it's going to get more currency but in terms of logic and Jewish theology it is senseless, pointless and useless.) So this category is dangerous because it is both vague and a clear dispute POV magnet as to who does or does not belong in it that will never be solved resulting in endless POV and warring disputes. IZAK 08:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IZAK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep no real rational given for deletion. the distinction made by the category is clearly important, & noms estimation of number is wishfull thinking. ⇒ bsnowball 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read IZAK's comment that "essentially all Hasidic and Haredi rabbis and Jews oppose the notion of secular Zionism and oppose it"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, IZAK's comment defines "anti-Zionist" very broadly indeed, and "Zionism" very narrowly indeed. Note the "secular" in his quote. Does this mean they don't oppose "non-secular Zionism"? Since plenty of them have participated in Israeli politics quite happily for decades, the answer is probably yes. However the category is not called Category:Jewish Orthodox opponents of secular Zionism. Johnbod 12:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IZAK has formulated the point more cogently than I could. -- Avi 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IZAK. --MPerel 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless you create Category:Jewish Orthodox opponents of secular Zionism--69.153.65.22 23:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing as several days have passed since Izak posted his lengthy comment of 08:19, 25 September 2007, I am posting my reply here.

I've taken the time to thoroughly digest what Izak had to say, which is complex and requires serious reflection. My efforts weren't helped any by the flawed grammar at a number of points (please forgive my bluntness, Izak) which had the effect of simultaneously making it both difficult to understand exactly what was being said and (therefore) difficult to respond to cogently. I suppose his argument might seem persuasive if you're already leaning in that direction, but it really doesn't hold up under careful analysis.

There are several serious problems with Izak's framing of the issues. First, there's his repeated use of the highly-charged POV term "extremist", which has the effect of discrediting and marginalizing those groups and individuals whose views he considers "beyond the Pale". He then compounds this assault by calling them "the most vocal and sadly publicity seeking extremists", and follows up by contrasting them with "rabbis who are essentially apolitical and not 'anti-this or that'."

But wait a second. He started out by trying to blur the distinctions between the so-called "extremists" and the other Haredi and Hasidic groups, saying that they are all anti-Zionist -- except he specifies "secular Zionism", and lumps "non-Zionist" together with "anti-Zionist" -- and also seems to imply that the reviled minority is among "even the most avidly anti-Zionist ones" who "enjoy the benefits of or live in the secular state of Israel quite happily." I'm afraid that last statement may have confused and mislead some readers: there are, indeed, Haredim and Hasidim who have, shall we say, come to terms with the secular state of Israel, but as I am sure Izak knows, the despised minority have not done so.

This minority -- essentially, we're talking about Edah HaChareidis and Neturei Karta -- is at great pains to reject such ties with the government. Whatever one may think of them, they hold true to their core beliefs. What that means in terms of this discussion is that they utterly reject Zionism. And, yes, they are very insistent about it. That is precisely what sets them apart from other Haredi and Hasidic groups, whose nominal opposition to Zionism is, indeed, fundamentally apolitical.

In short, if you look at the individuals who are currently in this category (to which I've now added a couple more), it can readily be seen that they are all part of the minority of Haredim and Hasidim who utterly reject Zionism. And all but one are closely associated with Edah HaChareidis and Neturei Karta, both found in Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism (which, to repeat, was retained after a very similar recent CFD). It seems to me that we can easily restrict the category to individuals who meet this description. There's no evidence that this category will serve as a "POV magnet", that's a purely hypothetical supposition. But in the unlikely eventuality that this proves to be the case, we can revisit the discussion at that time (and even delete the category if necessary). Cgingold 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot to say something about all those amusing imaginary categories (especially Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-nudists - fabulous!) -- thanks, Izak, great job on that. Especially since the very contrast between those imaginary categories and Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists actually reinforces the whole argument for keeping it. The reason they're non-existent is precisely because they're not needed -- and the reason for that, I should think, is quite obvious. Cgingold 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that thoughtful dissection of IZAK's reply, and the distinction between "Zionism" and "secular zionism". I think that it's an important one, but that it further illustrates the problems inherent in these "anti-X" categories: opposition to a particular ideology or belief is not a monolithic thing, and there are many shades of grey involved. If we try categorising beliefs in this area we are in danger of talking ourselves into creating categories for each of the nuanced strands of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists, such as "Orthodox opponents of secular zionism" and "Orthodox Jews who reject all Zionism". I just don't think that this is workable: there are too many permutations involved, and I can't help thinking that it could end up like trying to apply belief categorisation to the political factions in the Life of Brian (the "The Judean People's Front", "The People's Front of Judea", and "The Popular Front of Judea"). Much better to categorise those involved by the groups they belong to (which can be assessed in a verifiable way), and o use articles to explain the nuanced views of the different groups. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Cgingold, hi: I do greatly appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my reasoning. The so-called "faults" you find with my words do not rule out the reality of the situation in this regard, namely, that the Haredi and Hasidic world is deeply divided as to how to respond or not respond to all forms of Zionism and the State of Israel. The fact remains that this is more of a Talmudic and perhaps psychological conundrum and a true paradox unique to the Jews, specifically to Haredi Jews, and while there may appear to be paradoxes, conflicts and discussions about definitions and meanings about Zionism and the secularly-dominated and created modern State of Israel, yet when one looks at it as objectively as humanly possible, it becomes clear that one cannot artficially divorce any group from the place it is rooted in and from its surroundings. You conveniently "boil it down" to two parties, the Edah HaChareidis and the Neturei Karta as "definites" but it's not so simple. For the record, the former is a respectable organization and functions something like the Orthodox Union in America (altho their politics are not the same of course.) The latter group, the Neturei Karta, while having had some respectable rabbis found it in pre-Holocaust Europe, have been repeatedly repudiated and denounced by the responsible leadership of all Haredi and Hasidic groups, including the Edah HaChareidis. Today's Neturei Karta are an out-of-control collection of people often proven to have been funded and work as front people for the Arab PLO and now the Iranian Islamic fanatics. They are the "lunatic fringe" of Haredism. At any rate, my main point is that while it is true that almost all Haredim and Hasidic groups work with and often for the official Israeli Zionist establishment, they still nevertheless oppose it in ways less openly oppositional than the antics of the Neturei Karta. Neturei Karta pose for TV cameras (supposedly they are against TV too, but they will break their own rules to make their point) in front of the UN holding placards or seek out radical college groups to give misinformed lectures about Israel's history (they do not tell the naive students that followers of Neturei Karta are also against all forms of secular education and that none of their kids will be allowed to go to colleges, but who cares, as long as it's another chance to make some people feel good about bashing Israel, right?) -- you can view these for yourself on YouTube. The bulk of Haredim in and out of Israel function more as the de facto "in-house loyal opposition" than as a bunch of crazies out to align themselves with Hezbollah and Hamas Jew-killers and hoodlums and their Iranian Holocaust-denying backers. In any case, how does one measure any Jew's feelings for or against the State of Israel and then what to base it on regardless of what he may or may not say? Let's say a person is overweight and knows they should stop it, but still enjoys eating voluminously, are they not living contradictions even though they may have the best "reasons" and "rationalisations" to continue eating in their minds? Just to take the two groups you cite or anyone belonging to it, if they are so "anti-Zionist" do they refuse to use the Israeli water or sewer systems because it's been created and run by members of the Zionist state? How about transport and roads, do the "anti-Zionists" refuse to use or walk on any roads, tunnels, buses, cabs or trains in Israel because secular Israelis run these things? Do they not go to secular Israeli doctors and hospitals, use Israeli banks and currency, buy real-estate and invest in Israeli terra firma? The lists of these types of questions revealing the double-standard can be very long. How can anyone say that they are "anti" something and at the same time share and enjoy the same bed, so to speak, with their bitterest ideological and political enemies? When one looks at photos of Haredim on Israel's streets do they look like an unhappy lot about to "storm the Bastille" or "overthrow the Winter Palace" or even, God forbid, "burn down the Reichstag" as the Neturei Karta lot would want to make it seem or even God forbid happen? On the contrary, all the Haredim seem and are a rather truly happy lot, enjoying the bounty of the land (that's protected by real-life Zionist police and army), stay nice and bundled up protected from the elements by a healthy and booming Zionist economy and state infrastructure, and sitting happily in the Israeli Knesset enjoing its perks and outcomes. They are de facto Zionists in everything but "political" and religiously-sanctioned name because they literally enjoy and live off the fat of the land, are allowed to conduct their lives and educational systems in freedom, and have the freedom to be as religious and as "anti-Zionist" as they wish to declare, as they flush Israeli toilets, eat Israeli products, enjoy Israeli security and the list goes on and on. Perhaps what we need here is a List of Haredi ingrates, but that would be going too far, wouldn't you say? I have said far too much, but the topic is deserving of it. Ultimately, the "Anti-Zionism" of this category is one or all of wickedness (when it's clearly bonded with antisemitism), lunacy, illogic, hypocrisy, stupidity, a sickness and surely it's a symptom of something very wrong in those who imagines that they can hold onto such a "position" for very long. There are many other illustrations that to try to create an articile and convoluted Category:People who do not practice what they preach should never be done, in real life, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Oh, there is always the possibilty of another twist on the Self-hating Jews theme. IZAK 05:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First I'd like to thank both BrownHairedGirl and Izak for their thoughtful responses. I think this has been an exemplary discussion. It's crystal clear from your remarks, Izak, that you find this subject so distasteful that under no circumstances will you countenance a category of this sort. So rather than attempting to budge you from your position, I will instead address the central point made by BHG.

I'll keep this short and sweet. In the end, what it all comes down to is this: I agree with the proposition that categorizing people by belief is (as Izak said) a "talmudic" endeavor. (The Life of Brian analogy was fabulous!) But in this case, it seems to me that what we're talking about is not mere belief, but political advocacy, which is an entirely common sort of Category. The first thing that comes to mind is Category:Pro-life activists. There are many flavors of belief and opinion amongst this group (especially when it comes to tactics), which we rightly do not attempt to separate into different categories. Nevertheless, we don't shy away from putting these individuals into Category:Pro-life activists. In the case of Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists, all of these individuals are clearly identified in terms of their political advocacy in opposition to Zionism. Whatever differences there are among them are small enough as to be immaterial when it comes to putting them together in this category (unlike the larger Category:Anti-Zionists, which was deleted with my support). So I see no compelling reason not to keep this category. And with that, I rest my case. Cgingold 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closer will no doubt note that all deleters so far cite per IZAK, and the weight given to their vote here should be adjusted in accordance with the weight given to his wildly POV 'people who don't agree with me, must be mad, bad, or just deeply confused' rant above. Johnbod 12:55, 1 October 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:Towns and cities twinned with Cheltenham, England

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, OCAT and non-defining. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-notable data. Kevlar67 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because there is already a list at Cheltenham#Twin_Towns. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would lead to 10,000 similar categories. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 03:50 Z

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:Yoko Ono

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 now improved. the wub "?!" 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. With one exception everything is an article for an associate. Names are interlinked through text links and the material doesn't warrant a category. Otto4711 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eponymous category per many precedents. Doczilla 05:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm sorry, but I'm just not impressed by "Delete per nom", etc. This is supposed to be a discussion, not just a vote. There is no mandate to delete all eponymous categories, they need to be evaluated on a case-by-base basis.

Not only does this category have 3 sub-categories, I've just added 4 additional articles that hadn't been included (and there may be others I've missed). Moreover, I've also added a handful of new parent categories, making the existence of this category even more useful to readers than it was previously. I really think too many CFDs seriously minimize and devalue the importance of well-embedded categories like this for readers who are using the category structure to browse and navigate. This category nicely groups a variety of items, and will save future readers an awful lot of effort. Isn't that the point? Cgingold 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No legitimate reason to delete this one. CGingold has improved it, and makes a good argument for keeping it, in that it speaks to one of the reasons we even have categories: to help our readers navigate and make connections between articles. This is not overcategorization - it is useful categorization. Tvoz |talk 19:22, 28 September 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:History of slavery in the United States

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 proposed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of slavery in the United States to Category:Slavery in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename, PaulHanson proposes renaming the category. The reason given: Considering that slavery no longer exists in the United States, then it is necessarily "historic" and the words "History of" are not needed.

Rename The main article received the same rename, apparently without opposition or comment.--HarryHenryGebel 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Legal slavery in the U.S. is entirely history. Doczilla 05:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. No reason to disallow inclusion of a current event if it was revealed tomorrow that there was an extensive slave trade in the basement of the Target store in Podunk, Arkansas. Snocrates 08:36, 30 September 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:Seafood restaurants

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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: category scope too large to be useful. Category is far from complete and could never be complete. Rtphokie 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The rationale for this nomination makes no sense at all to me. Perhaps the nominator isn't all that familiar with Wikipedia categories, a great many of which run into the hundreds. Just for comparison, I picked at random several subcats of the parent Category:Types of restaurants: Chinese & French were roughly the same size, Pizzerias & Ice cream parlors were considerably larger. Cgingold 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a perfectly valid subcat of Category:Types of restaurants. And 30 members is hardly overpopulated. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment My concern isn't that the category is too large, it's quite small now. The concern is that the scope is too large to ever have any hope of being complete, therefor is of little value.--Rtphokie 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are untold thousands of seafood restaurants in the world. However most don't have articles, most never will. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several, though nearly all of these are chains & would ideally be so categorised. Johnbod 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a seafood restaurant is not well-defined, objectively: is it one that only has seafood (hardly like), that self-identifies as such(whatever that means for corporations...), that serves seafood, that seafood sales make up XX% of the revenues (if that's ever published). My grandma could consider McDonalds a seafood restaurant because all she orders there is the McFish thingy and coffee - ah yes, then McD's is a coffee house too. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 26 September 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:Game terminology

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 - jc37 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Game terminology to Category:Game terms

Nominator's rationale: Terminology is the study of terms, not a collection of terms. Category contains terms and categories of terms, not of "terminologies". A common mistake, fixed several times already for other terms categories. Percy Snoodle 10:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent: The (online) Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terminology (the noun) as "the technical or special terms used in a business, art, science, or special subject", so I don't think the category is mis-named. So as said I'm indifferent to the proposition. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crawdaddy. More encyclopedic and clearer as is. Johnbod 13:20, 26 September 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.

umbrella

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 - No discussion, though as I look over the category, the articles all appear to be Star Wars-related articles specifically describing "force powers". Feel free to relist with clarification. - jc37 12:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: crufty nonsense with a great deal fan supposition. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:45, 24 September 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:Comic book characters created from television

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:Comic book characters created from television to Category:Comic book characters originally created in other media. - Added the word "originally", and restored "comic book", per the concerns of opposers. - jc37 12:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming Category:Comic book characters created from television to Category:Comics characters created in other media. This will give the category a broader range of inclusion for characters from film, games and books. Many film characters are already included in the category. -- 69.182.73.240 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it gives the category more flexibility and so increases its usefulness. (Emperor 02:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Rename but with a caveat: It needs a heavy pruning. Of the current 33 articles, only 17 of them have direct translations into what are effectively non-licensed comics, with one being a stretch since it a case of the name being the same, but no definitive ref that it is the same character. Of the remaining 16, a few have appeared in comic adaptations of the movies or shows, that's it. Also, the sub cat should be cut loose since the implication is that it, and it's subs, are all character created for other media that have since shown up in the main comic book continuities. - J Greb 03:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because this would dramatically broaden the scope of the category to near-uselessness. Almost every Disney film or TV character from Mickey Mouse on down has appeared in a Disney publication. Every Star Trek character has appeared in comic book form. Everyone from The Addams Family to the Beverly Hillbillies to KISS to The Ultimate Warrior to who knows who else has appeared in comics. It's not a defining characteristice for 90% or more of the characters who started out in other media and appeared in comics. Otto4711 04:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per otto, broadening the scope lowers usefulness, instead make a category for each appropriate media and then put all of these in the 'from media' category.--Buridan 05:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That actually make a degree of sense. It doesn't, however, address one major point: licensed characters.
  I can see the premise of the cat, which is to collect characters that, mostly, DC and Marvel Comics have seen first introed in stories from out-side of the comics then brought into the main continuity of their books. That works well with characters like Firestar and Harley Quinn.
  But there are a lot of characters that were either licensed for comic book use or fall under the "Disney" umbrella. The only way that will get dealt with is getting the cat lead tight, which it frankly isn't, and having editors actually watch what gets tagged into the cat(s). - J Greb 05:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion how aboout renaming it "Characters created for adaptations of comics"? That way the category doesn't have to be trimmed down per J Greb's concerns and also seems less likely to be used for Disney and other characters per Otto4711's concerns. Another possibility if converting this category into a "List of" article where it can get into a little more detail. I think this information is nice to have and would hate to see it scattered about or lost all together -- 69.182.73.240 05:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would run into one or two larger problems:
  1. Inclusion of characters that were altered in translation from panel to film. Especially if those alterations later crossed back into the comics.
  2. Watering the cat down to, effectively, "Characters from comic book movies/television/plays/radio", which is a tenuous linkage and a broadening of the cat.

And there is also the nagging point that it re-purposes the cat. - J Greb 14:30, 26 September 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.