Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:14, 29 June 2006

June 28

Category:1973 introductions

A one-of-a-kind variation of Category:1973 establishments. -- ProveIt 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Vague. David Kernow 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Establishments" is vague but acceptable; this isn't. Paul 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:People killed by order of Muhammad

This twisted "category" violates (1) WP:POINT; (2) WP:NOT; (3) Misplaced Pages:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman and (4) Misplaced Pages:Civility. Let NPOV editors associated with Category:Islam come up with a way to categorize these individuals and events and what really happened -- but Muhammad should NOT be "put on trial" here, since this is a very crass and controversial way of doing it. It is flaming and will lead to Misplaced Pages:Edit war and a tit-for-tat environment will emerge as has already happened with the creation of Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon (now rightfully up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion#Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon.) Muhammad is to Islam what Jesus is to Christianity, and Moses is to Judaism. If one digs into history and the texts of those religions one will find people killed for this or that reason by order of this or that person. Perhaps an article, such as Muhammad and controversy or Islam in war and peace could be a better, more diplomatic way, of encompassing the scope of what this category purports to do. IZAK 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This one may even have verifiable sources, but what is the point? What benefit is added to the encyclopedia by this? The harm, is obvious; ESPECIALLY to buildings representing the finest German architecture! -- Avi 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Big time... I voted delete on this one previously... unecessarily polemical . Netscott 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: This category is about as valid as this one (rather, not). Netscott 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This category has obviously been created to demonize Muhammad and thereby attack his adherents. Raphael1 00:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Listify -- this was just created as a result of renaming at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16#Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, where there was no consensus to delete. However, IZAK (talk · contribs) is correct that a WP:List article with copious references would be a better approach. See Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --William Allen Simpson 03:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't have a problem with an article that makes a beloved religious leader look bad, but this list seems senseless. If there's a good article to be made out of it, something to do with a specific war or a bit of political intrigue, then these names could appear there. But I really loathe these invidious lists. It's disruptive, causes bad feeling, and serves little useful purpose. IronDuke 04:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The category survived the cfd vote just five days ago. The result was keep and rename from "People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad" to "People killed by order of Muhammad". This nomination, done several days after the latest nomination has been closed, is entirely frivolous and perhaps a violation of WP:POINT inspired by an afd on a similar category on Ariel Sharon, the creation of which was itself a WP:POINT violation done to retaliate for this category. This category is entirely factual because all these people were indeed killed by order of Muhammad; furthermore, most of them are only notable because of they were killed by order of Muhammad. Stating historical facts is not demonization. Then, the argumentation comparing Muhammad to Moses and Jesus is completely spurious: first, Muhammad occupies a much bigger place in Islam than Moses does in Judaism, but lesser than Jesus does in Christianity; secondly, these parallels are irrelevant to the issue whether this category should or should not exist. All we must care about is neutrality and accuracy, not diplomacy as IZAK suggests, and this category meets both requirements. Pecher 10:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. gidonb 12:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly justifiable but having a wholly negative effect on Misplaced Pages. --Ian Pitchford 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - can someone explain what is wrong with historical truth ? Zeq 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We've been through all this before. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:A-level English Literature Set Poems

Limited geographical scope -- ProveIt 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Oldies Radio Stations

Merge into Category:Oldies radio stations. -- ProveIt 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy -Lady Aleena @ 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedied ... ProveIt 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Clothiers

Merge into Category:Clothing retailers. -- ProveIt 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom and info on category's page. David Kernow 01:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cricket dismissals

Delete. Category contains only four articles that also exist in the parent/ancestor category:Cricket terminology. There is no point in having a separate child category, especially given that the parent is well-developed and in regular use by the project. --GeorgeWilliams 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment With 121 articles category:Cricket terminology is large enough to warrant subcats. However, I don't know Cricket well enough to be able to say whether there are any other logical subcats. If not, the delete, if so then keep and create those other subcats. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As a member of the cricket project I can offer a bit of background. The terminology category is very large but its purpose needs to be borne in mind: it is a like a "glossary" such as you would find at the end of a book and so it will I'm afraid become as large as the number of terms that need to be defined. The dismissals category serves no useful purpose and is a partial duplicate of its own parent so there is no point in having it, especially as no one is using it. The four articles are safely housed in the terminology category so nothing will be lost. --Jack 05:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Richmonders (Virginia) to Category:People from Richmond, Virginia

Basically for the same reason as the Syracusians and Denverites categories were renamed. Arual 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Consistency is valuable, and doesn't create discrepancies which can lead to confusion and/or unintended amusement. Badbilltucker 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Make that Category:People from Richmond, Virginia. Richmond by itself is too ambiguous for Virgnia to not be included in the category name. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:People from Richmond, Virginia per Caerwine. HAM 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have amended the category nomination. Arual 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:American theological writers to Category:American theologians

A duplicate of the conventional category.

• Merge as nom. Chicheley 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cities and towns in Jammu & Kashmir to Category:Cities and towns in Jammu and Kashmir

Duplicate categories, main category is "Jammu and Kashmir" with an and, not a &. NawlinWiki 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Chicheley 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New Right (Europe) and New Right (United States)

Category:New Right (Europe) and Category:New Right (United States)

• Delete those categories, per the Minkenberg cite used in the Nouvelle Droite introduction. Move categorized articles up in level to Category:New Right. Intangible 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments & Questions

This is a misinterpretation of the Minkenberg reference. Paul Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation are that segment of the New Right Coalition in the United States that most resembles the European New Right. However the Cultural Conservatism and Paleoconservatism of Weyrich and FCF is only a tiny sliver of the New Right coalition in the United States, which also includes neoconservatrives, libertarians, the Christian Right, business nationalists, corporate internationalists, etc., which are not similar to the cultural ideology and politics of the European New Right. Furthermore, most scholarly references explicitly state that the New Right in Europe and the New Right in the United States should not be directly compared and are substantially different. For example:

• "However, the label 'New Right' is potentially misleading. For the French nouvelle droit has little in common with the political New Right that emerged in the English-speaking world at around the same time."

Jonathan Marcus, The National Front and French Politics, New York: New York University Press, 1995, p.23.

] is currently involved in several edit wars on several pages concering the topic of European far right movements--including one page that has been protected pending a discussion. Intangible has also refused mediation on one page. This is a continuation of an edit war. Both ] and ] are accurate, backed by scholarship, and deserves to remain.--Cberlet 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Another Quote:

• "By rejecting Christianity as an alien ideology that was forced upon the Indo-European peoples two millennia ago, French New Rightists distinguished themselves from the so-called New Right that emerged in the United States during the 1970s. Ideologically, GRECE had little in common with the American New Right, which de Benoist dismissed as a puritanical, moralistic crusade that clung pathetically to Christianity as the be-all and end-all of Western civilization."

Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1997, p. 211.

--Cberlet 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment None of these publications are refereed. Intangible 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question am I reading the proposal correctly that you want all the articles in these 2 categories to go into a single New Right category? If so, oppose deletion on the grounds of European New Right and U.S. New Right are two totally different things with hardly anything in commonn. Lumping together in the same category would be inaccurate and unencyclopedic. KleenupKrew 20:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Minkenberg in the refereed journal Government and Opposition writes: "There are new groups of the radical right which try to influence public debate and the minds of people rather than voting behaviour. These groups—think tanks, intellectual circles, political entrepreneurs—are summarized as the New Right in the literature. In the United States, they include organizations led or founded by Paul Weyrich, such as the Free Congress Foundations and the Institute for Cultural Conservatives. In Europe the most prominent groups are the French Nouvelle Droite groups Club de l'Horloge and especially GRECE, led by philosopher Alain de Benoist, the German Neue Rechte, inspired by the the French counterpart but als by the Weimar Conservative Revolution, and the Italian Nouva Destra."

This is the basis on which I created the Category:New Right. That the "New Right" also has been a heterogeneous label for including other movements, does not mean the categorization under Category:New Right as I have planned is not correct, or is in need of a split in a US and Europe categorization. The original category and the articles it included was just fine until someone split them. Intangible 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Intangible appears to be confusing the French Nouvelle Droite, the European New Right (sometimes also called the "Nouvelle Droite," The New Right in the United States, and the genric usage of the term "New Right" to describe all these movements (problematic at best). There is already a page on the broader use of the term at New Right that serves as a disambiguation page.--Cberlet 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote

1. Keep--Cberlet 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Categories

• Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology
• Category:Roman Catholic religious clothing
• Category:Roman Catholic worship
• Category:Roman Catholic religious objects

There's been a wholesale blanking of Roman Catholic categories by Vaquero100. Seems to be a part of an attempted rename, but I'm not sure if this was agreed upon or not. This should probably be investigated by someone who understands the issue. -- ProveIt 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Something looks fishy here. There was a CfR for Category:Catholic Eucharistic Theology to Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology here. Someone may be trying to get "Roman" Catholic removed without consensus. I am not sure though, but so far, this is all I have found. There is a category Category:Catholic Eucharistic theology. I can't seem to find similar categories for the others. There is more than one faith that uses the term "Catholic" in their names, so for specificity, Roman should stay in the category names. As of right now, however, I am neutral until more facts about this are brought to light. -Lady Aleena @ 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is probably part of a POV debate. Note that the category originally did not have "Roman." I edit these articles, and Vaquero's changes have been an annoyance causing some double-redirects. However I think he views the original move adding "Roman" as POV by Fishhead64. My own observation: Vaquero may be acting prematurely, but his moves (removing "Roman") have not generated criticism except in relation to Anglican-Catholic articles, where "Roman" is arguably needed. Gimmetrow 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Besides the Catholic versus Roman Catholic issue, there is also the Catholic versus catholic issue. Unless the categories are renamed from Catholic X to X of the Catholic Church I would be opposed to removing the Roman in the category names. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above comments. Keep "Roman" in the category titles for specificity. -LA @ 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This has been an ongoing dispute over the naming of the article and mentions of the church elsewhere at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Every time a consensus is reached to retain "Roman", the question is re-opened and the argument begun all over again. The user doing the category blanking has been the most strident voice against the previous consensus in the latest round. He represents that he believes a consensus against "Roman" has been reached, but personally I don't get that from the discussion. Perhaps I'm just not reading carefully enough. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment does not appear to be category related. Sounds more like a case of WP:POINT and someone closer to the happenings needs to slap a few warning tags on the users talk page and then undo any damage. Vegaswikian 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is category related in as much as these four blanked categories showed up this morning when the uncategorized categories list got regenerated. Usually I just db-catempty those, but finding four roman catholic blanked categories in a row seemed suspicious, and I decided to post something here. -- ProveIt 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The categories relating to Catholic topics have been a disaster since I have been on WP (last 4 months or so). I have been working to give some order to them. "Roman Catholic Clothing" you have to admit is a pretty absurd category. It is divided betweem too much more meaningful categories "Vestments" and "religious life (habits)." It was clear that this category was created to mimick "Protestant clothing" which itself is very odd as a category.

Likewise "Worship" is a word used more in Protestant Churches. Catholics tend to use the term "Lirturgy." Worse, the category "Worship" mixed two very different kinds of topics, namely spirituality articles and liturgy articles. It was redundant and not at all useful.

Again, "Religious Objects" is a silly term for a Catholic category. This was a mixture of liturgical topics and "sacramentals." This mis-matching and mixing of very discreet matters in maddening.

Lastly, I know that there is a cabal of Anglicans and some others to make every mention of Catholic be preceded by "Roman." This is clearly in opposition to WP naming policy which clearly states that an article (or category) should have the title most English speakers would use. When most English speakers say "Catholic" they mean the Church headquartered in Rome. Likewise, WP naming policy states that the title of an article about an organization should carry the name that the organization uses for itself. The Catholic Church clearly uses "Catholic Church" as its name. WP policy furthermore states that one must not use "moral" arguments to support or opposed an article name. While many Anglicans and others do not like the name of the Catholic Church and have sought for centuries to eliminate this name, their arguments are always "moral" arguments to the effect that the Catholic Church "should" be named the "Roman Catholic Church." Unfortunately for those of that mind, this has not occurred in common speach or in the Catholic Church's name for itself. To force "Roman" on every title and category is to violate WP policy. I realizing that this fact may be frustrating for Anglicans and others. However, their frustration cannot possibly be as personal or be matched by those whose institutional name is forced to be changed because of their POV. WP recognises the fundamental right of people and institutions to name themselves, as it should.

In the case of "Catholic Eucharistic theology," yes, I reversed it. I did so because of a certain dishonesty with which the change from CET to RCET was done. Precisely when a vigorous discussion of the same issue was taking place on the RCC page, Fishhead64 and the Anglican cabal quietly effected this change. Neither I nor any of the others debating Fishhead64 were looking for or were aware of his activity on the side. In my view a great many stakeholders in such a central topic to Catholics as the Eucharist were not included in the conversation and were bamboozled. --Vaquero100 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree as per above, these categories listed above were and are no longer of any use. --Vaquero100 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The proposal to move Catholic X to X of the Catholic Church as stated above is fine by me. However, the forced "Roman." is really out of the question from a WP perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-29 02:11:59

• Keep and repopulate -- out of process emptying by Vaquero100:
  • The consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 18#Category:Catholic Eucharistic Theology to Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology was unanimous. See:
    • Category:Catholic Eucharistic Theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- blanked by Vaquero100.
    • Category:Catholic Eucharistic theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should not have been created, and should be Speedy deleted G4.
  • Category:Roman Catholic religious clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- blanked by Vaquero100.
  • Category:Roman Catholic worship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- blanked by Vaquero100.
  • Category:Roman Catholic religious objects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- blanked by Vaquero100.
  1. The category blanking is vandalism, pure and simple.
  2. There are several other categories that he recently removed "Roman" parent categories, and numerous other articles that have been moved or redirected to non-Roman names.
  3. As to his antipathy to the "Anglican" churches (known as Episcopal around here), his User page indicates it might be misplaced conflict with his father.
  4. However, the vast majority of folks in my neck of the woods called their church "Roman Catholic" to distinguish themselves from the many "Ukrainian Catholic" or "Greek Catholics". Of course, the Macedonian (ethnicity) folks that I knew would never call their church "Greek" Catholic, after so many of their relatives had died fighting the Greeks.... And then there was also the well-attended Macedonian Orthodox Church. And I'm fairly sure there is/was a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, too.
  5. We could just rename them all "Papist" instead of "Roman Catholic", as the denomination in which I was raised would call them. ;-)

  --William Allen Simpson 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Let's make sure the word "categories" does not start appearing in categories, eh? Paul 06:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Andre Band albums to Category:Andre albums

To match other members of Category:Albums by artist -- ProveIt 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --Musicpvm 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense from Noodles3000

• Category:Sean Michael HIll
• Category:Preacher
• Category:Humanitarian

Unofficial ambassador to squirrels -- ProveIt 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and provide some friendly official ambassadorial advice to his Noodles3000ship. David Kernow 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pages been edited by WikiProject Blackadder to Category:WikiProject Blackadder

Main category for project -- ProveIt 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:WPAM to Category:WikiProject Armenia

Currently, Category:WPAM is used for article talk pages, and is populated by a template. Category:WikiProject Armenia contains the WikiProject page itself and WPAM. I suggest merging the less obvious name into the more standard one. If this goes through, there are a few others in Category:WikiProjects which I might nominate.

• Merge per nom. The talk pages should be in the main Wikiproject category; there is no need for an ambiguously-named subcategory. --Musicpvm 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Categories of the type people killed by some-politician-you-don't-like have little use besides demonizing and attacking someone. Weregerbil 12:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless people killed by some-prophet-you-don't-like categories get removed as well, as they are demonizing and attacking way more people. Please remember that WP is neiter a soapbox nor censored. The question that needs to be answered is, whether displaying facts (like those categories, the JP Muhammed cartoons and the list of editors, who got blocked for removing them) can "attack" people. Currently there is no coherent way of handling this decision. Raphael1 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you have a beef with some other CfD discussion, or some image, or some vandalism block, a proper approach would be to discuss those things. Not to create another category in retribution. Please see WP:POINT. Weregerbil 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually it is you who is proving the point, that Misplaced Pages is not working towards consistency, but instead prefers biased content decisions. Raphael1 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I vote to delete every category called Category:People killed by order of (insert name here). JIP | Talk 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Note to all: See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 28#Category:People killed by order of Muhammad on this page, and the reasons that I have nominated Category:People killed by order of Muhammad for deletion. Thank you. IZAK 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. Not to mention the fact that it would be virtually impossible to prove membership in such a categorization. --Leifern 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT. SlimVirgin 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fundamentally POV. David | Talk 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:POINT. Jayjg 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is very questionable, that you consider the creation of Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon a violation of WP:POINT rather than a purely factual listing, because these people were indeed killed by order of Ariel Sharon. Since you approved the Category:People killed by order of Muhammad 12 days earlier proves your unwikipedic biased reasoning. The very fact that you are a member of the Arbitration Commitee makes your bias especially harmful to this project. Raphael1 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Disgusting. -- tasc _deeds 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the rest. gidonb 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:POINT. Pecher 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as attack category and POV and per nom KleenupKrew 20:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the rest.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. IronDuke 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Oh please; not to mention it is not verifiable, so it is unencyclopædic, and thus should be removed. -- Avi 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of the above Kuratowski's Ghost 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete any category of this sort. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Del and see WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Can someone say Speedy delete a la WP:SNOWBALL?. Netscott 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this category because it violates (1) WP:POINT; (2) WP:NOT; (3) Misplaced Pages:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman and (4) Misplaced Pages:Civility. Thank you, IZAK 23:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Some of the people who are in favor of deleting this category voted to create Category:People killed by order of Muhammad; you be the judge of their actions. --Inahet 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Inahet: To bring you up to speed: Category:People killed by order of Muhammad is also up for a deletion vote now, see above! You must not have seen my note above: See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 28#Category:People killed by order of Muhammad on this page, and the reasons that I have nominated Category:People killed by order of Muhammad for deletion. Let's stop the "cycle of violence" (on Misplaced Pages, at least...) Thank you. IZAK 05:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete If the creation of this category is as Inahet suggests some sort of retaliation for the Muhammed article, boy, that is pathetic. Let's try to move from a "two wrongs make a right" childish attitude to a "two wrongs make two wrongs" attitude. Some way to build an encyclopedia, huh? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Ian Pitchford 12:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' - as long as the allegations can be proven. Zeq 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Filmi

This category has been present for two years and contains a whopping one article: the main article about Filmi. Delete unless someone can actually put articles about filmi musicians, filmi songs, or movies with filmi in it. JIP | Talk 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have started putting articles in the category, my sole criterion for its deletion no longer applies. I withdraw my nomination. JIP | Talk 16:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Deserves to be filled in, not lost. Either we have articles that should be categorized here, or we have a blatant oversight right now. Someone might want to put a notice about this someone related to Misplaced Pages:Countering systemic bias and maybe on some of the music-related WikiProjects. - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Jmabel and could the absence of content could be in part down to the fact that filmi isn't linked by/to Category:Indian film singers and Category:Bollywood playback singers, to name but two ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Memorable photographs

As discussed on Category talk:Memorable photographs, there are no objective, verifiable, criteria for determining what makes a photograph memorable. I think Category:Pulitzer Prize winning photographs would be a good partial substitute. —D-Rock 09:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Notable photographs or Category:Individual photographs. The criteria should just be that the actual photograph (not its general subject) has an article on Misplaced Pages.--Pharos 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per Pharos, but I don't think an adjective is necessary; if it has an article on Misplaced Pages, it as already somewhat notable. Rename to Category:Photographs and keep only articles that are about actual photographs and also remove all images from the category. --Musicpvm 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that if we just call it "Photographs" someone might get the bright idea to start tagging this on 10,000 photos. I definitely agree with you, though, that the category should be only for articles, not images.--Pharos 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Isthmuses to Category:Isthmi

I'll understand if you don't want to indulge me on this one, but it is a Latin word (originally Greek) and I think it deserves a Latin plural. Plus isthmi is a cool word. —Keenan Pepper 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, the word has a Latin etymology, but this is the English Misplaced Pages and changing the name would accomplish nothing except terribly confusing our readers.--Pharos 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pharos. We write "museums" and not "musea" as well. JIP | Talk 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - shouldn't that be "Isthmii" ? (Sorry).HappyVR 13:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No. JIP | Talk 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pshh, you all are no fun. —Keenan Pepper 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous comments. Chicheley 15:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per JIP above -- MrDolomite 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Business people to Businesspeople

Businesspeople is used both in the main cat and in all of the national subcats except:

• Category:British business people
• Category:Egyptian business people
• Category:English business people
• Category:Pakistani business people
• Category:Scottish business people
• Category:Welsh business people

Delete the space between "business" and "people" in all six. (If it weren't for the fact that a Google turned up twenty times more hits for "businesspeople" over "businesspersons" I'd be asking for a rename of all the businesspeople categories as well, but usage trumps logic unfortunately.) Caerwine Caerwhine 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom for consistency. --Musicpvm 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Rubbish - Businesspeople is not a word - it's two words. Google search "businesspeople" 7 million, "business people" 32 million. Total rubbish.HappyVR 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and add a space to all the others. Googling for "businesspeople" brings up the question, "Did you mean business people?". Also the word "businessperson" is an abomination and a breach of NPOV as it is only used by people of one political persuasion. Chicheley 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. -Lady Aleena @ 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Businessman and Businesswoman are acceptable compound words, but the likes of Categpry:British businessmen and businesswomen would not survive, leaving businesspeople as the plural form of businessperson and our best option.. -choster 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "businesspeople" IS a word. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/businesspeople --Musicpvm 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:NFL summer camp sites to Category:National Football League summer camp sites

Abbreviations are discouraged on category titles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy rename -Lady Aleena @ 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy rename agree with nom -- MrDolomite 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy rename and maybe do the same for NASA while we're at it Paul 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Privy Council to Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom

As the Privy Council describes, there are Privy councils in a number of countries - this category name is ambigious.--Peta 01:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. David | Talk 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Seven Sport

This category includes events and people associated with the Australian Seven Sport. The category is problematic as is sets a precedent for every tv station in the world to categorise the broadcast of sporting events (which are also subject to change - so would articles also be categoriesed by historic broadcast rights?) - which is hardly encyclopedic information. All items in the category are already in the article. The Category:NBC Sports works ok for this kind of thing, but has been largely kept in the category namespace.--Peta 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All the sports events should be removed from the American sports channel categories too. Chicheley 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've now removed the international events from the U.S categories (mainly the Olympics, the World Cup and Grand Prix). Chicheley 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cults

Naming an organization as a cult is highly subjective and I propose changing the name to Category:Alleged Cults. I don't see a great deal of instructions on the formal process to do this...I plan make these changes and refer people to this page and the Category Talk page which contains related discussion. If this type of refactoring requires admin approval or clear consensus, a message would be a appreciated. Antonrojo 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the current wikipedia definition of cult which shows that Cult like Deviance is applied very differently depending on one's perspective on the world:

"In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.

In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons." Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Adding "alleged" to the name could be construed to weaken the criteria. Many organisations are "alleged" to be a cult that probably do not have enough support to make it into Category:Cults. The similar Category:Cult leaders is currently up for deletion. (This also seems similar to the proposal to add "accused" to Category:Anti-Semitic people.) Gimmetrow 15:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand this concern. See the numbered points at this discussion for my take on how to avoid making this a 'kitchen sink' category . Also, I'm proposing adding clear guidelines at the top of the category page about which criteria to use in deciding whether to apply the category. Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this category. Oppose the proposed renaming. The category is subjective and POV. The proposed renaming is equally subjective and POV, and would probably lower the bar for inclusion making it even worse than the current name. Subjective, POV categories such as this one should just be deleted. KleenupKrew 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. But not on the grounds above. The word "cult" has a very specific meaning in the field of religion, and is in no way subjective. However, the problem with the phrase "Alleged Cults" is that it still uses a nonstandard definition of the word "cult." This is a difficult issue, and I acknowledge the best of intentions on the parts of all involved. But I personally think the word "cult" should not be used in this nonstandard way. I would personally prefer something along the lines of "Religious Personality Cults" (which uses the word correctly) or "Controversial Religious Organizations", with the specific qualifying nature of the "controversy" being spelled out in the text at the top of the page. Badbilltucker 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is definately a theological sense of the term which is covered at Cult (religious practice) and such a category could be added (maybe 'heresies' as well) with the same caveat that one man's cult is another man's religion so the label should require careful justificatation to make clear that it means 'a major religion defined this as a religious cult' and not 'wikipedia thinks this is a religious cult'. While a few members of the cult category might fit these criteria, I'm pretty sure that the category was intended to be applied to organizations that meet the less-well-defined Cult definition. Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that there was no notice about this CfD on the category page until right now. —Centrx→talk • 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I'm new to the CfD process. Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)