Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 7

January 7

Category:Treasure troves of Kordestan

Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Kordestan to Category:Treasure troves of Iran

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a subcategory of Category:Treasure troves by country. The only article in the category refers to a treasure trove found within the borders of Iran. If current naming is kept, at least spell the place "Kurdistan", as is the practice in WP. Snocrates 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Leaning toward delete as there is no objective definition as to what constitutes a "trove." How many pieces of treasure or what monetary value constitute a "trove"? If kept, suggest rename to Category:Treasure troves found in Iran as the "of Foo" construction implies ownership by the state. Otto4711 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Treasure troves found in Iran as suggested by Otto; I think that legal concept of treasure trove is sufficiently objective. The "of Foo" construction to me implies that those were the Foos who stashed the treasure, we talk of treasure troves of Celtic coins, or Dacian gold, more than "of England" or "of Romania". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I looked to the main article in forming my opinion and I can't agree that the legal concept as laid out there establishes an objective standard for inclusion. The article (besides being completely unsourced) does not establish a legal definition, but instead asserts in two countries a claim as to what happens to lost or abandoned property. The same thing presumably would happen whether the farmer dug up 10 million pounds worth of gold bars as if he dug up a sack with a thousand quid in it so the way the UK handles found property doesn't really set out a foundation for when such found property constitutes a "treasure trove." It also doesn't speak to any of the other subcats of Category:Treasure troves that are outside the UK or US (a little WP:BIAS there I think). Is there perhaps something a bit less flowery that might have some basis in fact or more universally accepted law rather than "treasure trove"? Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose "hoard" is subjective but is used in the scholarly literature: do a google scholar search on gold+hoard, indeed some of the most spectacular finds are even named a la The Fooian Hoard. So, that's an alternative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:CGS units

Propose renaming Category:CGS units to Category:Centimetre gram second system of units

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT to conform with main article Centimetre gram second system of units. Snocrates 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the system is the CGS system, like the other metric system, MKS and is known that way. (and the third one, isn't known... using base units metre, gramme, second) 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And those are abbreviations, as indicated by the article Centimetre gram second system of units. Snocrates 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fractures

Propose renaming Category:Fractures to Category:Bone fractures

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and to match main article Bone fracture. Snocrates 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Maralia (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:National Historic Landmarks of Florida

Category:National Historic Landmarks of Florida - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: A new Category:National Historic Landmarks in Florida has been created to replace this one. No articles are in this category. Appraiser (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Already included in the discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Postcommunist organizations

Category:Postcommunist organizations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Vague. Does this refer to any organization in a Postcommunist state? Or organizations with some "Postcommunist" ideology? Both? Neither? I can't tell. There's only one organization article in here now, which is well-categorized otherwise. The parent categories for this category are only Category:Political organizations which does not seem likely to suffer for lack of this category. Lquilter (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm dubious about this category, but perhaps the creator might enlighten us with a suggestion for inclusion criteria. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're always beating me to that. (This editor hasn't edited since Dec 2006 so I wouldn't count on input from them.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Too vague to provide any hint in deciding what should belong here.

Note that in countries of Central and Eastern Europe meaning of the term varies. One of quite popular uses is to label what I do not like as "postcommunist" (justice system, education system, media, nation, police, mentality etc) to express displeasure that the above mentioned system does not behave according to my expectations. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete postcommunist hasn't a unified objective meaning - how does it apply to China or Cuba or the US, or anywhere else that has a communist party or which never had a communist government? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Types of library

Propose renaming Category:Types of library to Category:Types of libraries

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to plural to match parent Category:Libraries. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not to be a grammar knob but since this category collects articles like "music library", it seems like it is, properly, types (plural) of library (singular). The plural ("libraries") is used for instances, right? So "types of libraries" would collect something like categories of types of libraries, which is usually done in the "libraries by type" formulation. Am I missing something? --Lquilter (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well the proposal matches the form of most other members of Category:Types of organization which is also up for renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a different reason for that proposal. ... Actually, Category:Types of organization is close to even with a 4:3 favoring for plural. We should consens one way or the other if we can. Singulars include Category:Types of organization, itself; Category:Types of museum; Category:School types. Plurals include Category:Types of communities, Category:Types of companies, Category:Types of military forces (confusing if it were singular), and Category:Types of universities and colleges. --Lquilter (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Category:Types of libraries reads better then Category:Types of library, it just sounds wrong. Category:School types is actually plural since the entire form is different and that also needs to be considered for changing unless that is the form we decide to change everything else to. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. ISTR this is yet another transatlantic difference. US English uses "Types of things"; UK, Australia, NZ, South Africa and everywhere-else-on-the-planet-that-uses-the-language English uses "Types of thing". To my antipodean ear "types of libraries" sounds wrong and is ungrammatical, and prove ambiguous in some cases (consider the difference in meaning between "Types of person" and "Types of people" - unless you'd consider "Types of persons" acceptable...) Grutness...wha? 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I believe the proposer to move it to "types of libraries" is from the US ("Vegas"). --Lquilter (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeees, that's partly my point. It appears from later comments that "Types of library" would be perfectly acceptable in the US as well, though, so I don't see any need to change this from something acceptable everywhere to something unacceptable in most places. Keep as is. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest Category:Libraries by type - this format is widely used in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can live with that - sounds eminently sensible. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't a category for libraries; it's a category for articles about types of library/ies. The plural-thing by type construction is used to organize articles about the things (libraries, buildings, etc.). --Lquilter (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Argh. Good point. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think or hear anything wrong with "Types of library". Do not rename to "Libraries by type" per Lquilter. Snocrates 01:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (no rename). (And definitely not "Libraries by type"). I think it's improper grammatically to pluralize the referrent term. As an aside, I really don't think the differences in opinion have anything to do with US English vs. other countries, seeing as Lquilter, Vegaswikian, myself, and I believe Snocrates as well, are all from the US. Cgingold (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not me, but I used to live in the US and I tend to speak a gross bastardization of American and non-American English and I tend to be familiar with the differences. I am not aware of this purported distinction, either, unless it's a regional thing within the US originating in areas I didn't live in. Snocrates 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep current name is grammatically OK by me (another US-English user). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Baalei teshuva

Category:Baalei teshuva - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is inherently WP:OR and WP:NPOV and would also likely be terminally a WP:BLP issue. The level of observance returned to differs for each person and is thus both original research and near impossible to be determined without point-of-view issues. Whether or not the person was unobservant, and how unobservant they were, prior is also a matter of interpretation, and thus WP:OR. There is nothing gained by categorizing people as such, other than perhaps embarrassing people who may not want it known that they were unobservant, which is a WP:BLP violation. Any public mention of someone's observance, lack thereof, or return towards, should be handled on each and every individual page, pursuant to our policies of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This rationale is without any merit whatsoever. Many many people self-describe themselves using this term, nothing OR involved, nothing NPOV about the term. Being wrongly called a Baal Teshuva is not actionable or offensive, and is not a BLP issue. No it is a self applied term. That is the bogus BLP claim I have ever seen, why would anyone be ashamed to have not been orthodox their whole life, is there some taint involved - if anything it is something to brag about. What a truly offensive concept, as though there is something wrong with people who were not born Orthodox. This offensive idea must not be included in wikipedia policy. Lobojo (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as explained above. -- Avi (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, categorizing level of Jewish observance is subjective and violates WP:OR and the other policies listed above. --MPerel 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment what is it different than Category:Orthodox_Jews?--יודל (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it is doing nothing of the sort, it is almost always a term that people use to describe themeselves and is in almost all the articles. The yiddish wikipedia has had such a category for years. Lobojo (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Mistakes in one wiki do not justify their propagation in other wikis. -- Avi (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment What can We do wikipedia is one Big Mistake which is called Community Consensus. And if one Wiki has made this mistake its a Wikipedia Mistake--יודל (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Calling consensus a "mistake" is the best indication of your purposeful refusal to follow policy and guidelines. Thank you for making my point so clearly, Yidisher/Yudel. -- Avi (talk)

• Delete OR BLP. Speedy close this please. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no BLP involved, and as for OR, this is entirely bogus since most of the people in the cat have it explicitly stated in the artilce that they are a "baal teshuva".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobojo (talk • contribs) 16:36, January 7, 2008 (UTC)

And since that term means many different things to many different people, it is inherently disingenuous to apply a term like that across the board. Statements such as "so-and-so identifies as a baal teshuva" must remain in the article, with appropriate sourcing, so that the level of proclaimed observance and/or return can be properly sourced and understood by readers. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh pish-posh, it is a clearly definable term defined in the article Baal teshuva. Your POV is repellant and open - you think people should be embarassed to not have been Orthodox their whole lives. Lobojo (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks Lobo. My point was that it has the potential to be embarrassing, just like any personal information may be (Please review the meaning of "perhaps"). This category is inappropriate for wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous accusation, Lobojo. I am a BT myself. Are you able to identify that line that one has to cross from non-observance to observance in order to be considered a BT? Is every BT on the same page religiously? Did every BT start in the same place? D'you think some of the people you labelled would reject the label? You see how this is completely subjective and inappropriate, don't you? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Avi et al, Arbitrary and subjective category, impossible to render objective. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question If only people that self-identify Baalei teshuva are included, whats the big deal? Lawrence Cohen 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is not one class of people called "Baalei Teshuva". Someone who returns to one level of pobervance may not be considered a returnee to another level. People who self-identify as such is insufficient. There needs to be reliable and verifiable sources documenting their self-identification. That documentation would likely include the level and degree of observance, and then text in the article could be accurately written and supported. The blanket category is too broad and subjective to be useful. -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  There isn't one class of Orthodox Jews, yet we are not afraid to make a Category for it, over all there is one broader Category and thats whats count, Wikipedia should not be the one to decide who goes into this cat, we have for a reason reliable independent sources to make sure they indeed do belong in this category.--יודל (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep I don't agree with Avi that baal teshuva means different things to different people and it is impossible to make a NPOV judgment of it. A baal teshuva is a person who has drastically changed his (or her) life from a secular on to a religious one. Granted that all religious people strive to constantly improve themselves there is a great difference between that and changing one's entire outlook on life. While a person's soul can never be judged except by God, one outward religiosity and especially one's social grouping can. Jon513 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thats what I'm wondering. Hows it different than our gentile friends being in a category of Born Again Christians, for example, if they self-identify as such? Lawrence Cohen 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've responded above. -- Avi (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Criteria of entry unclear, inherently POV and risk of BLP issues. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is a term for people who identify as such. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Cultural: While what you say may be true for some, there are a whole lot of others who find this label offensive to themselves and would object to its use in the strongest of terms. Noone would dare create a group for Category:Repenters in Christianity (that advertises that they were sinners) or Category:Returness to Islam (self-respecting Muslims would shudder at such a term, even if true.) IZAK (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  Hi Izzak: there is a whole veriety of people who consider their inclusion into Hareidi category insulting as well, if the cat is baked up with reliable sources we don't give a hoot. especially when its not true i agree that some may look at it negative overall people are proud with this--יודל (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this category because having it is a bad idea. While the term "Baalei teshuva" may refer in its modern context to those who have returned to Orthodox Judaism (see Baal teshuva movement article), however, the Hebrew term on its own terms is a religious, philosophic and moral one for any person who has repented of sins and returned to the ways of God. Thus Judaism requires that all Jews become "Baalei teshuva" ("repenters" and "returnees") in the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, the "Ten Days of Repentance" between Rosh HaShana (the Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement), that would therefore render any Jew who observes these days as being a candidate for this category of "Baalei teshuva" which would be like creating Category:Jews who believe in God or Category:Jews who have abandoned Reform Judaism, and all this stuff then becomes a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, as well as heading to a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. Perhaps the creator of this category may have wanted to create Category:Jews who have returned to Orthodox Judaism but that category too would be fraught with the same problems with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and maybe even WP:LIBEL because many of these people consider this label as offensive and of sticking them with a name that diminishes their status in all of Orthodox, Jewish and outside society. This is quite a delicate and personal matter for those concerned. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The Hebrew term is the same as the English.
2. yes if there was a subject matter called Jewish Belief in God there should also be a Category Jews who believe in G-d
3. This is Isak's Personal POV that all Jews Must become Bally thsuvah, there are 90 percent of jews who don't believe this, they beleive that they are full and perfect Jews.
4. The Baaly tshuva are proud vocefull and care to acknowledge their status as Bally thuvah
5. If some Refom Jews look negatively at Orthodox Jews we cannot just go and delete the Category Orthodox Jews, we should not make wikipedia into a political correct Censorship project to address everybody's biases--יודל (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentOnce again, yudel, your subjective bias is showing:

• 1. The Hebrew term is not used the same way as the English term all of the time.
  2. The existance of an article does not demand the corresponding category. This may be the twentieth time I have asked you to please review wikipedia policies and guidelines before making inaccurate statements. This time, please review Wikipedia:Overcategorization, paying careful note to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion, Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, and, of course, Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people with special emphasis on the second note: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless...The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
  3. Irrelevant. IZAK's point is that the term is ambiguous and thus inappropriate for use as a category.
  4. Wonderful, but completely irrelevant. Once again, another policy reminder, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. If the article subject made statements to that account, it should be listed, with sources, in the article text.
  5. And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a rollerskate. You have exhibited a classic example of the fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi. Once again, totally irrelevant. If someone puts Category:Orthodox Jews up for discussion (honestly, and not a WP:POINT violation), it will be discussed then. It has no bearing on the merits or flaws of this category. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, if it is subjective, it ought to be deleted. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because it's overcategorization of people by a non-defining trait, as IZAK mentions. Being a baal teshuva as opposed to an "ordinary" Orthodox Jew basically makes no practical difference. --Eliyak T·C 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete How can we possibly verify if a person has "really" repented? It might be best to leave such questions up to God. Some people claim to have repented. Does this mean they have? How can we possibly know? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - i ask u not to worry because just like we don't have a problem whom to include Category:Orthodox_Jews, so we don't try to see how much he has repented, all notable Biographies who were initially born into a non Orthodox Jewish life and they changed their identity goes into this cat.--יודל (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Let Converts to Christianity -- and ensuing Dylan-related battles -- be an object lesson. I also find it incongruous to see an unrepentant criminal being labeled as a penitent.Yudel (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Such things can be sourced, and in many cases it may be relevant to the subject of the article. For example - Adi Ran and Uri Zohar are two cases where there is no doubt about the radical lifestyle change and its influence on the person's life and work. Ehud Banai was less radical, but his teshuva was also widely discussed in the media. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Baal Tshuvah is a person who is different from an Orthodox Jew in many aspects and terms in a very real practical way of life, the baal thsuvas are the more educated reletive to their born Orthodox peers on secular subjects, thats why they are usually the writers and leaders like Joe Liberman and Jonathan Rosenblum, most people most of the time look at it positive, even in the Talmud and Torah it is indeed considered the most admirable status, i cannot deny that to some Jews today it is a negative as Izak says clearly his POV, but we cannot censure out such a basic information fact about somebody's life story and its implications on his society, especially when that can always be well sourced and documented. Are all The orthodox Jews on the same level? No, and there is still a Category for all the Orthodox Jews. When we refer to a Ball tshuvah in common language, we don't at all try to notate his former sins or later repentance, it is a simple societal status name, just like when we say an orthodox Jew we do not notate any holy or piety level, we call them in real life in this category why shouldn't the wikipedia be written in real way how we categorize people is beyond me.--יודל (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The above is a prime example as to why the category is NPOV and OR. I know many people who are not Baalei Teshuva in the colloquial sense (but frum from birth, which is the American phraseology for the counterpart) who have doctorates in mathematics, philosphy, physics, education, are medical doctors, or have acheived the highest educational requirements in their respective fields. I know many Baalei Teshuva who are functionally illiterate. One or two examples are easily disproved by counter-examples such as Mordechai Halperin and Nobel Laureate Robert Aumann. Outside of perhaps particular people's stereotypes and misconceptions, there is no correlation between return and observance. Frankly, I find it insulting that Yudel/Yidisher even makes such a statement. But again, such stereotyping and misrepresentation is exactly why the comment is inherently and permanently flawed and improper for wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer - I apologize if i added any distress which got u insulted. Please forgive me as going personal here wasn't my initiative at all only yours. All i did was trying to show where the practical implications are, as some have raised this concern. I Will grant u this that by the Modern orthodox Jews there isn't that big practical implications, Since the Modern Orthedox do indeed put emphasis to balance their lives in non Jewish issues. But in the broader context of the orthodox Jewish community the Bally tshuvas do indeed stand out as relatively different with real practical differences. Most of the "Notable" Bally tshuvas had a secular non Jewish upbringing in their lives which goes the extra mile to explain their more knowledgeable Notability in secular non-Jewish fields. So the points for deletion are refuted one by one. Does it have practical differences? Yes. Is it subjective? No. is it OR? No. Do some people have an opinion (Or POV) on them? Yes. Non of these issues should justify deletion, because in the end it is a real term used in real life to categorize those people. And Wikipedia does not overrule our language, no matter how politically correct we strive to be, if its silencing real info than we cannot go along with it--יודל (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Once again, I find myself having to remind you of certain basic wikipedia principles such as: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The fact that the term exists does not ipso facto mean it must have an article. That is why we have notability standards which it appears it would behoove you to review. -- Avi (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer - The term exists not merely as another concept or name in the vocabulary, but as a basic grouping category and fundamental information encyclopedic term to set a certain kind in one set of info. _ just because it is also a term that the dictionary picked up it does not render it against policy. The fact is this is used as a very basic high level respectful term for a group of distinguished subjects, and we are first and foremost an encyclopedia. Again i do understand the political correct censorship motives, but it is wrong--יודל (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: What it appears you are disregarding is the core policies of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This category is inherently too subjective and indeterminate for wikipedia. Yes, we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, so we have an article on the subject. We are NOT an indiscriminate people-sorting service, so the category is inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer Just like u agree that the whole idea concept of baal tshuvah is indeed notable as a subject in of itself why wouldn't u agree that those who are Notable for this subject can have a Category in of themselves?--יודל (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ample explanation is provided above and below. -- Avi (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer on the above i have addressed them all on the below i can see that the non-orthedox Jews do indeed mistaken A baal tshuva as a born again Christian, but whoever know the subject will say that such a statement is more ignorance than knowledge the fact is that even "if" only orthodox Jews talk about Bally tshuvah they do indeed talk about in their terms which is the real term, since they framed this into the information existence but thats aside the point. u agreed that Ball tshuvah is a notable subject and there is no explanation why we cannot make a notable category into existence if its out there. but i do understand your point that to much editorial effort will have to be put into here, and no we are not afraid of it in this free and open information data base.--יודל (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete the correct term in English is finding faith. American are constantly on a journey finding and losing faith. It has no clear sociological boundaries of before and after. It is a category like adding "saved" or "twice-born" to Christian entires, it only makes sense from a POV perspective. While Orthodox may take pride in baal teshuvah- it is not a fixed stable term. There is not way to decide who is in or out, except for those who go into the outreach business or publicly witness their conversion on a regular basis. People are not sable entities: Joe Lieberman now only claims to be "traditional" as many evangelical politicians- one cannot have too much observance int he public sphere, do we do background checks and count how many years Aryeh Kaplan was off the derekh before returning? Do we count those we are baalei teshuvah and then become Christians? THey are different in a community and the term and phenomena deserves an entry, but not a category. The term is subjective and should not included.--Jayrav (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - TO be clear, they aren't the same as born again Christians, they are indeed a distinguished group of people, they act differently than most Jews, they are a movement in of itself within Judaism, see that this was already established here on the wiki. the only problem we will have is to make sure that they are indeed properly sourced with reliable and independent sources, which Wikipedia deals with daily and we cannot just one day say that this is too hard on us so lets delete it altogether.--יודל (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete see MPerel, IZAK, and Shirahadasha's agruements above. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a helpful way to categorize people and ripe with WP:OR to boot. youngamerican (wtf?) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for a bunch of reasons: (1) We should not categorize on what terms people use to identify themselves with, like we wouldn't a category Category:Queer people for people who identify themselves by that term; (2) Categorization by religion is just plain wrong; (3) even if you disagree with (1) or (2) categorizing people on how religious they are in their own estimation although the next level of specifity is even more wrong, ready for Category:Divorced Roman Catholics, Category:Baptists who have had an abortion, Category:Muslims who drink alcohol, Category:Mormons who don't wear the garments, Category:Jehovah Witnesses who have received blood transfusions, Category:Seventh Day Adventists who work on Saturday, etc. ad nauseum. If it's kept it should be renamed . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: First "Baalei teshuva people" is not a very good name. "Baalei teshuva" is not a name of a religion, it is a Hebrew term that already describes people (and it is plural.)

More importantly, it is not as absurd as "Divorced Roman Catholics". There are people for whom the teshuva is an important part of their identity. It usually a radical change of lifestyle, and it is often (albeit not always) relevant for encyclopedic discussion of the person. It is 99.9% as radical as Yusuf Islam, who is in the category Category:Converts to Islam. Adi Ran, for example, was a Jew before he was a baal teshuva, but everyone would agree that a change through which he went is radical, well-documented and crucial to encyclopedic discussion of his personality and work. (To alleviate any doubt: I am myself a secular Jew, much like Adi Ran before he was a baal teshuva, and i don't claim that secular Jews are "bad" Jews.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claims that, Amir. Some are wont to accuse others of claiming so. For each particular BT, relevant circumstances, if sourced, should appear in the text. But a categorization is overly simplistic and necessarily involves an exercise in OR. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinion about keeping the BT category is not too strong. In fact, i was surprised that it exists. But if it's deleted, then Category:Converts to Islam should be deleted, too. Let me please reiterate the similarity between Yusuf Islam and Adi Ran. (Both, BTW, make great music.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amir: You are making a mistake because there is no comparison between becoming or being a "Baal teshuva" in the modern sense and converting from one religion to another although many people commonly refer to the process of non-Orthodox Jews who turn to Orthodoxy and become "Baalei teshuva" as doing some sort of "conversion" which it is not. Not halachically and not philosophically. So Category:Converts to Islam is like Category:Converts to Judaism and Category:Converts to Christianity and they are sub-groups of a larger Category:Religious converts, a legitimate process in religions, when people switch from one to the other. However, Teshuva, and the state of being a "Baal teshuva" can and does apply Halachically, morally and philosophically to all Jews since, according to the Torah and classical Judaism, each and every Jew is required to do Teshuva if he or she repents of sins and moves closer to God (like the ancient Jewish Prophets wanted in the Tanakh), and there is no way Wikipedia could track that or develop any sort of standard or category of people for that as if it were some sort of "heavenly Beth Din." Creating categories for any complicated and controversial Halachik group or person is highly problematic. Similaraly, it would be foolish and risky to create Category:Shomrei Shabbat, or Category:Baalei tzedaka, or Category:Baalei chesed, or Category:Shomrei negiah etc. This type of category needs batter and more careful thought. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Izak: We cannot decide Halacha, you are correct in that, but neither can we decide who is Islamic enough, they also have their Halacha. Herein lies your mistake, You seem to think that its up for Wikipedia to decide who is Islamic or who is Jewish, therefore you look at it as if its imposible. I have Good News for u: We are not deciding here in Wikipedia nothing. We only write what the majour media already have established, properly sourced with relible independent outlets. So if there is no Reliable Source that somebody has converted to Islam, or for that matter, that a Jew has become a Ball tshuvah it will not apear in the Wikipeida.--יודל (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's right - we don't decide. As i said already, many cases can be easily sourced. In some cases it is also the main reason for encyclopedic notability: Adi Ran before the teshuva was a barely notable bar singer, and after the teshuva he became a famous singer of religious songs.

Ehud Banai is in the middle of the "spectrum" - he was famous before the teshuva, and teshuva didn't change his work much, so even if the category will remain, he doesn't have to be in it. (Although i wouldn't mind that he will.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion is binary. Steven zero, Yusuf one. Teshuva is a spectrum. -- Y not? 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Punk Adi Ran zero, Breslav Adi Ran one. Both are Jewish, but of radically different lifestyles. So it is quite the same. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Adi Ran is unquestionably a BT. His article reflects that. But is everyone else listed in this category as easy as Adi Ran? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The becoming more religious or moving up someone's scale of religiousity is not encyclopedic - it changes from time to time and it is wholly subject to interpretation - little different than Category:Christians who now go to church regularly who formerly didn't or the like; once again showing that these religion categories are really not appropriate at WP - if you want to put names, with sources, in the article - with BLP in mind, go for it. But categories on religion are speculative at best and are subjective more than not. How "Jewish" must you be to be categorized as such - must you obey each and every commandment and directive in the Old Testament? Like must you stone adulterers and people who worship false gods? None of the people categorized in this category is known to have stoned anyone, so they seem to be remiss in their practice of the religion in its strictest interpretation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:OR and WP:BLP problems should be taken care of each at each specific article. If no WP:RS establish that s/he is considered a BT, then remove the category from that specific page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Avi. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It has been demonstrated here that this is not a useful way to categorize people. Subjective, OR, ripe for BLP problems. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict

Propose renaming:

• Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict to Category:Arabic settlements depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict
  • Category:Villages depopulated prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to Category:Arabic settlements depopulated prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
  • Category:Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to Category:Arabic settlements depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
  • Category:Villages depopulated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to Category:Arabic settlements depopulated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

Nominator's rationale: I propose changing "Villages" to "settlements", because it's more generic - the category includes big cities such as Jaffa and Lod, and there's no point in creating separate categories for cities and villages. And i propose adding "Arabic", because Jewish settlements were depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict, too and in practice these categories include only Arabic settlements. (There's no proper category for depopulated Jewish settlements yet.) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment "settlements" has the unintended implication of settlements in Israeli-occupied territories. Is there a better word that could be used? Jon513 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's absurd that around the world the word 'settlement' is legitimate and generic, but in the Arab-Israel conflict, it means something else. --Shuki (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is indeed absurd, and here's a chance to make it less absurd. Cities and villages are simply types of human settlements: Category:Settlements. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete category, there is already a comprehensive list. Categories should not be created where lists already exist. Chesdovi (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or subcat to relevant Jewish or Muslim villages depopulated. There are multiple Jewish villages in these cats. --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  Either i missed it, or these categories currently include only Arabic settlements, or settlements which are Jewish today, but were depopulated of Arabs (such as Ashkelon.) In any case, the context of these categories is Arab. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i see that you added Jewish settlements in the last few hours ... replied on your talk page about that.

I think that the solution in the Hebrew Wikipedia is better. Putting them all together is humanistic, but separate categories can be useful. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am neutral on the issue, but I would suggest using Arab settlements instead of Arabic settlements - Arabic is almost exclusively used to refer to the language in English, whilst Arab can be used as an adjective for cultural. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Suggest "Arab villages depopulated ..." This would exclude towns, but were any big enough to coklunt as towns? I agree "Arabic" is the wrong adjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose these have been renamed to avoid the whose village was it debate. What is/was an Arab village? One with an Arab majority population? At what point in time? Entirely unsatisfactory unless you want to categorize various places in California (Norte, not Baja) as Mexican towns because that's where we are majority. Or is it based on geography - a NPOV and Verifiable characteristic - so that towns in the territory of Israel (at various points of towns) are Israeli towns, and those in other areas are Jordanian, Egyptian, or whoever held them when the depopulation occurred. Again, California was part of Mexico so we can have the same thing of California towns being termed Mexican depending on shifting borders. Alas, no. Leave them the way that compromise has left them. And when I was going through these a while back many of these articles do not fit the category, so a big pruning is in order: depopulation means the removal of all the population as in de-peopled. A decline of 1%, 10%, 50%, 90% doesn't cut it. See French villages destroyed in the First World War and the linked articles as an example of what depopulated means. Few entries in these cats (on either side) will qualify. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is/was an Arab village? One with an Arab majority population? - Yes, and usually this majority was overwhelming - 100% or very close to it.

At what point in time? - Before the depopulation, of course, and the sub-cat names clearly state it.

categorize various places in California [...] as Mexican towns - Well, it's theoretically possible; the question is - is it important to anyone? The problem with Israel is that there are quite a lot of people - Jews, Arabs and others - for whom the issue of this depopulation and the situation before it is very important.

I do suspect that there are major POV problems in these articles and their categorizing. Many of them have a similar structure: templates, nostalgic quotes by former residents, and most importantly - most of the sources are from the same bunch of websites, who are definitely non-neutral. Unfortunately i am not really an expert on this issue, and my knowledge of it amounts to what an average Israeli knows about it (which is already a problem.) I am just being practical: These categories include only cases of Arabs leaving their homes, so the category name should reflect this.

There were similar discussions in the Hebrew Wikipedia. There the "Abandoned settlements" category is divided to "Destroyed Arabic settlements" and "Destroyed Jewish settlements".

I wouldn't strictly define depopulation as 100% cleansing, although as far as i know that happened in most cases (Lod and Jaffa are notable exceptions and there are more.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just perusing a few of the articles in the categories, they don't strictly qualify under the guidelines you propose - so even if we gollow your proposal and mentally dismiss its inherent subjectivity of "usually", "overwhelming", and some amorphous (<100%) to be depopulated, there remains the problem of these articles. If everyone leaves but a bunch of people come back after the war ends, is that depopulation? Let's just take a few examples: Ashkelon: our article said it was destroyed by the Mamluks in the 13th century, and didn't exist in 1948, so how could anything in 1948 be the cause of its depopulation? I think that is an issue for the Mamluks. Ein Tzurim was severely damaged and the population fled and some returned when the war was over. Some consistency is needed in the categorization here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Carlos, your encyclopedic attitude is positive and refreshing.

This is indeed the problem: the whole category is pretty non-NPOV. Most of the articles about those Arab villages were created by a small group of users who admit their pro-Palestinian opinions and they quote the same pro-Palestinian sources. Frankly, the best name for the category would be "Villages that were copied en masse from sites about the Nakba". A similar problem exists in the Hebrew Wikipedia. It's really not a matter of opinion about the events of 1948, but a problem of finding good definitions and good sources. (Curiously, the Hebrew categories explicitly call those villages "destroyed" - rather less neutral than "depopulated".)

And that's why i am not proposing to change the word "depopulated". If anyone has better proposal for "depopulated", go for it. I only proposed to generalize "Villages" to "Settlements" and to add "Arabic" (or "Arab"), because that's what the category included at the time i proposed it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep for the good reasons stated by Carlossaurez though I don't know about the heavy pruning Hmains (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not rename, these names are fine and NPOV. Lobojo (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral, but if anything, Arab, not Arabic Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Road accident deaths in Croatia

Category:Road accident deaths in Croatia - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category was created in October of 2007 specifically to list Toše Proeski after his death. He is still the only entry. Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place, The place of death is not normally categorized. SWik78 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• But what about the the other 70 categories? Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe wait and see what happens here. There could be a good reason to keep this one and by extension the rest. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as part of the structure Category:Road accident victims, which has the diffusion message on it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly why is the location of death notable? I guess the cause of death could be notable, but is it for this set of categories? I have not decided on what to say here about keeping or deleting. But I probably need to be convinced to say keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that categories such as Category:People who died in Croatia are probably worthless, but the fact that they died in a road accident and by location of said accident, is a very notable part of the person's existance. Case and point being Diana of Wales. Lugnuts (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a structure that we just love to death - how people die and where they die is inherently encyclopedic and certinaly defining - indeed more defining than nearly anything else we categorize people on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep as part of a series. Editors should look at parent categories before making nominations. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now as part of the structure Category:Road accident victims per Lugnuts. I would not be averse to deleting Category:Road accident victims and scores of other how-people-died categories, but there is no case for removing one national subdivision of an established category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:World Champion Stables

Category:World Champion Stables - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable category Also per this discussion at WP:PW. D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nude photographers

Category:Nude photographers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: SO many photographers have photographed nudes at some point in their careers. This is essential people by performance. We cannot feasibly categorize photographers by every subject they have photographed. Also, the category is misnamed, as it is not the photographers who are nude (presumably). LeSnail (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

delete per both rationales of Lesnail. I was so struck by the "photographers who are nude" that I didn't even notice the more substantive problem at first. --Lquilter (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't follow Categorisation schemes in the naming used. If it is going to by subject then it should have been Category:Photographers who photograph nudes or something like that? Sting_au Talk 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as OCAT and non-defining; on a more grammatical note haven't all photographers been nude or is this just trying to capture those currently so? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mario items

Category:Mario items - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Currently contains two entries and a list. The list looks like it is headed for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items in Super Mario Bros.), and several entries in the category have been deleted or merged (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starman (Nintendo), for example). With this reduction of fictional material, the category is now too narrowly-defined to be useful. Upmerge into parent categories. Pagrashtak 16:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Plastic Companies

Category:Plastic Companies - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic of any of the companies categorized here. Two sell fuel, one sells various chemicals, and the last processes food. They don't deal primarily with plastic. In addition, the name of the category is ambiguous, as it suggests to me that the companies are made of plastic, and the capitalization is wrong. If kept, should be renamed to something better. LeSnail (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm inclined to say rename to Category:Plastic companies following the same logic that was used to create Category:Gambling companies. Those companies don't gamble. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Vegaswikian. The fact that a category needs populating (or better populating) is no reason for deletion. One might regard the term as referring to compahies that are flexible or capable of being moulded, but to me it is obvious that it is intended toi refer to companies that make and sell plastic, probably usually as a commodity, rather than finished goods made of plastic. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I believe that Vegaswikian is making a point about gambling companies, rather than actually making a suggestion about this category. --Lquilter (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep, but what name? I would have thought 'Plastics companies' would be the name of a category for companies that make plastics (all kinds) Hmains (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Plastics companies - "Plastics companies" (thanks Hmains!) is good and resolves confusion. --Lquilter (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to "Category:Plastics companies". Surely there are some companies out there for which making or marketing plastics is defining. Snocrates 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Irish athletes Competeing for Great Britain

Category:Irish athletes Competeing for Great Britain - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Probably not defining. If kept, at least rename to Category:Irish athletes competing for Great Britain to fix spelling and caps. LeSnail (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Under-20 sportspeople

Category:Under-20 sportspeople - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Now, I don't really know anything about sports, but this seems like a fairly arbitrary cutoff. Is it really a defining characteristic of an sportsperson that they are under 20 years old? This will also be quite a pain to maintain, if it starts being used extensively, since whenever a sportsperson turns 20, they will have to be recategorized. LeSnail (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep U-20 football (soccer) and U-20 ice hockey both are prominent cutoff points. this is meant to be a sub-category for these, that is sportspeople who have competed at in an U-20 competition. I didn t consider the listing of any sportsperson under the age of 20, so I suppose there should be a renaming of the page Mayumashu (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Reguardless if its a normal cutoff point. When you start making categories this specific you are over categorizing. Expecially when its not really helping clear clutter in its parent category. -Djsasso (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to junior sportspeople, which allows the cutoff to float depending on sport and league, while still maintaining a separation between those judged "senior" and "junior" . 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an arbitrary number. If the people are notable in a league, then any age limits are noted in the league article and that should be sufficient. If we allow this one, then do we need to create Category:Under-19 sportspeople, Category:Under-18 sportspeople and so on for leagues with different age cutoffs? Category:junior sportspeople is no real solution since junior is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete arbitrary cutoff. Consider rename to Category:Sportspeople under 85 years young as that is just as arbitrary. Over categorization. --Pparazorback (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete U20 is a very notable age limit in several sports, but this is unnecessary categorization. Nor is it a defininf characteristic. As noted, people turn 20 at some point, so the accuracy of this category would become impossible to maintain given that for every person on earth, it is merely a temporary state. Resolute 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-defining category cruft. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Many of the subcategories are not limited to athletes that are currently under 20. In fact, most of them only include former members of specific teams. So, it becomes a category of athletes that were athletes before they turned 20. This is really non-defining. e.g. members of Category:Edmonton Ice alumni, which is a subcategory of the category in question, are all over 20. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-maintainable catcruft per above. — Dale Arnett (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete un-maintainable & an arbitrary intersection of age/occupation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:2009 television series debuts

Category:2009 television series debuts - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Crystalballing, empty. Ouro (blah blah) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:American Photographers

Category:American Photographers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: As above, improper capitalisation, empty, redundant to Category:American photographers. Ouro (blah blah) 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Categoryredirected. Doesn't need a week of discussion. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nude Photographers

Category:Nude Photographers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Empty cat, improper capitalisation, there is already Category:Nude photographers. Ouro (blah blah) 12:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. LeSnail (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I am also nominating Category:Nude photographers above. LeSnail (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. If kept, merge Category:Nude Photographers to Category:Nude photographers. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Gilligan's Island animated series

Suggest merging Category:Gilligan's Island animated series to Category:Gilligan's Island

Suggest merging Category:Gilligan's Island films to Category:Gilligan's Island

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small categories with, god willing, no potential for expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:2006 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season

Propose renaming Category:2006 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season to Category:2006 in Grand Prix motorcycle racing

Nominator's rationale: for consistency with other subcats of Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races by year. DH85868993 (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Steam (content delivery) products

Category:Steam (content delivery) products - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - if I'm understanding the category, it's capturing games that are available through a particular distribution system. This is the equivalent of Category:DVDs available through Netflix or Category:TV shows available through the iTunes store and is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this is nondefining. Maralia (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Day of Defeat

Category:Day of Defeat - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Articles are appropriately interlinked through text. Otto4711 (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

delete - unnec eponymous category for a video game. --Lquilter (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:American Pie Presents films

Category:American Pie Presents films - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - no need to separate these out in a separate category from the rest of the AP franchise. All are linked through text and infoboxes. Otto4711 (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Navboxes would do the trick easily. JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Category:American Pie films makes this designation obvious. –Pomte 12:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christmas television

Suggest merging Category:Christmas television to Category:Christmas in the media

Nominator's rationale: Merge - I'm hard-pressed to think of any "Christmas television" that isn't either a Christmas-themed episode or a Christmas special. Unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom - The two television subcats can cover it. Sting_au Talk 06:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Unnecessary layer of categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Power ballads

Category:Power ballads - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No objective criteria for inclusion. People tried to put Stairway to Heaven here, and when I look at the songs, it seems nearly random ... kind of like "songs a lot of people like."Kww (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, no objective inclusion criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Subjective inclusion criterion per WP:OCAT. Sting_au Talk 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per "no objective criteria". Can only lead to fancruft, and unresolvable disputes about whether particular items belong here or not. Oli Filth^(talk) 09:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the disputes could be resolved by counting the numbers of people holding up a lighter on concert videos ... --Lquilter (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - very vague term. Better to write power ballad in such a way that it includes representative examples. --Lquilter (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed per above. Category is too subjective. Giving examples in the main article, and discussions in any specific song article is a better way to accomplish this. -- Avi (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above, especially Lquilter. — Dale Arnett (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cook Island Māori

Propose renaming Category:Cook Island Māori to Category:Cook Islands Māori people Category:Cook Island Māori people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Edits for clarity. I think in common parlance people usually do refer to "Cook Island Māori", without the "s", but Cook Island and Cook Islands are quite different and confusion could result. Add "people" per standard naming practice for people by nationality categories. For a related 2006 CFD, see HERE. Snocrates 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Cook Island Māori people. The correct adjectival demonym for the Cook Islands is Cook Island, and the people are usually called Cook Island Māori (cf ghits of 65,000 to 11,000 for the term versus Cook Islands Maori). If the category is for biographies only, then a rename to Category:Cook Island Māori people reduce ambiguity, but again without the "s" on Island, which defeats the original stated intention of the CFD. In any case, it is highly unlikely that there are any Māori, Cook Island or otherwise, on either of the uninhabited islands called Cook Island. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you have set out and have adjusted the nomination based on your reasoning which clarified things for me. Snocrates 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)