Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16#Number-one categories

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ungrammatical and hopelessly confused category. It needs at least to be renamed; but many of the contents are unsupported by their articles, and some are flat wrong. Apollonius of Tyana? For that matter, what does Apollonius of Rhodes, the epic poet, have to do with anybody's history? Better to scrap this and start over. Septentrionalis 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely strong delete nom vote. Septentrionalis 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Renaming is welcome.--Connection 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:Please join in editing inclusion criteria as you like, do not delete.--Connection 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename. Surely there were at some point notable writers in Egypt's history; is there some parent category (ie: writers by nationality) we'd rather upmerge to? If not, this is something we might keep and work on. Thanks, Luna Santin 10:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:The focus is on purpose of writing, regardless of nationality. It may be a child of a category by time frame. Regards.--Connection 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Surely the correct category would be :Category:Historians of Ancient Egypt, but this is so far from having the appropriate contents that it would be better to delete it. Osomec 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:* ...or :Category:Classical historians of Ancient Egypt. David Kernow 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Tim! 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Same topic. :Category:History of film uses the correct category label, as seen in :Category:History by topic Clubmarx 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:History of film, per nom. Luna Santin 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 14:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Athenaeum 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. FrankB 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). (The one that does had no significant support and is empty.) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Jntg4
• :Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
• :Category:User Cowbell
• :Category:User Likes Hotel Wikipedia
• :Category:Users who give themselves the creeps
• :Category:Users who want to know, "What You Say?"
• :Category:Users who wish you a happy Astronomy Day
• :Category:User wp-4
• :Category:Wikipedians who do not belive in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, but agree it is as likely as creationism

These categories are either in jest, are overly-obscure pop culture references, or are completely opaque. None of them provide any useful information. - EurekaLott 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not wish to qualify for :Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor. Septentrionalis 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE too much social club wikipedia 132.205.45.148 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not hurting anything, don't use them if you don't like them, if someone likes them then good, happy editors contribute more. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• :Except Jntg4, delete that one, not useable by any editors not names Jntg4!. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all apart from :Category:Jntg4 which actually looks like it's full of sockpuppets. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Jntg4 and keep the rest. These are harmless, except the one which can only include one user and his multiple personalities.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep :Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, :Category:User Likes Hotel Wikipedia, and :Category:Users who wish you a happy Astronomy Day since these have multiple users in them. Delete the rest because they only have one or two (or in one case, no) users, or in the case of "What You Say?" an unexplained inside joke. Stev0 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. -- LGagnon 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all these categories are nonsensical. If categories like these are kept, users will continue to create ridiculous categories for their user pages. There is no limit to the number of possibilities, so there must be at least some restrictions and user page cats like these need to go. --Musicpvm 06:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we categorize by encyclopedic topics. What the hell is the point of these joke categories? --Cyde↔Weys 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Jntg4 in particular. These probably should be listed as individual deletes so that people can air their opinions on each one. -- Reinyday, 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on even days, and Keep on Odd days, but only in the months of Octember when there are two full moons. FrankB 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), occupations are categorized by nationality, not ethnicity. --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. Seems to be an obvious Jew-baiting cat. Irresponsible. --TJive 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Can't see any obvious reason to delete, but what is with Schmuck? --Coroebus 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

::As an aside, does anyone with more knowledge of the etymology of Schmuck want to go and clear out that article, which is part joke article, part anti-semitic, part god knows what. --Coroebus 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This includes none of the Jews that spied for the United States. Even if it did, this would be an extraordinarily specific cat. The nom's conclusion that this is bad faith is at least plausible; and we should avoid the appearance of evil. Septentrionalis 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• :I would consider a merge with {{cl|Soviet spies}} (or for Moe Berg, {{cl|American spies}}; we seem to do this by employer's nationality); no further refinement is warranted. Septentrionalis 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• ::I fail to see how this was not already the case. --TJive 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE:

This entire category seems to be a smear on Jewish Americans. Here's some reasons to delete:

1) First, the singling out of "Jewish American" spies fore a category. Is there a "Protestant American" spies category? The religious background is already mentioned in some spy articles (usually it's pointed out if someone is a Jew), but not in others. It's prejudicial to create this whole category when most of the spies were motivated by communism, not Judaism.

2) Spies are, rightly, identified by who they work for. So Americans who spied for the Soviets are called Soviet spies - NOT American spies (or "Jewish American" spies). British spies spy for Great Britain. Or, you could speak of Nazi spies, or communist spies. If the Americans have a Russian person spying on Russia, he's called an American spy, not a Russian spy. So the "Jewish American" spies in this article are not "American spies" at all. This alone should show why this biased category should be deleted.

:I'd say that it shows that a complete system of spies by nationality is needed. Athenaeum 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

3) There are already categories that are more appropriate, which do, in fact include the spies listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_spies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_spies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Israeli_spies

If you look at the categories at the bottom of each spy article, you'll see that they are already sufficiently categorized.

4) Some of the "spies" listed in this article were never even indicted as a spy, such as Allen Rosenberg. That's why there is another more appropriate category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accused_Soviet_spies

5) The original article included the link to "Schmuck" which is a well known (at least to American Jews) derogatory term in Yiddish. It means penis, and is used like "dick". Ex. He's a schmuck (He's a dick.) That link to a non-existant spy named "Schmuck" was included by the author of the category. It is clear sign of *bad intentions* and meant as an insult. There's no other way it can be justified. The catagory was started with an anti-semitic intent, and should be deleted. 24.44.45.54 10:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Update-The creator of the category, Hmains, has said that someone else put the "Schmuck" entry on the page. So I withdraw objection #5. Still support Deleting based on the other objections. 24.44.45.54 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and good argument by IP address. BoojiBoy 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I created this category and I meant no harm. It seemed be not out of line, what with the 'Jewish gangsters' subcategory. In general, the collection of subcategories is very impressive and, by any measure, commendable. I do not know that this category is any more or any less specific than all the others here. I work on many categories throughout Wikipedia. There were just a number of bio articles in the :Category:Jewish Americans which did not fit in any other of its subcategories and which had the common thread of 'spy'. Certainly, spies for the U.S. should also be included; I just changed the purpose of category to include this idea and I just I just added Burg to the category. Everyone who is interested: please add other articles; I expect the number will far outweigh those who spied for the USSR, showing the for-Soviet spying to have been a one-time aberration during a particular time in US-Soviet history. And I did not include 'Schmuck' in the category and would never have done so--it does not belong there and I just deleted it; look at the history of that article to see who added it. Also, you can see the by general nature of my edits that I am not involved in hate mongering--I delete such material whenever and wherever I see it. I hope you might consider discussing this category first, however, rather than having as a first reaction: delete it. Thanks Hmains 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hi Mmains. I'm the one above (24.44.45.54) who listed objections. First off, I did give serious thought to your proposed category. Prior to commenting, I did look look at, and was impressed by, your extensive positive contributions to Wikipedia. I have not seen vandalism or hate-mongering by you. I will take you at your word that you meant no harm, but respectfully submit that perhaps you may have a blind spot on this issue. Here's another way to think of it: What if someone created catagories like "Black American Rapists" or "Roman Catholic American Murderers."? No doubt, there are Black Americans rapists, and Catholic American murderers, some of them famous. It may be possible to write many articles on such people. If a particular article mentions the ethnic background of an individual in a factual way, that's fine. And I also have no objection, per se, to articles written about criminals who are Jewish – As "Athenaeum" says "Some Jews do bad things because Jews are people." But creating categories can sometime create unfair and slanderous groupings. Of course, if ethnicity was the primary motivating factor in a crime, then it could be valid, but that's not the case here. I do not think your addition of "regardless of country..." will make it much less offensive (intentional, or not) to many people. As for the "schmuck" entry... I will also take your word on this. I had checked the edit history several times prior to posting, and it clearly seemed as if it was in the original category you created. But I think this due to the way Wikipedia works with Catagories, as far as I can tell. It seems that only current articles are shown in the entire edit history. Or perhaps its also due to my status (without a username yet), but I can't even seem to find *any* remaining reference to the "Schmuck" article in the edit history, so it seems impossible to "look at the history of that article to see who added it" as you suggest. Anyway, thanks for the response, but I still think this is a unnecessary and provocative category. 24.44.45.54 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If there are Jewish American categories some of them will be for bad things. Some Jews do bad things because Jews are people. Please relax and live with it. Athenaeum 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• :Spies should not be broken down into ethnic and religious demographics. There exist nationality categories to describe for whom they were spying. This is unnecessary. --TJive 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and 24.44.45.54. Road Wizard 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although apparently created in good faith, seems unnecessarily anti-semitic. Dev920 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not anti-semitic. I don't get the idea that uniquely among occupations spies should not be categorized by nationality. Just because they can be categorized in another way as well, that doesn't mean the usual approach is not useful. Sumahoy 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::Can you clarify something for me please? Since when has "Jew" been a nationality? I think the point raised above is that they are already categorised by nationality (Russian, American, Israeli, etc.) and that categorisation by religion serves no purpose. Road Wizard 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:::A nation is a cultural entity: it is not synonymous with a country (a geographical entity) nor a state (a political entity). Judaism is both a faith and a cultural group. You are treading on very dangerous territory if you are trying to say that the Jews are not a nation but purely a faith: that line of argument is commonly deployed by anti-semitists. It does Wikipedia no favours at all that it repeatedly confuses nation, country and state.--Mais oui! 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the clarification. However, I resent the implication that I asked the question as an anti-semitic attack. Though you didn't aim that comment at me directly, I would ask you to be careful about who you tar with that brush even in an indirect manner. Thank you. Road Wizard 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One argument for deletion is a slur and the other is based on an insistence that there should only be a single category structure for spies that doesn't make much sense. Osomec 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly antisemitic. —Babelfisch 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only started to single out Jews. Pecher ^Talk 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - How about just Americans convicted of espionage? I don't see what 'Jewish' has to do with anything. It's not as if they were spying on the Knights of Columbus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I am actually fairly disgusted by whoever started this category, and will not be exactly pained if it is deleted. However, it is no less and no more legitimate than all the other categories in which a non-religious, quasi-racial "Jewishness" is paired with some other trait. I am not denying the right of people to apply labels to themselves, but applying them to others is a different thing entirely - and to presume that a label has any legitimacy as an explanatory category of thought simply by the fact that some people use it is entirely ridiculous. This category should be discussed together with all other such categories - "Jewish veterinarian", "Aryan painter" and "Gentile pirates" included. 132.204.53.57 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per amended nominations Tim! 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Lists of No. 1s in songs to :Category:Lists of number-ones in songs :Category:Lists of number one songs
• :Category:No 1 hits in the United States to :Category:Number-one hits in the United States :Category:Lists of number one songs in the United States
• :Category:Number 1 Dance Hits In the United States to :Category:Number-one dance hits in the United States :Category:Lists of number one dance songs in the United States
• :Category:Number one modern rock hits in the United States to :Category:Number-one modern rock hits in the United States :Category:Lists of number one modern rock songs in the United States
• :Category:Number-one R&B hits in the United States by year to :Category:Lists of number one R&B songs in the United States

Should be moved to be consistent with all the articles in the categories and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which states "Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words." Also, the capitalization in the third category is incorrect. --Musicpvm 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename numbers two and three without hyphens. The first one could be renamed :Category:Lists of number one songs, and the fourth does not need to be changed. - EurekaLott 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all per revised nom. - EurekaLott 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment. "chart-topping" makes for less clumsy looking names: :Category:Chart-topping hits in the United States etc. also it make it less likely that someone will make "Number two hits", "Number three hits" +c BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, as all these categories contain aritcles that are lists of number-one songs by year rather than articles about the actual songs (which are at :Category:Number one singles and its subcats), I'm changing the proposed names and nominating a fifth category for renaming so they will all be consistent. Also, i think "hits" should be changed to "songs" and I guess the hyphen in "number-one" is unnecessary. --Musicpvm 06:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The former only has one article and the primary meaning of "mason" is something totally different from what is intended. Merge. Chicheley 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

• RENAME category:masons to :Category:Stonemasons and cleanup whatever necessary. 132.205.45.148 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- the single entry has absolutely no verifiable information that he was a freemason or a stonemason, and the category is now empty. --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Empty and ambiguous. Osomec 16:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: :Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted on 21st June - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12#Category:Terrorist_organizations_and_Category:Former_terrorist_organizations] AndrewRT 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless.Count Iblis 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nothign about the title is anything but factual - this is a list of organizations that have been included (="designated") on list s of terrorist organizations. It does not mean they actually are terrorist, only that they have designated as such.Isarig 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Well, then the same can be said about "legitimate militant organizations". Both are opinions of certain countries and in both cases the title doesn't tell you which countries support that opinion. Iran and most of the Arab world support Hezbollah and the US, Israel and EU countries have placed Hezbollah on a terror list. Count Iblis 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:::If you wnat to change the title to "Organizations designated as "terrorist" by the EU & US, I wont object to that. Isarig 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: That's ok. Count Iblis 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. I'd also refer Count Iblis to WP:POINT. This should have been your response to this category rather than to create an in-kind cat. Very bad faith nomination, but one that I support, despite his in-kind rejection of the below nomination. --TJive 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: It's a matter of interpretation. I changed my mind a few times. At first I was against the addition of groups like Hezbollah to this category. Then, when my deletion was reverted, I went to the talk page of the category and diuscussed the issue a bit. I could more or less agree with the arguments given there. If you take "designated" to mean that a major power like the US considers the group as a terrorist organization, then that inevitably has a major impact and, whether you agree or not, it should be mentioned in some way, e.g. by including it in a suitable category. I was still unhappy with the name "designated", i.m.o. too general, but that could be dealt with later.

:: But then, as I explained on the talk page, you need also a category to list organizations like Hezbollah that have some support from countries. Just like the fact that it is designated by the US as a terror organization has a big impact, so does the fact that it is considered to be a legitimate militant group by Iran. If one supports the category "Designated terrorist organizations" for the right reasons (and I could bring myself to do that), then one should also agree that there should be a category "legitimate militant organzations", where "legitimate" means "legitimate" according to some countries, just like "Designated" means "Designated" by certain countries.

::There would have been no problem if people were willing to interpret the words in the correct way. However, it soon became clear that this wasn't going to work. The additions to the category "legitimate militant organzations" were being reverted (I agree that the name "legitimate" was perhaps not well chosen). Then the category was put on cfd. I did wrote something in defense, but then I just gave up and decided to also put this page on cfd.

::So, in summary, this was not just tit for tat. There is a case for adding both categories. But if we can't have a category for organizations that are regarded by certain countries as legitimate militant organizations, even if that has a large impact (Iran's support for Hezbollah does have a big impact and that's why the US and Israel make such a fuss about it), then the argument that we should include the organization in this category is a bogus argument, the real reason was then all along to give the opinion of the US an undue weight. That then violates NPOV. Count Iblis 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, makes sense as a category, maybe not the best title, a category of groups not designated as terrorist by some countries makes less sense, many countries don't bother to outlaw organisations without necessarily endorsing them. --Coroebus 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Nothing POV about this category, just slightly different from :Category:Terrorist organizations, which probably won't survive a deletion effort, but is nonetheless a fine category. Stop terrorizing wikipedia with these nonsense cfds. Intangible 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: What is POV is the that the name "designated" is ambigious. What if Iran "designates" the US as a terrorist country? :) And as I explained above, trying to interpret this in "good faith" didn't work. Count Iblis 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:::That does not make sense, one law monopolist calling another law monopolist a terrorist. Designation in this case means by law monopolists, like the UN, EU, India, etc. Just one designator should be enough to include an organization in the list.Intangible 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Rename I think that there could be value in these types of categories if they specified who was the accuser. Such as "US State Department Designated Terrorist Organizations" or such. But then again it is a problematic area. --Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I agree that renaming would solve most of the problems. Count Iblis 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Check the sister page for comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations_and_Category:Former_terrorist_organizations]. -- max rspct leave a message 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I created this cat as an attempt to improve the cats :Category:Terrorist organizations etc (see discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12#Category:Terrorist_organizations_and_Category:Former_terrorist_organizations]. The hope is to move beyond NPOV into a more factually based categorization. "Designated" is not intended in a vague way but rather in the technical use of the term as used by legislators See, for example [http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm], [http://www.police.govt.nz/service/counterterrorism/designated-terrorists.html] Specific cats for "US Designated Terrorist Orgs", "EU Designated Terrorist Orgs", "Australian Designated TOs" etc. wouldn't work as article pages would be cluttered up with multiple cats. In practice most items on most lists are common. Besides there are already articles on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and, for the UK, Terrorism_Act_2000#List_of_proscribed_groups and I suggest these are better in as articles rather than cats. Incidentally I don't know the technical hows and whys but could this cfd be merged with the older one? AndrewRT 23:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: The name "designated" is then very US POV and that should thus be indicated in the name. In practice, almost all of the terror organizations appear on the US list anyway. Also, as discussed on the talk page and mentioned on the category page itself, the intention is to focus on the UNSC, the US and the EU. The reply I received about the hypothetical case of Uganda placing some org. on a terror list indicated that the idea was to only focus on the major powers.

:::Count Iblis 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it was a good idea, but I just personally prefer :Category:Organizations accused of terrorism, sorry. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but more needs to be done in terms of establishing what authority has designated the groups as terrorist organisations. For instance, the UN has a list of organisations and individuals associated with Al-Qaeda, which have been identified by its 1267 Committee [http://www.un.org/docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm]. But these do not include some of the groups designated as terrorist organisations by the US and EU. Also, states other than the US and EU may also identify certain groups as terrorists which are not listed here. I don't see why they should be excluded, so long as it is made clear who is designating who as "terrorist". It is a content problem, rather than an issue of the naming of the category.--الأهواز 09:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. To tell the truth, I'm not happy with :Category:Terrorist organizations (serious POV risk) or :Category:Designated terrorist organizations (designated by who?). I can respect the categories themselves, and the motivations of the editors behind them, I just want a better name. It would be just fine and dandy if somebody could please come up with a shorter way of saying, "Organizations accused by (UN/US/whathaveyou) of terrorism," and then we could all go home. Luna Santin 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• New idea. "US list of terrorist organizations." Or perhaps, "State-designated terrorist organizations." What do we think of those? Luna Santin 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• State designated? What about those orgs des by the UNSC or EU? AndrewRT 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Criticisms are welcome, I'm still just brainstorming. I've recently developed an understanding that the UNSC actually keeps no list of terrorist organizations ([http://www.un.org/sc/ctc/] in particular), but if I'm mistaken there, feel free to correct me. Would the EU not qualify as a nation-state (for this purpose, anyway)? I can see your point there, open to any ideas. What about "government-designated"? Luna Santin 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Didn't mean to sound curt - I'm still feeling my way through too. The EU is not a state but a collection of states, like NAFTA although more developed. After a bit of research I discovered the UNSC Counter-Terrorism Cmte doesn't have the power to designate as you mentioned. However the UNSC does. At the moment the only DTO is Al-Qaeda although they plan to add more to the list and have formed a subcommittee to draw up a list - see UN Security Council Resolution 1566. AndrewRT 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, hrm. I'm starting to think it may be best to listify all of this, and then put all the lists into a category. Say, one article could be "United States list of terrorist organizations," and another could be, "United Nations list of terrorist organizations," and then toss in whatever other countries/international organizations we deem as having notable lists. Naturally, the lists would be interlinked (both to and from) the articles for the TOs themselves. Does that sound like a good idea? And if so, what would be an appropriate category name? Luna Santin 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete or split into "Organizations designated terrorist by X" and fill in the blank. That way each case (and each category) can be judged/debated more clearly on its own merits. Luna's list suggestion above is also workable. The category as it stands is just asking for trouble. heqs 08:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Just b/c we don't agree with the government that defined the category doesn't mean that the category doesn't exist.--M@rēino 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:NPOV would then require to add Falun Gong to the list if China declares it a terrorist organization. You then cannot keep it out of the list by arguing that China uses bogus arguments to put it on their terror list. Count Iblis 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::That doesn't faze me in the least, Count Iblis. China could name Jesus himself a terrorist, and He would have to join this category, because he would have been designated by a legitmiate government. Wiki stays NPOV even when the outside world isn't.--M@rēino 03:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Psychomelodic (people think {{user:psychomelodic/me}} ^{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Psychomelodic/me&action=edit edit]}) 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per heqs. 132.204.53.60 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Designated by whom? Why should the US government's definitions be privileged over those of, say, the Iranian government or the Burkina Faso government, as the note on this category currently suggests? "Organizations designated as terrotist by the US government" might be an acceptable alternative, but then who would decide which governments or supranational bodies should have such categories associated with them? I can see the reason for having the category, but ultimately it does more harm than good. Palmiro | Talk 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless. --TJive 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:Note that this was immediately used to promote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=58955020&oldid=58934654 Hamas] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=58954613&oldid=58945267 Hezbollah] as "legitimate militant organizations". --TJive 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, who determines whether an organisation is 'legitimate' or not? --Coroebus 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. You can't on the one hand have a category like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations and on the other hand not allow listing organizations in categories indicating that they do have support and are not regarded as terrorist. Also, the category page makes clear the criteria for listing (one or more counries regard the org. as legitimate and you don0t have a UNSC council resolution outlawing it). Count Iblis 19:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:Consider categories of militant groups supported by america, militant groups supported by iran etc. rather than a catch-all category. --Coroebus 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: That's how this category was supposed to be interpreted. I agree that the name may suggest otherwise (it is explained on the cat. page). Thing is that in case of "designated terrorist organizations" above, we are asked to be flexible and to interpret the name as explained on cat. page and not by the broadest interpretation the name suggests, leading to POV problems. Count Iblis 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete violates Wp:NPOV and was created in violation of WP:POINT Isarig 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ultra-strong delete. There is no way to determine legitimacy without violating NPOV. BoojiBoy 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This category does not make sense. Intangible 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: It can make sense when correctly interpreted as explained on the cat. page, just as "designated terror organizations" can make sense. However if it is required that the title should always be interpreted in the broadest possible sense and we should have no tolerance to apparent POV violations even if it is not intended, then the same is true for "designated terror organizations". Count Iblis 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "Legitimate" as is "Designated" (in the above case of "Designated terrorist organizations") is a POV call because just by their nature, militant organizations have supporters (who probably view it as legitimate) and something that they are in strong opposition to (who probably returns the negative sentiment.)
• Strong Delete Category has no value. All orgs consider themselves legitimate so it does nothing but state the obvious. The fact that Hezbollah is considered legit by Iran should be discussed in an article about Hezbollah and/or Iran. Appears that cat was created to make a point related to the cfd of cat DTO above in violation of WP:POINT AndrewRT 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, it was created in violation of WP:POINT in response to the category itself, though the CFD was replaced on the DTO cat precisely because of this CFD, with the same language copied in support of it (I support the deletion of both, however). --TJive 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:: WP:POINT was not violated, because I was serious about the new category. I explained it on the talkpage of the other category yesterday. A category of this type (with a different name) is still necessary. And instead of "designated" we need a name that unambiguously specifies that the US/EU have placed it on the terror list. Count Iblis 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:: And, of course, copying your argument here and pasting it m.m. above was a joke, but it is a valid point. In both cases the Cat. page explains how we should interpret the cat name. If that's not good enough in this case, it isn't for the other Cat. Count Iblis 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Athenaeum 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is not a valid counterpart to Designated terrorist organizations b/c no one legitimate is designating the movements as "legitimate".--M@rēino 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::This is in fact not true. Iran regards Hezbollah as a legitimate militant organization. Their POV that it is legitimate is just as POV as the US position that it is a terrorist organization. The only problem with this category, like the "designated terror org." category is that the name of the category looks POV. In both cases the definition as explained on the category page is clear. Count Iblis 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The accused category is the one to keep. -- max rspct leave a message 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest delete possible Legitimate from whose point of view? This is the POVest category possible. Pecher ^Talk 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was discussion continued as User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion. Conscious 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge all. Overcategorization, especially for a video game. I'd include :Category:The Legend of Zelda Nintendo 64 games in this merge, but it is still under vote for a different merge. I don't understand how the last category of the group is different from the main category. --Vossanova ^o< 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all to :Category:The Legend of Zelda games, per nom. Luna Santin 11:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Note that there are currently several proposals open for "Legend of Zelda" to "The Legend of Zelda" category merges. I want to wait for those to be closed before handling them in the same manner as these. --Vossanova ^o< 14:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I'd suggest a merge, but the category is empty anyway. Vossanova ^o< 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal: :Category:Novel sequences to :Category:Novel series

Revised proposal, part deux. Withdraw proposal to upmerge {{cl|Novel sequences}}; instead create a separate sub-cat of {{cl|Series of books}} : {{cl|Novel series}} or {{cl|Series of novels}}. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Original comment: Redundant; defining the sequence in which books should be read would work better in list format. Plus, sorters cannot seem to agree on what should go in this category. Some discussion on the talk page, but no consensus. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or rename to an all-inclusive category for all connected novels like :Category:Novel series. MakeRocketGoNow 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

::No, please this is just continuing the problem. This SHOULD only be for articles about SERIES or SEQUENCES, not the novel or book articles themselves. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment copied from talk page: "Have we misunderstood the category here (regardless of current description), this would be for articles on the sequences. So the articles are likely to contain the list of what makes up the series / sequence. Also the sequence should not make too much of the intention, just that they can be treated as a sequence. Also I don't think there is much on common parlance to distinguish sequence / series. No individual novel articles should appear here in this catagory. No I don't think the catgeory should be merged. I might support a rename to "Novel series" or "Series of Novels" if others thought this necessary. If we merge it we will have the series of books that make up "The History of the English Speaking Peoples" by Winston Churchill in this the "Dune" sequence, series by Frank Herbert in one enormous :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::Unfortunately, the category is full of individual novel articles. If it should be full of lists, or articles about novel series, then would someone please revise the description for it? (Kevin?) I'll be happy to help move the articles once it's clear what the category's for. Also, how about renaming it :Category:Series of novels to parallel :Category:Series of books? Or the term used a lot in library science, :Category:Novels in series? Thanks. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Comment on :Category:Novels in series I know that is a common term in Libraries but that surely is putting focus back on the individual book. The emphasis should be on the "series". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to a category for novel series like :Category:Novel series. Not per MakeRocketGoNow's suggestion above. Sorry but there it is! The books have a number of categories for them, what we need is this category (or one like it) for the "group" article, what ever we call them. Personally I prefer "series" as that is a more widely used, less loaded term. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::changing vote Keep to Rename as above now we are talking about :Category:Novel series. Nice one Pegship! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Comment: I agree that articles for individual novels should NOT go under :Category:Novel series; the category should be reserved for articles on the series/sequence as a whole. MakeRocketGoNow 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• See revised proposal above, now that the distinction has been clarified. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Comment: I thought this was dealt with 'way back'--see the summation about the 'technical nature of the term' Category talk:Novel sequences#Thankyou_Mr._Darcy; especially the technical link leading to Brittanica. OTOH, Google has only mirror hits and ourselves in pertinent hits, everything else seems to be genetics oriented. Hence I must conclude Mr Darcy was off in some manner, or the technical term is so obscure as to be unknown save to savants and gurus in literature, if unknown to a librarian of renown and puissance like Her Pegship. You see, I'd flagged the fact that the article Novel sequences seemed to disagree with the category definition to Her Pegship's attention[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pegship/2006b#This_more_your_turf] back on the 12th for that self-same collision of definitions, assuming one or the other to be wrong. (Kudos to MakeRocketGoNow for catching and noting that back on the category talk just above the Thankyou Mr. Darcy sub-heading. I missed that somehow.)

::: She apparently decided this category action was a 'smooth move' after looking it over. The original terse category definition read: Groups of novels by the same author intended to be read sequentially. For groups of novels where the order does not matter, see Category:Series of books. (I tried to clarify it back on March 25th, and insofar as I can see, that's what we're looking at now... until Peg changed things on the 19th. Like some others here, I've been remiss in returning to clean out (re-categorize) many of the entries currently there— too many irons in the fire. In any event, I'm concerned whether the contents are in error were the definitions properly reconciled; it looks to me that the whole list needs re-catted, even with respect to Her Pegships redraft of the 'purpose' statements on the 19th. Worse (for me!) the revised proposal is one that obliterates the 1632 series, which is about half-short fiction collections, though I guess not the series article itself. In sum, I'd like to echo two things on the talk: "I'm so confused", and why not delete it (merge with Book series) per the original nom.

::: Lastly, the understanding I had way back was the technical difference was that a 'sequel novel' in a novel sequence did little if anything at all to re-introduce the 'how we got to here', 'what are we doing', 'what's happening in our milieu', and 'who are we' types of background information which a typical series book adds in 'under the radar' as a matter of course to be somewhat 'stand alone'. Books in a novel sequence DO NOT do this, much if at all—they just take off on page one as if it were page 459 following the last chapter of the previous book— the author-publisher expects you to read the works in the order published. End point, but it seems a large one. Lord of the Rings is like that, and note the intro to our article discribing it as a single book, not a series of three (or six if you go with Tolkien's sub-divisions). The prefactory materials in the second two books in the trilogy is sketchy at best... a novel sequence per Mr Darcy. If Pegship is satified that that distiction is satisfied or irrelevant (as in or if WP:NOR by Mr Darcy, who has gone inactive), she has my proxy, my vote is hers to cast. The better proposal was the 'original', imho, if this technical distinction is covered. If it is not, then the category and main article definitions need aligned. I'll be glad to help re-categorize. I already forgot that chore once, so I owe penance! Best regards, // FrankB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Short Comment - on Frank's rather rambling contribution. It took me a long time to work my way through this to and fro to the various references and back. At core I think this is based a on genuine logical distinction between two types of Novel "sets" - one that sensibly can be read seperately and those that cannot. This can be regardless of authorial intention. Also I think that the different semantics of "series" and "sequence" are not clear and the arguement is based on a precieved but not consistant usage between the two terms. IF we made this distinction it would 'never' be clear to everyone. If we needed to keep "Novel sequences" defined this way we should consider "Novel series" as well. In my view of course. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Suggest: Keep Original Name, but Her Pegship still has my proxy. Just found several more examples using the technical term on two entirely different and respected 'vetted' encyclopedia's using the term "Novel sequence" ... re talk page: do consider [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0816429.html 1], and [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0839943.html 2] as well as Mr Darcy's [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-247792?hook=385915 0]. This becomes in that light, a matter of definitions and purpose statements, plus moving things from the category that don't fit. Cheers! // FrankB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yea, verily, I'm not particular about the name of the category. All I want is a clear definition of what it is and what it contains. LOTR fits the narrow description of a novel sequence -- a single story contained in several publications. As for the distinction of other types of novels in a series, (for example), the Amelia Peabody or Brother Cadfael mysteries may be read separately, but they do follow a chronological sequence and provide better understanding of the milieu when read in order. I think there are too few of the LOTR-type works -- the only other one I can think of is Remembrance of Things Past -- to create an antire category for them. The bottom line (yeah, I'm a bottom line kinda gal) is: how is this category (however named) different from {{cl|Series of books}}, and can we nail down a definition clearly enough to allow people to categorize with it? Off to work (to do some cataloging!)...♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::And as I implied above but didn't get as far as spelling out; the other factor which could bring confussion to the definition is that one is for novels and the other for all types of books. If we stick with a version of the "sequence" idea that is being touted then we would ideally need a companion "Novel series" category. both would need clear definition. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:Strong Oppose. "Novel sequence" is an accepted literary term, serving as the standard English translation of the French term roman-fleuve. The fact that some Wikipedians aren't familiar with it is not cause for deletion or for moving it to an inaccurate name ("Novel series" wouldn't cover La Recherche du Temps Perdu or La Comedie Humaine, both of which are novel sequences). As for using technical terms, using technical terminology is totally appropriate in Wikipedia; we don't dumb down chemical or math terms for readers, so why are we trying to dumb down a literary term? What's needed here is a category cleanup or a split into Novel sequences and Novel series, because they're two different things. LotR isn't a novel sequence; it's a series. Proust's works are not a series, but constitute a sequence. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::Accepted by those who accept it - not by everyone. Also you may need to be "very" clear on the distinction as LotR is a series in that it is meaningless read separately, was never meant to be published in seperate volumes and is rarely considered one novel in isolation, but is still a sequence semantically. We need to offer up a clear, unambiguous definition that everyone can understand and work with for this to work. By the way there should be no objection to using technical terms, but only if that is what they really are and there is no dispute over their meaning. If there is such a dispute they actually become unhelpful at best. As people clearly have become confused here (including me at times) should provide some evidence that this is not as easily followed as one might hope. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::Thus, a newer definition for the proposed two categories would be

:::for :Category:Novel sequences Note: This is for articles on

::::novel sequences - which are a set or series of novels which have their own title and free-standing storyline, and can thus be read independently or out of sequence or in sequence.

:::for :Category:Novel series Note: This is for articles on

::::novel series - which are a set or series of novels that should be read in order as is often the case in speculative fiction and all its sub-genres. Can be thought of a one over-riding storyline, and often without plot re-introduction, reiteration or reminder.

::How does that work. Should fit Pegship's revised proposal although with different definitions. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, create :category:Novel series as a separate, new category; and keep :category:Novel sequences, if User:MrDarcy agrees to police it. MakeRocketGoNow 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Thank you again, o Gordian knot cutter. I am revising the proposal AGAIN. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Hokay-and not rambling (yet again-sorry Kevinalewis and all! The years wear, esp. when it's late.). What She says (again! ). Just out of clarification, to see if I understand -- That puts Harry Potter books into new proposed cat 'Novel Series', or am I at sea again? MakeRocketGoNow, don't think it's fair to attempt to elicit a promise someone may not have time to keep. The key is whether something is logical, consistant, 'professional' and maintainable—that devolves on a clear 'mission statement' on the category page as well as the same on possible alternatives with a good see also link or three, not one particular editor's involvement. We all change jobs, life circumstances, and interests as time passes—the salary and perks here aren't all that great so as to expect one to be wedded to the job!

:::I do strongly believe after all this, someone needs to make a clear case on each category and on the top of each category talk (less terse, more examples and perhaps links to such examples as Proust, et. al. like I found) so that this work we did here need not be created (or unnecessarily re-debated) later! // FrankB 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Quite agree on ALL points you raise - happy to help out with the work once we have goahead. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Company with one product in wikipedia, for which the notability isn't that clear either. S.K. 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Undecided on the article, but the category I'm thinking no; I suppose it'd make sense to have a category for, say, Microsoft products (we probably do, somewhere), but I've never heard of Vertabase, and I don't think they have quite that many notable products. Just link from their main article, if they do. Luna Santin 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)