Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20

< May 19	May 21 >

May 20

Category:Ernst Haeckel

This category only has one article (stub) in it. Unlikely to grow. Recommend deletion. DarthVad e r 23:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Quite a few of Haeckel's images have recently been added and the category is now fairly populated. On a somewhat unrelated note, a number of these images are featured picture quality. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've populated the category a little more, although mostly with pictures. The pictures are from a series, and wikipedia's copy of them seems to be far from complete - if the rest of the images are used as well, the category will grow further. There may be some more articles as well, I only did a quick scan. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Moroccans to Category:Moroccan Jews

Empty; merge. Marcus 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Comic Book Mythology --> Category: Mythology-based comic book characters

A better name, with proper capitalization, is needed here. --FuriousFreddy 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Killer games

An very POV category. Just because a game sold a lot doesn't make it "killer" and not everyone agrees if a game is "killer". Thunderbrand 19:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thunderbrand makes a good point. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swiss people by ethnicity

Apparently was renamed to Category:Swiss people by ethnic or national origin, despite the fact that the related cfr resulted in no consensus. Conscious 19:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:User Queen to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queen

Duplicate categories. Conscious 19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Spouses of U.S. State Governors to Category:Spouses of governors of the United States

fix capitalization & abbreviation. --dm ^(talk) 04:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection There is no such thing as a "Governor of the United States" and even if there was this wouldn't be eligible for speedy. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless there is a case for categories for all spouses of all governors (or their equivalent) worldwide. Note that in some cases, these are notable only because their spouse ran for higher office than governor, or they ran for office themselves. In which case, this category is demeaning. --William Allen Simpson 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino law to Category:Philippine law

inline with proper adjectival naming form of countries (Filipino refers usually to the people, society and/or language, while Philippine usually refers to the country itself, geography and government). --Akira123323 ^{Say what? |} ^{Track record} 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection This is a complex area and should not be listed as a speedy. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scindia dynasty of Gwalior to Category:Princely Gwalior

As an anon IP, I created the category that I now request renamed. A number of related articles can be categorised, and unnecessary proliferation of categories avoided. ImpuMozhi 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection Ineligible for the speedy section. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computing comparison to Category:Computing comparisons

(plural) Remy B 08:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is topic area so it should not be pluralised. Bhoeble 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the preceding argument also applies to:

Conscious 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. If these were articles about comparison, I'd agree with Bhoeble. However, they primarily are comparisons and, as such, the plural is proper. -- JLaTondre 21:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of Romanian Academy to Category:Presidents of the Romanian Academy

Was tagged for speedy deletion, with reason "Missing the "the"; should be renamed Category:Presidents of the Romanian Academy". Since it doesn't seem to match the speedy renaming criteria, I've changed to a cfr. No vote, but the original delete request probably counts as one. cesarb 17:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judahism in Germany to Category:Judaism in Germany

Empty and using incorrect spelling; merge. Marcus 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews to Category:Sephardi Jews

Empty; merge. Marcus 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water deities

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete G7 (author request). - EurekaLott 17:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Water deities. My bad, I was hasty and didn't realize that under Category:Deities by association we had "Sea and river deities" (with subs of "Sea and river gods" and "Sea and river goddesses"). Bookgrrl 17:00, 20 May 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Lists of ministers

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Political_office-holders, categories regarding political office-holders are named by country, not by nationality. However, categories of lists of government ministers as provided below have been named by nationality, which is inconsistent with the above and I am proposing to be renamed.

In regard to by country naming conventions, it is my understanding that as per guidelines "in country" is the appropriate wording to be used here. At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Political_office-holders, it is said that in country should be used "for those that group offices of a certain type, operating within said country". As the following categories are all grouping offices of the ministerial level that operate within single countries, I believe using this naming convention is the appropriate choice. Additionally, the category of Category:Government ministers by country, which involves political office-holders of the same level, ministers, uses "in country" for its sub-cats.

Lastly, the word "ministers" in the category titles below is proposed to be changed to "government ministers" to follow the wording of Category:Government ministers. The article of Minister itself is a dab article, linking to three possible meanings, Minister (government), Minister (religion), and Minister (diplomacy). Currently Category:Ministers exists, but is only used for religious ministers. The above reasons make the proposed category name disambiguation useful and needed.

--Kurieeto 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"ministers in the United Kingdom" sounds a bit strange. How about "of"? The current solutions is much more concise though. -- User:Docu

Comment Category:Government ministers in the United Kingdom already exists, so this proposal only brings things in line. Moreover, the current naming is highly ambiguous, and eventually Category:Ministers (religous ministers) could easily be broken down by country, so disambiguation is needed. Kurieeto 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government ministers in the United Kingdom is nearly empty, that is it holds 3 subcategories all of which are named with "of" rather than "in". -- Cheers. -- User:Docu

Rename all preferring "of country" form. Several of the Category:Government ministers by country already use "of" (Sweden, Singapore, New Zealand). But I'll note this is against the large number of other category renames that have taken place lately, claiming that people should be "fooian title", as in Category:Scottish musicians, so then it should be Category:Lists of Scottish government ministers, etc. --William Allen Simpson 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of cities in Nevada

First, "leaders of cities" is not a good alternative to "mayors". Second, there are only 56 named individuals in Category:Mayors. So even if "leaders of cities" was changed to "mayors", there is no need for this category, because there is no need to create subcategories (Mayors in Nevada, Mayors in California, Mayors in South Dakota, etc.) for the Mayors category. John Broughton 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several similar subcategories of Category:Leaders of cities in the United States, logically you'd need to delete all others as well. The individuals in Category:Mayors are mainly of countries or cities without their own subcategory. -- User:Docu

Keep. As Docu points out, this is part of a series of categories. Also, "leaders of cities" is perfectly reasonable nomenclature, as it allows for the inclusion of city managers in the category. - EurekaLott 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see several problems with these categories. Are they for current leaders? Since these include city managers, are city managers now notable? How about members of the local development agency or the convention board or the school board? The categories could be of value if they were focused and it was clear what is the intended inclusion criteria for these categories. Vegaswikian 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that these categories are intended for current and former municipal chief executives. A few states have "local politicians" categories for other notable politicians who don't fit in the other categories. - EurekaLott 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- City managers are notable in notable cities without Mayors, or where the "Mayor" title is an honorific carried by the leader of the city council (legislative) instead of the actual city executive. There is a lot of variation, so a nice generic category name makes sense. --William Allen Simpson 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by ethnic or national origin, Category:People by race or ethnicity and all ethnicity category pages

delete all, the result of discussion recently in voting on category deletion made of pages on the topic of ethnicity. the point s been effectively made (as i now see it) that maintaining such cat pages requires both too much POV consideration given how open-ended description of the term "ethnicity" is and doing so would require a form of original research in that it seems necessary to declare at the top of such cat pages how many generations back and/or what percentage of descent one considers appropriate where such description does not (of course) exist in literature on the topic. (the nomination here is not meant to effect emigrants/immigrants per se category pages as description of this activity does not violate categorisation policy) will tag sub-cat pages once voting takes shape Mayumashu 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ideal Wikipedia would not have these, but the only way to remove them all permanently will be to create thousands of banned categories, as many users like them and they will keep blocking up unless a massive effort is made to stop it. I don't know whether it is worth attempting that. CalJW 16:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disagree. Categories should remain and not be deleted. I believe these are something of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Lots of people want to know about 'origins', be they ethnic or national, however defined. The prime consideration should be 'what is useful to readers', not 'what is the work involved for editors'. Thanks Hmains 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical gardens in the United States

Proposal is to rename the following sub-cats of Category:Botanical gardens in the United States to follow the "in" wording intended by the name of its parent. This will also conform nicely to the "in" wording of Category:Landmarks in the United States, and the "in" wording of other permanently located man-made entities outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (catgories).

--Kurieeto 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but it bothers me that these categories exclude non-Botanical gardens. CalJW 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sulfur 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Headphones albums

One-entry band promo Femto 10:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band is non notable. Afonso Silva 11:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, get the article deleted first, then the category can go away. Not the other way around. If the article stays, the category has to stay.--Mike Selinker 17:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category and remove from article. Even if the article stays it doesn't need its own category. Sulfur 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All albums are categorized under category:Albums by artist a category just like this one. Doesn't matter how many.--Mike Selinker 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Storyscape

All articles in this category have been deleted. *evil grin* Conscious 07:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Top 8

Worse than and makes duplicate with Category:Top 10. Puzzlet Chung 04:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top 10

[Also now nominated. Bhoeble 07:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I agree that we can't have both. Since there was just a no-consensus vote, I say delete this one until consensus can be reached.--Mike Selinker 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment refers to the first nominated category:Top 8 only. Bhoeble 07:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both As this is the better of the two and the attempt to get the other deleted failed, they should both go. Bhoeble 07:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Ironically, they don't contain 8 and 10 entries, respectively. Use Category:Fundamental if you wish. Conscious 07:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this kind of thing has been deleted going back to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Main page. --William Allen Simpson 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Top 10 did have 10 until whoever created Top 8 messed it up. In any case I believe these are supposed to be fundamental categories that have no parents, so Merge to Category:Fundamental. --JeffW 02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamophobia

This category is based upon a neologism that is currently in the process of fully entering the English lexicon (see Islamophobia AfD #2) about which Wikipedia has an Islamophobia article . This neologism is highly disputed and as such to have a category using it greatly reduces Wikipedia's neutrality about it and its development. This term is sooner divisive and inflammatory and as such so is a category based upon it. Netscott 04:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even this category's own creator admitted that the term isn't solidified, "when the term is solidified the cat can be renamed". Categories using terms that aren't solidified is bad, please speedy delete/rename. Netscott 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right I said below that that "if Islamophobia is a neologism subject to change, as Netscott claims, its associated category can be renamed as necessary" -- I am trying to accept your position that it is indispute at face value in order to achieve consensus. Also this doesn't qualify as speedy since it is clearly disputed. Also I note that you lost your AfD on the Islamophobia article 30 to 5, which is a huge margin. --Ben Houston 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting choice of words, "your", since when does anyone own anything here on Wikipedia? I'm wondering if your mentioning of the AfD vote (to support your making of this cat?) is another example of a false analogy logical fallacy. What was the point you were trying to make by citing that vote result? Netscott 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This neologism only entered into the English language in 1991 and then it only started to become known after 2001, it behooves Wikipedia for neutrality reasons to delete or rename this cat with haste. Netscott 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is filled with recently coined terms such as podcast (coined in 2004) and bling-bling (1999). There are more than a million references to the term Islamophobia in Google at this moment -- thus metaphorically it is a bit late to be closing the barn door. And frankly, I strongly believe Netscott is overestimating the influence of a Wikipedia category -- especially in the face of over 1 million Google hits on the term. Also, if he does want to rename this category, can he suggest a more appropriate name? --Ben Houston 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhouston's terminology comparisions are irrelevant due to the fact that they are a prime example of a false analogy logical fallacy. The terms he's cited are neither related to social commentary nor disputed and as such do not compare to the highly disputed term islamophobia. Netscott 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete/Rename as nom. Netscott 07:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep/Rename - As the creator of the category (as well as about dozen other accepted categories) I can not understand the argument of Netscott for its non-existence. Even if the term "Islamophobia" is a neologism, Netscott does not deny that the underlying concept is valid. The underlying concept of anti-Islamism or Islamophobia or whatever you want to call it is discussed and is directly relevant to numerous articles within Wikipedia. As such, the concept is deserving of a category -- much like the categories Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Anti-Catholicism. If Islamophobia is a neologism subject to change, as Netscott claims, its associated category can be renamed as necessary. Just because the term Islamophobia is subject to change does not mean all work in Wikipedia associated with the concept must halt -- to make that claim, as it seems implicit in Netscotts request to delete this category, seems POV from my non-involved viewpoint. If Netscott wanted to show good faith I propose that he suggests that the category be renamed rather than deleted. --Ben Houston 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I tried populating this category but Netscott followed me around depopulating it. IMO Netscott is a little too passionate about his belief that this category should not exist -- I am not sure what is up but there is clearly more to the matter than he is letting on. --Ben Houston 05:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not depopulating undisputed articles (ie: Annual Islamophobia Awards) but merely articles whose events/individuals have not been determined to be examples of islamophobia by a significant body of neutral points of view. With the exception of 2005 Cronulla riots (which merely has a see also link to Islamophobia), the articles I depopulated didn't even mention islamophobia in them... hello?! Netscott 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, you are not being fully truthful. Those articles did mentioned the terms anti-Islamic or Muslim xenophobia or Islamophobic -- just not the full term "Islamophobia". --Ben Houston 06:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those articles specifically utilize the term islamophobia (particularly as determined by a body of neutral points of view on thier issues) they do not merit being a part of any category labeled with that term. And remember this cat is marked for deletion due to neutrality concerns as well. Netscott 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia == anti-Islamism == Muslim-xenophobia == hatred of Muslims simply because of their religion -- to claim otherwise is disingenuous. --Ben Houston 06:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Houston, If you're agreeing with User:Jitse Niesen below, you're agreeing with me here. It's all the same point. I don't imagine it is your intention to have the appearance of confliction in your statements? Any editor that wants to include a given article in this disputed category is obligated to do so without relying upon original research. Netscott 06:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, you have engaged in multiple counter arguments against this category, shifting arguments as you see fit. And no, I do not think that my agreement with Jitse Niesen is agreeing with you. Your threats to me that I am entering into a "hornet's nest" on my personal talk page by proceeding are uncalled for. --Ben Houston 06:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I didn't say that you were entering into a hornet's nest relative to myself but relative to the whole issue of the islamophobia term. One need only look at the reams and reams of talk (Including the 7 archives) on the Talk:Islamophobia page to know that my statement is just that a statement... not a threat. You also said that I accused you of committing a logical fallacy... I didn't accuse you of anything, I argued that your statement (comparison) was a logical fallacy. Sorry but I'm getting the impression that our argumentation skills are not evenly matched. Netscott 06:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott wrote Sorry but I'm getting the impression that our argumentation skills are not evenly matched. Please read WP:NPA. If this continues I will be reporting your behavior. --Ben Houston 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the personal attack? Seriously... Netscott 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before deciding on whether the category should be kept, could somebody first clarify what it's supposed to contain? For instance, I saw you added Srebrenica massacre to it, and I'm wondering what your motivation for that is. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Screbrenica massacre involved the killing of ~8,106 Muslims males (Bosniak), ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly by the Catholic Serbian army. It is linked from the main Islamophobia page -- I just didn't make up the association. My motivations are simple, I am trying to make a category similar in nature to the anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism categories. I started off realizing there was an anti-Catholicism page and category which was similar to the anti-Semitism category -- thus I added some appropriate supercats to the anti-Catholicism category. I then noticed there was also an anti-Protestantism page and figured that might as well make that into a category which I did. I think thought it would be good to be consistent and moved onto anti-Islamism but then noticed it is usually termed as Islamophobia. All the articles I added to the category that Netscott removed did mention anti-Islamic or Islamophobia or anti-Muslim, etc. --Ben Houston 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Houston is talking from a standpoint of original research. Wikipedia isn't labeling those events/invidivuals with the moniker islamophobia but they are referenced in the Islamophobia article because they've been mentioned in public discourse. I appreciate the bold nature in which Bhouston is editing but unfortunately it appears to be from a less than fully aware standpoint. Netscott 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any episode in which a large number of Muslims are called, should be included in a category Islamophobia. Nor should any episode which according to some is due to Islamophobia be included. If there are any events for which there is a consensus that they are due to Islamophobia - and there probably are - then they can be included, and then I can also see the use of the category (though the danger is very obvious). By the way, I removed the reference to Srebrenica from the Islamophobia page because it is not mentioned in the source listed on that page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning. --Ben Houston 06:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Needlessly controversial and helplessly vulnerable to POV pushing. Bhoeble 07:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar already existing categories (anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism) can be abused as well but just like driving a car, one should be conscientious about it. I take it this is one of those areas where Wikipedia quality suffers because it is part of a cultural battle. --Ben Houston 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bhoeble. --tickle me 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ben Houston. Raphael1 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely POV and original research. Pecher ^Talk 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. POV and OR magnet. -- Karl Meier 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grail

Mere collection of articles with the name "grail" included. Non-encyclopedic category. Zpb52 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inference that it is random is patently incorrect. Rename category:Holy Grail to match the lead article Holy Grail and remove any inappropriate items. Bhoeble 07:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - This should be renamed to "Holy Grail". Afonso Silva 11:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Category:Holy Grail Lady Aleena 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Bhoeble. Sulfur 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Category:Jewish Moroccans to Category:Moroccan Jews

Category: Comic Book Mythology --> Category: Mythology-based comic book characters

Category:User Queen to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queen

Category:Spouses of U.S. State Governors to Category:Spouses of governors of the United States

Category:Filipino law to Category:Philippine law

Category:Scindia dynasty of Gwalior to Category:Princely Gwalior

Category:Computing comparison to Category:Computing comparisons

Category:Presidents of Romanian Academy to Category:Presidents of the Romanian Academy

Category:Judahism in Germany to Category:Judaism in Germany

Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews to Category:Sephardi Jews

Lists of ministers

Category:Jewish South Africans to Category:South African Jews

Category:Jewish Mexicans to Category:Mexican Jews

Category:Jewish Guatemalans to Category:Guatemalan Jews

Category:People by ethnic or national origin, Category:People by race or ethnicity and all ethnicity category pages

Botanical gardens in the United States