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 to Category:Luminous blue variable stars since variable stars is a grandparent category. Vegaswikian 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The original uses an unnecessarily opaque abbreviation, and the proposed renaming follows that of the associated article. -- Ketil Trout 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Luminous blue variable stars. The average person may not know that these are stars. -- JeffW 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• COMMENT LBV might be opaque, but is it more common as a initialism or spelt out? 132.205.94.75 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom QuizQuick 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per JeffW; variable isn't a noun in common parlance, but star certainly is. -- Cyde↔Weys 03:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Luminous blue variable stars then clear to all (unless they think 'star' is a celebrity) Saga City 12:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- JyriL ^talk 18:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename non astronomers won't understand the abreviation but it is a valid category. Sophia 12:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This category has been superceded by Category:Lists by country. I've already made sure that all the lists in the former category are also included in the latter category. JeffW 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Her Pegship 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant with Category:13 year old wikipedians. SCHZMO ✍ 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete this and all other similar categories How is it useful to group Wikipedians by their exact age? In any case most of these are joke categories, such as Category:2 year old wikipedians and Category:Fetus wikipedians. -- JeffW 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• of course delete all such categories - not only serve no use but impossible to maintain.-- Smerus 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete it and all like categories. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unreliable and may attract paedophiles. Choalbaton 08:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all wikipedians categories. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete it because it's pointless, unmaintainable, and as Choalbaton said, may attract pedophiles. Komlon 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant, Category:School districts in Iowa already exists for this purpose. Private schools do not have school districts, so it would be simpler to categorize all the school district articles under Category:School districts in Iowa. -- Ted 22:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete if I haven't voted already Ted 04:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. 13K, 7D, 5Listify. Vegaswikian 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I propose deleting Category:Entertainers by age upon death and its subcategories: Category:Entertainers who died before age 20, Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 50s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 70s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 80s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 90s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s. This is a union category of age of death with entertainers, which provides very little added value. Should we have this per every occupation? That way leads to madness. I have gone over Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization of people and neither explicitly covers this case, but it does seem to fall under Wikipedia:Trivia (though that is a guideline and not a policy). In addition, these categories group individuals in a way that is not meaningful. A vaudeville star that dies in 1911 at 55 has absolutely nothing of value in common with an actress that dies tomorrow at 59. I wasn't able to find any past CFDs on these categories, but I can't believe that someone else hasn't proposed deletion by now... JRP 18:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. (I believe they've been up for deletion at least twice before, but archiving votes on multiple categories is a tricky business. Hopefully we'll get them this time.) Henry ^Flower 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep All: Per previous unsuccessful deletion attempts. Lots of support for these and lots of people keep them updated. — Wknight94 ( talk) 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep All (This is a great catagory, very informative. -- Josh 20:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as there appears to be a small consensus to keep this category. -- Ted 23:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify and delete The information these categories provide is apparently useful to many, but I think they would be much better suited as list articles. I don't believe it to be encyclopedic to categorize deaths of those of an occupation by their age at death, but it may be encyclopedic for some occupations to have that information contained in list articles on a case by case basis, such as a List of entertainers who died before age 20. Kurieeto 23:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per precedent. 23skidoo 00:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. See no value in these, trivial information. Conscious 05:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all It is perhaps worth noting those who died under say, 40, though probably not by a category. But a category for entertainers who died in their seventies, which will contain tens of thousands of articles one day, is just clutter. Osomec 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep All Important Categories for creating person profiles and keeping statistics. Michael David 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Previous debates are here and here. - TexasAndroid 13:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify. David Kernow 13:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify. At best the trivia of coincidences. Valiantis 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify and delete per
• Kurieeto.-- Smerus 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom

QuizQuick 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Useful and interesting cats. Ckessler 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep makes creating a list unnecessary. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. Choalbaton 08:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all boring, meaningless, and difficult to make comprehensive. Ghosts&empties 21:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify for those who find this stuff enthralling. Sophia 12:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, only really useful for 40s and under (per Osomec), but keeping 20s - 40s entails keeping them all and for me outweighs deleting the lot. However, I'm sure these will be nominated again and again until they finally get deleted. Deizio talk 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep vaguely interesting, lists would be less useful as noone would notice them. Arniep 15:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: It might make sense to rename "Entertainers who died in their x0s" to "People who died in their x0s". However, those categories can get very large and then subcategorization would be necessary. One way to subdivide would be to categorize by occupation, which would involve recreating "Entertainers" categories. Though another solution would be to categorize by people who died at each age in terms of years instead of decades, like the way people are categorized by year and decade of birth and death. Q0 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Interesting idea. This is the type of thing categories were created to organize. MK2 17:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep these are best by categories not lists as I said before when this was up for deletion. Why the same things are targeted again and again for deletion contrary to previous consensus is beyond me -- and soooooo soon after the last go-round. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- BrenDJ 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I guess someone was bound to do it eventually, but don't you think it's a bit unfair that User:Wknight94 would go around notifying the people that agreed with his position only that there was another vote going on? We could just have easily notified everyone who voted delete in the previous polls to come back and vote again, but what would that have accomplished? This is just the kind of nonsense that makes actual debate on a topic irrevelant. We should be ashamed. I hope that no one interprets this one-sidedness as a premature sign of concensus. (Strictly speaking, it's not against the rules... but it's not exactly above-board either.) JRP 12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It's more above-board than nominating for deletion when they've already survived twice. Three nominations within six months smells a lot like you're hoping to sneak one through. If 12 people here all think these categories are a useful piece of information - and they are very well-populated and maintained - and have already survived two deletion attempts, what gives you the idea they should be deleted at all? That's a lot of people disagreeing with your "adding value" argument - and that's just the people I could find to notify. You say these categories would "lead to madness"?! What the heck does that mean?! And your assertion that there's no relationship between ages of death - tell that to the endless number of people that report about similarities between Chris Farley and John Belushi and between Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix. None of those reports would make sense except for the fact that they all died at a similarly untimely age. I'm still trying to figure what offends people about these categories... — Wknight94 ( talk) 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree. I've seen plenty of game playing in the past from people trying to delete something. I've seen the same proposals for deletions made multiple times; I've seen people make fifty different deletion proposals in the space of an hour using a cut and paste nomination; I've seen people reach a "consensus" if one person wants to delete and a second person agrees; I've seen people who propose deleting a list with claims the subject should be a category and then turn around and propose deleting the category, and vice versa; I've seen people knowingly lie about the subject they're trying to delete in order to sway votes; and I've seen people who simply ignore any consensus that doesn't give them the outcome they want and go ahead and delete anyway. I try to give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they honestly believe they're doing the right thing and that the ends justify the means, but the under-handedness is there. MK2 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment There is no ill will meant on my part. I hadn't known they had been up for deleting before and I am not part of some conspiracy to get rid of categories which clearly have a lot of people liking them, but perhaps an equal number of people that don't. Hence, no concensus. All I did was see a category that I don't believe is justified and put it in CFD. I may propose later, since no concensus seems to be reachable, that we change "Entertainers" to something else that more closely follows the other taxonomy for the people categories, but that's just icing. JRP 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It would help if the admins that close the discussion put the results of the discussion on the talk page as I believe the instructions say to do, but it doesn't seem to be done more often than not. -- JeffW 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I'm glad there's no ill will on your part - but I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from implying that there's ill will on my part either. Trying to make sure a CFD doesn't sneak past people that find categories useful is perfectly reasonable IMHO. Finding 12 people that will even vote on a CFD seems pretty unusual so, to me, if 12 people all vote to keep a category, that category should be exempt from CFD for some amount of time. But that's just my opinion. We have categories that have almost no relationships represented - like Category:Armigerous clan with all of two articles - and we have categories related to celebrities - like Category:Relatives of celebrities. I don't understand why people are going after the dead celebrity categories but not other categories like those. If someone has a better naming scheme or a better way to categorize people that have died prematurely, please suggest something. I hate lists because they're almost impossible to find and no one keeps them up to date. — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I apologize if it seemed I was making a veiled accusation against JRP or anyone else in this thread. I came across this particular discussion by happenstance and did not participate in any past discussions on this category. I have never encountered JRP before and have no reason to think his actions are underhanded or that he has done any of the things I mentioned above. MK2 08:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates (NHL) players. Vegaswikian 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

These ought to be merged. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge. jareha ^(comments) 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• MERGE TO Category:NHL Pittsburgh Pirates players 132.205.94.75 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge. The majority of such disambiguator categories put the abbreviated league in parens.-- Mike Selinker 06:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per Mike Selinker. - EurekaLott 09:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 (3R 2K). Syrthiss 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nominated for discussion. Some people have proposed that some of the subcategories to this category, such as Category:Automobile manufacturers of the United Kingdom, be renamed to "Motors manufacturers" in accordance with local language usage. -- Cyde Weys 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Consistency is important. Using local language is fine in individual articles, but when designing a site-wide categorization scheme, we need to be consistent. I think that since all of these categories describe the same thing they should be named in the same way. Additionally, "Motors manufacturers" has the disadvantage that it is rather ambiguous in other regions such as the United States, where when people hear the phrase "motors manufacturers" they're going to be thinking of motors, not cars or automobiles. While the word automobile is somewhat less common in British parlance, it is at least unambiguous. I'd also to like to point out how absurd the logical conclusion of this is. Right now we only have Category:Colors, to which Category:Colours is a redirect. But what if we actually did change the categorization scheme so that it wasn't site-wide, but rather, according to local customs? (Some colors are undeniably British) Right now we simply have Category:Automobile manufacturers by country, which contains categories of the form "Automobile manufacturers of Foo." What happens if we go to the motors manufacturers idea though? Are we going to have a separate category Category:Motors manufacturers by country with a common parent of Category:Automobile manufacturers by spelling customs also containing Category:Automobile manufacturers by country? I should hope not! In summary, site-wide consistency in the organizational scheme is more important than catering to local naming or spelling so long as no ambiguities are introduced, and in this case, I believe I have provided evidence that ambiguities are actually reduced. -- Cyde Weys 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• I suggest moving to Category:Car manufacturers by country. I've lived in the UK most of my life, and to me, motor is ambiguous but probably refers to an engine. However, the term automobile is also vague - does it include motorcycles? Some people think so. Since we have a separate category Category:Motorcycle manufacturers by country, we should make the split clearer. I have no idea what the usage of car/automobile is like outside of the UK/US - can anybody enlighten me? Also, shouldn't that be Category:Motor manufacturers by country? As an aside, I think the colour/color categories don't figure here. We don't have a Category:British colors (and we probably shouldn't), so there's no problem or comparison. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "car" is the usual name in australia and new zealand and proably most of the commonwealth. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Car" was already suggested and dismissed out of hand because these manufacturers are producing a lot more than simply cars - they are producing all manners of vehicles including vans and pick-up trucks, which are all automobiles, but aren't "cars". -- Cyde Weys 04:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • but "automobile" is simply another (unusual) word for car in those countries. no-one in the uk or nz or anywhere like that would think of a lorry or van as an automobile. so whichever one is used youve got the same problem. it would be like having a category "american states" with california, new york and bolivia in it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • What about "vehicle"? Or is that too open? SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • sounds reasonable to me, tho it would mean that the motorcycles one would be a subcat. perhaps "road vehicles" would narrow it down a bit more so that trains boats and planes arent included. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all Commonwealth countries to "Motor manufacturers". There is no excuse for imposing American English, and it would be a clear cut breach of the language policy. Osomec 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as is. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all Commonwealth countries. Choalbaton 08:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Actors aren't categorized by film, are they? Conscious 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete. jareha ^(comments) 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; see also Dracula actors above. Her Pegship 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Its only 1 film not a series. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. good movie, category is bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Category has been replaced by the rugby union and rugby league categories Bob 16:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Will use as a supercategory for rugby union and league logos. -- Bob 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused. Conscious 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty. The broader Category:Trincomalee District contains 3 entries. Conscious 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

These two sockpuppet categories are unused. Conscious 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Why not nominate them as a speedy delete {{ db-catempty}} after waiting a few days to confirm they are not being used? In that case, no discussion is required. Vegaswikian 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strictly speaking, they don't qualify under CSD C1 because they contain some text other than links to parent categories. Conscious 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete per nom. Calsicol 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. jareha ^(comments) 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Think Fast 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 both, please bring the deletion discussion if you feel the need. Syrthiss 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Should be merged to the better named category serving the same purpose. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

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

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 both, please bring the deletion discussion if you feel the need. Syrthiss 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Second item added. Rename both to Category:Wikipedians who support football (soccer) teams to avoid the appearance of giving primacy to American English. Calsicol 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• I've changed the header to match your proposal. Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who support football (soccer) teams. Conscious 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• DELETE as WP is not MySpace, or GeoCities, or a dating service... 132.205.94.75 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as requested, to take account of both British and American English. As for the above comment, we have this sort of thing for other sports, and as football (soccer) is one of the world's most popular sports, this category should stay. Andrew 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Contrary to the category text, {{ User:UBX/The Apprentice}} uses no category. So it's empty. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete - No point in having this category; it's unencyclopedic and it's too narrow to be a useful interest category. -- Cyde Weys 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Think Fast 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Conscious 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty - and duplicates category:Natives of Belfast Saga City 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge Rename both to Category:People of Belfast standardizing on "People from" see May 23 discussion -- William Allen Simpson 09:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A useless duplicate category. User:Dimadick

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. Vegaswikian 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The country is called Papua New Guinea. Papua was just part of the country as the Australian Territory of Papua. Bduke 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. I think this one slipped past people as several categories were renamed at once. The title is quite inappropriate. Papua was the Australian Territory of Papua before WWII. After the war it was administered jointly with the United Nations Mandate of New Guinea (the former German New Guinea). The two territories became independant as Papua New Guinea. To refer to Papua is to refer to only part of PNG. Papua can also be confused with the Indonesian Province of West Papua. -- Bduke 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, per above. jareha ^(comments) 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Papua New Guinean law. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree. I made a mistake in nominating. It should be "law" not "Law". -- Bduke 02:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Bduke, with "law" not "Law". -- Avenue 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Bookandcoffee 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom - in line with recent renames to Papua_New_Guinean_culture and Papua_New_Guinean_music, and current proposal to rename Papuan society to Papua New Guinean society. Wantok 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, everything was moved to Category:Mathematical templates. Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 19:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Only contains the article with the same name. Rename to Category:Lists of documentaries or delete entirely. Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete As it is not very likely lots more lists will be created in the near future. Calsicol 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, for now. jareha ^(comments) 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete' recreate only if and when relevant. gidonb 17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused (contains links to two articles though, possibly it was an effort to categorize them). Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete Category:British barristers is all that is required in this field. Carina22 09:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 08:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 Deleted -- Cyde Weys 16:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. - Only one user used it.-- FlareNUKE 06:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete joke category. Conscious 12:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:United States-themed superheroes to match the actual category contents. - Sean Curtin 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Outriggr 05:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, per nominator. jareha ^(comments) 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom
• Delete per nom
• Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Not a primary classifier for animals. This category can serve no purpose unless the categorization hierarchy is going to include infraphylums. Delete. Outriggr 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. - Sean Curtin 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Conscious 12:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. Vegaswikian 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Useless category that simply repeats the text from the main page, as well as relisting (manually) the pages that can more easily be found from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Help%3AJapanese. The template is useful but there is no need for this category.  freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ  04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is absolutely no useful reason to keep this category. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon jo e} 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. jareha ^(comments) 01:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.  – Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 02:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per nom. --( Bobabobabo 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)) reply
• Keep Delete ... for a second there, I thought it said "template:nihongo"... - Aknorals 17:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 William Allen Simpson. Syrthiss 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Two categories for same area. This one only has two sub cats, the suggested merge target has all of the articles. Leaving a cat redirect might be needed if the merge is approved. Vegaswikian 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose historically, the two were not coterminus so the contents of the categories would differ. Washington is a subcategory. 132.205.94.75 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per previous entry. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • OK, and how does an editor decide on which one to use? Vegaswikian 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Politicians of the District of Columbia with prejudice. Separating the city from the other former villages of the district may be historically correct, but unless you've got some notable politicians to distinguish between (currently the category does not and there's nothing in the Political Graveyard to indicate otherwise), this is just pointless over-categorization. -- William Allen Simpson 16:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support So long as the government of the city of Washington and that of the District of Columbia are one and the same (which I believe they are) then "District of Columbia" is preferrible to Washington, D.C. Keeping "Washington, DC politicians" would be somewhat like "New York, NY politicians," which is ugly. Paul 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 to merge. Conscious 19:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is redundant, as Category:Independent Agencies of the United States Government already exists for the exact same purpose. Paul 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Correct me if I am wrong but it seems as though boards, commissions and committees are different from agencies. I was under the impression that the latter are permanent and the boards etc are not, or mostly are not. They seem to not be crossing eachother as they have different content as well.
• Keep per previous entry. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment "Agency" is a catch-all term for any of the following: board, bureau, commission, department, council, etc etc etc. Boards, commissions and committees are all "agencies," and they are either independent of executive branch departments (in which case they should be categorized as Independent Agencies) or they are within an executive department, in which case such a categorization is unnecessary. Paul 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: It is somewhat redundant. Perhaps the two categories could be merged and the new resulting category be expanded in name. Meanwhile, see my proposed cfr: United States federal agencies → Agencies of the United States government. — Markles 12:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Nomination insufficient? No notice was placed on the category page. There was no {{ cfd}} placed there. The nominator needs to notify category users on the category page itself. The nominator did not sign his/her name on this discussion here. — Markles 12:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge all as proposed by Markles -- William Allen Simpson 16:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Wow, did I goof. Sorry for not signing the nom or putting the CFD tag on the category page (which I coulda sworn that I did)...anywho, Markles is right that it is somewhat redundant. I think a clear explanation of the structure of the U.S. Gov't is necessary (something that, understandably, is difficult to grasp, given that the Gov't itself is a mess, so it isn't a surprise that categories and articles about it get a bit tangled. The U.S. Gov't portal may assist in this clarification; I encourage all to contribute to it.) Paul 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep These boards are seperate from the independent agencies of the Federal Government. Louisiana State University has a list of all Federal Government entities and it lists these as a seperate category. [1] -- Epolk 16:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 (2K, 3M). Conscious 19:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Better accurate name. — Markles 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Washington, D.C. is more likely to be known as Washington, D.C. than as the District of Columbia -- Think Fast 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • So how do you determine which one to use if both are kept? Vegaswikian 17:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose historically, the two were not coterminus so the contents of the categories would differ. Washington is a subcategory. 132.205.94.75 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per previous entry. Lady Aleena 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as proposed -- Congress gave back the rest of the district to Virginia long ago. While it is true that once upon a time Arlington and other villages were inside D.C. those governments were not notable. It's simply over-categorization to distinguish the city of Washington from the broader district itself. That may have made sense 200 years ago, when it could take a day or two to traverse the swamps and streams, but it doesn't now. And abbreviations should be expanded. -- William Allen Simpson 15:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Having two categories for the same area does not seem logical. If both names are commonly used, then do the merge and leave a protected catredir. Vegaswikian 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 Cat redirect. Vegaswikian 19:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty category. Relevant articles are at the correct Category:Esterházy. Olessi 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom -- Zoz (t) 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom unless someone can come up with a compelling category relating to Esterhazy, Saskatchewan. I didn't think so. ;) 23skidoo 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• categoryredirect. - choster 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Convert to redirect per choster. David Kernow 18:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 conensus. Vote was 34K, 25D and 3L so 31K for the cat and 28 to delete the cat. Vegaswikian 19:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

As has been mentioned on its talk page, this category is subjective and can be used as an attack category. Putting someone in this category is a stark outright condemnation, with no room for the subtleties that can be expressed in an article. There is such a difference between the pre- and post-Holocaust eras that it seems to me to be improper to put anyone from the pre-Holocaust era in a category which will automatically equate them with gas chamber operators in the minds of many readers. At present this category is protected, so I cannot tag it. I think this use of protection to prevent amendment to an obviously controversial category is improper and have asked for the protection to be removed. Hawkestone 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Important information

-- kelovy 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete This page should be renamed "List of Nazis and Neo-Nazis" and should be limited to only that. Labeling anyone as antisemetic is a horrible thing. No person should have to endure that kind of shame. It is a hateful thing to categorize a person with a lable that shuns from society or a large group of people. -- Cocopuffberman 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note: Professor Shmuel Almog of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem states, "it is currently established procedure to use 'antisemitism' for all types of Jew-hatred." Antisemitism is "applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but ... to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present." "Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past." [ [2]] Doright 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Conditional Delete I would support keeping the category if fair and consistent standards for all included articles were adopted. Such standards would have to include better sourcing than a single sourced anti-semitic statement. Without such standards, the category does more harm than good. Kasreyn 13:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are people who are notably anti-semitic. Onsmelly 08:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete akin to a category for male chauvinists. Back in the day male chauvinism was OK. Also, prejudice is not a simple thing. My grandfather was racist in some ways and progressive in others. Ghosts&empties 21:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. As there are already categories for Nazism, Anti-semitism and this seems unnessesary and too easy to use as an attack Palendrom 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Crumbsucker 04:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carina22 09:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note previous cfd was no consensus. Syrthiss 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Asking for trouble. Paul 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A powder keg waiting to go off. 23skidoo 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per above. jareha ^(comments) 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename Category:Anti-Semitism (individuals), or split between Category:Anti-Semitism (perpetrators)/ Category:Anti-Semitism (victims). In case it is deleted as a result of this nomination, the articles should be restored back into Category:Anti-Semitism. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest as better renaming 'Anti-Semites', perfectly good Eglish usage and less clumsy than the present name.-- Smerus 09:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep but rename per Humus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I had to think about this a bit. The given reasoning doesn't work for me. [T]his category is subjective and can be used as an attack category -- nothing necessarily subjective about it ("Do reliable sources assert this person hated Jews?"), and that it can be used as an attack category doesn't bother me much; people use Category:Jews as an attack category, big deal. Putting someone in the category isn't a condemnation, it's a statement of fact (see previous sentence). The hyperbole of the gas chamber argument doesn't add anything. So, what good arguments are there for not accurately categorizing haters of Jews as haters of Jews? Discomfort at the identification seems to be the only one. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Well said. Anti-Semitism is a well defined phenomenon. I don't see why Jpgordon's criteria (as per WP:RS) won't work. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Jpgordon, I would also support rename per Humus sapiens. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete As with any category from a nationalist point of view, several of which have been deleted. Osomec 05:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep, per Jpgordon -- Smerus 07:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Doright 08:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Absolutely. If there is evidence to back it up (quotes, actions, affiliations,...) it is very important to history and to current events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 ( talk • contribs)
• Delete as per previous comments and also because, by including individuals from the broad sweep of history, the category is historically ignorant. It is not historically meaningful to describe people from the Middle Ages as anti-semitic; this is a modern-day value judgement. Valiantis 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Valiantis, you're just plain wrong. Antisemitism is "applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but ... to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present."[ [3]] Doright 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - To deal with controversial issues, WP has sound policies such as WP:RS & WP:V. This category is for those who actively persecuted Jews (in any time period). IMO, "historically ignorant" would be to ignore or hide this aspect of history. As for the Middle Ages, Charlemagne, Saladdin, Suleiman the Magnificent and many Popes were tolerant to Jews, so be careful in your "broad sweep of history". ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Just because you provide a quote from a website, it doesn't make it true. This is particularly the case when the argument on the page referred to by Doright is that the correct term is "antisemitism" (without a hyphen) and you are using it to support keeping a category called "Anti-semitic people" with a hyphen!! You can't have anti(-)semites before the concept of anti(-)semitism exists (the word was coined in the mid-19th Century). You might have a category "People who persecuted Jews" but that is a separate issue (and how do you define "persecute"?). This cat makes no reference to the fundamentally different nature of "anti-semitism" at different historical periods, an issue which our article Anti-semitism covers in some considerable depth. I also don't see what the fact that you can name people who were "tolerant to Jews" does to invalidate any of my comments. Valiantis 14:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep As per jpgordon above "Do reliable sources assert this person hated Jews?" GS(v) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify - categories are binary, and should generally be used in clear-cut cases. If we are having to cite sources and discuss extent and context (which in this case we should) then we have list material, not category material. TheGrappler 22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep same reason as above QuizQuick 03:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, Palendrom. -- CTSWyneken 16:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: See these discussions from the Talk:Martin Luther archives as a case study for what happens where there are multiple antisemitism catagories: Anti-Semitic People #1, Antisemitism (People) #1, Anti-Semitic People #2, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitic People #1, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitic People #2, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitic People #3 -- CTSWyneken 16:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In some cases historical persons may be put into this category, but in many cases it has Wikipedia passing judgment on historical persons oblivious of history. Doing so is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.-- Drboisclair 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Osomec. -- StanZegel (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I concur.-- Ptmccain 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Would you suggest we delete a category called "Famous Murderers" ???-- b_calder 01:51, 21 May 2006 (EST)
  • Yes. No cats of people should contain the word "famous"; if they're on WP they are already "notable", the "famous" is superfluous. As to Category:Murderers, this exists and contains people convicted of murder. Antisemitism may be offensive, but it is not necessarily criminal (though people may commit crimes for reasons of antisemitism), so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Valiantis 14:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a legitimate form of category and Jews shouldn't be treated differently. Choalbaton 08:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• KEEP - This category was already voted on Vote and the decision was to KEEP. This +cat was posted for deletion without posting a WP:CFR or mentioning it on the +cats talk page. Just another sneaky trick to try to get it closed without a fair opportunity to vote. Please note, there are a lot of anti-Semites on the Internet that would love to shut this +cat down, they should not be allowed to do so Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship SirIsaacBrock 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  You should consult page histories before making accusations. The cfd notice was removed by an anon vandal (possibly one of the anons taking part in this discussion) and has now been restored by me. As I linked above, previous discussion was no consensus not, keep. Syrthiss 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete That is just silly. Miskin 10:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Jpgordon. I would like to add that Wikipediawise this a very important category, as some Antisemites became notable mainly or even exclusively for their antisemitimitic views or activities. gidonb 11:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would prefer antisemites (and antisemitism) as category names. gidonb 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep very useful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.48.249.78 ( talk • contribs) .
• Listify per TheGrappler. Avenue 13:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Karimarie 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- many persons notable for their anti-semitism. No harder to patrol than any other information. Would prefer persons or individuals in the name. -- William Allen Simpson 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep; antisemitism is a historically important phenomenon, and pertinence in the category can be ascertained with no more difficulty than most others. I wouldn't object to renaming, though. Taragüí  @ 17:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, no objections to renaming, criteria for inclusion should be clear. May need sub-categories to make distinctions. Still, there are figures (Hitler, Karl Lueger, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, George Lincoln Rockwell) where their anti-Semitism is politically defining, and it is a valid category. - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as per Hawkestone. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 18:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep w/comment - I really don't like these lists since they seem bound for problems and contraversy. WHO defines the category and who decides on final inclusion?? That being said, I would rather leave lists/articles/information in question rather than delete them (unless of course we run out of server space :) ). I also find that a list like this shows which persons have an agenda in here. Martin Luther is a nice example about the debate on whether to include him or not. WHY is it SO important that he be included or excluded from this list?? Again, I don't like "labeling" people unless we are 110% certain that the label fits. If there is MAJOR differences of opinion/facts than the person should NOT be included in the list in question, IMHO. -- Tom 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep again GabrielF 21:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I note that SirIsaacBrock has been adding comments to the user pages of people who voted 'keep' on this last time telling them to vote 'Keep' again. Anyone who voted 'Delete' or otherwise hasn't been given the info. I'd assume that would make the result very inaccurate. Icey 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Comment Is this against policy? If so, would you cite it for us? -- CTSWyneken 19:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Spamming talk pages to bias a discussion has been considered disruption in at least one ArbCom case, to my knowledge. Spamming talk pages and not telling people what to vote is not as disruptive (ie just pointing out that the discussion exists). I'll see if I can find the relevant arbcom if you need further support. Syrthiss 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Thanks! I think we should be sure that our guideline and policy pages reflect the ArbCom decision, if they do not do so already. -- CTSWyneken 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  How about WP:CON where it says "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus." It doesn't directly address CFD discussions, but I think the principle of finding consensus and this not being a vote apply. -- JeffW 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. "Through persistence, numbers, and organization"? Emphasis on numbers. I was under the impression that one of the chief ingredients in consensus is a majority. You seem to be opposing either majority consensus, or wikipedians using quasi-political means, such as talk page canvassing, in order to get votes on issues. But I can't see what's wrong with that. If "well-meaning" editors are "overwhelmed" by numbers, then that's what in democratic terms we call losing the vote. Well-meaning is also a subjective description which is impossible to meaningfully include in a Wikipedia policy. Unless Arbcom feels that voting should be more or less restricted to people who regularly edit the page in question - but how can you make that judgement? Hell, I only have cat:anti-semitism on my watch page and only check it once a week. Does that make me "good enough" an editor to vote? This line of reasoning leads to a very dangerous place, if you ask me. Kasreyn 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Ok, I've just re-read WP:CON and WP:Voting_is_evil (which I disagree with strongly). But neither of them seem to apply; we're already voting, so we've already broken them. It seems to apply those policies to this, we would have to simply cancel this vote. In any case, I have a hard time understanding why the policy considers voting to be non-dialectic... I've never in my life seen a community of people so eager to share their opinions in a dialectic manner as there is here. Just look at all the commentaries on this vote alone! Kasreyn 08:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  You are mistaken; this is not a vote. The admins who close the debate are supposed to look at more than the numbers, they also look at whether the arguments align with wikipedia guidelines and policies and they are allowed to give more weight to long time contributors. The idea is to come to a consensus, with people on each side actually listening to the arguments from the other side and allowing themselves to be swayed by those arguements. If each side remains locked into their positions then no consensus is likely to be the result. -- JeffW 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  I agree with Kasreyn. One of the points behind wikipedia is that we work together as a community. We can do this, as Kasreyn points out, quite effectively. If an issue comes up on which several editors have expressed interest, why not go out of the way to invite them? The result will be, if consensus is reached, a true one, and one less likely to end in debate, or worse, edit warring. -- CTSWyneken 11:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  I believe that is ok. The problem is when you only invite people to the debate who you know or strongly suspect will support your side. If your going to invite people invite both sides (and I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just stating what I believe the rules are). -- JeffW 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Ahh, I get it now. I had been under the misconception that the end result would be a simple tally of keeps and deletes. I'm actually a bit relieved to learn it's not. And yes, I can see the danger of inviting only the likeminded - it carries the danger of dividing an issue into two close-minded camps, and then discussion will bog down into nothing but a yelling match with neither side listening to the other. Kind of like American politics. :P Here's an idea: would having a link on your own userpage, asking anyone who visits your page to weigh in on the Cfd - without asking for a specific response - be acceptable? After all, you can't control who may visit your userpage, so not everyone who follows your link will necessarily agree with you. Kasreyn 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Just one quick point re Kasreyn's thoughts above. Even if a vote is solicited in favor of a position, that is no guarantee that people seeing the user page will vote in accordance with that request. -- Mantanmoreland 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Incorrect 21:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Sir Humus - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify per TheGrappler. Hbackman 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per jpgordon and Jmabel. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per jpgordon and Jmabel. Also, what the heck was Ghosts&empties talking about with the "male chauvanists" and his grandpa being racist and progressive at the same time. To me, that sounds like an complete fallacy and a lie. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per all the above reasons, no use rationalizing it away. IZAK
• Keep but perhaps define more clearly. Anti-Semitism is really an ideology, not just a form of hatred; perhaps this category would be on sounder grounds if it were explicitly defined with that fact in mind.-- Pharos 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Very Strong Delete. This is so obviously POV name for a category, it's like naming a category Communist Oppressors, or Capitalist Pigs. Whether or not someone was an anti-semite is not an objective judgment and frequently involves disputes, so the name of this category is in clear violation of the non-negotiable policy WP:NPOV. At least rename it to something objective, like Category:Alleged anti-semites. Loom91 08:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. A fair number of historical figures have been quite openly anti-Semitic, and would not view the characterization as pejorative anymore than a Communist would the simple term "Communist" or a Capitalist the simple term "Capitalist". It is my understanding that this category is intended for such figures, not ambiguous cases.-- Pharos 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Reply Well, I wouldn't be against the category if the criteria for inclusion were "self-described anti-semites". Is this what you're suggesting? It's applying the labels to others by subjective (translation: made up) standards that I object to. Kasreyn 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Reply to Reply Wouldn't it be better to discuss this kind of thing in the category's talk page. I thought this vote had concluded.-- Mantanmoreland 16:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep maybe there should be a separate category for self-confirmed antisemites? for the rest, you have folks like David Irving where a reliable third party, i.e. the trial judge, declared him to be antisemitic, vs. people somebody might argue with, like antiZionists etc. The problem of historical antisemitism leading to a huge category though... from the NYTimes book report the other week "saying a gentile Austrian in (1820? 1920?) was antisemitic is like saying a white Mississippian in (1820? 1920?) was a racist". how to handle? Gzuckier 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • True, when an entire culture is anti-semitic is it noteworthy for an individual to be anti-semitic? Isn't this going to include to a huge number of historic figures? Should it be limited to modern anti-semites? -- JeffW 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. If we have antisemitism as a cat, then we should have antimuslim, antichristian, antiblank, antiwhite etc too. __earth ^{( Talk)} 14:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment to Comment Perhaps you should take two minutes to do some research before you post misleading comments to a vote. There are many +cats Category:Neo-Nazis Category:White nationalists Category:White supremacist groups in the United States Category:Ku Klux Klan members Category:German neo-Nazis Category:Italian neofascists Category:Neo-fascists Category:Anti-Arabism Category:Anti-Polonism Category:Segregationists and the list goes on and on. Kapeesh?! SirIsaacBrock 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep useful category and most of the people in it wouldn't find the categorization either controversial or objectionable. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Huh? Check the list, most of them are dead and can't provide an opinion any more. Kasreyn 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Kbdank71 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete While some individuals clearly fall under the category there will be countless edit wars over this on others. Categories such as Category:Neo-Nazis or Category:White nationalists are not problematic because those individuals identify themselves as such.-- Eupator 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. What if we changed this to Category:Ideologues of Anti-Semitism so that it was restricted to figues actually significant to the historical development of modern Anti-Semitism?-- Pharos 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Reply to Comment I think catagory Anti-Semitism serves that purpose already. -- CTSWyneken 20:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strongest Possible Delete per nom, or Listify as per above, and: a category like this is unencyclopedic. First, we cannot know that someone is an anti-semite, we can only know when they have expressed an opinion or taken an action consistent with anti-semitism. Second, people change throughout their lives; people can hold or act on beliefs at one point in their lives then repudiate them later. Bringing us to the comment about hard-core, lifelong anti-semites; where do we draw the line? How many years, public denouncements, actions against Jews, Judaism, or Zionism, before someone gets to be on the list? Who decides? I would support a list of people who have verifiably demonstrated anti-semitic opinions or actions, but with a more neutral and verifiable title than just 'Anti-semites'.-- Anchoress 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Reply to Comment Hear hear. Down with subjectivism. Kasreyn 08:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete same as above Michak 23:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is essential to history our society today. There is enough research and evidence (statements, remarks, actions, affiliations, etc.) for all articles listed. Definitely keep. Shamir1 03:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete Subjective and vague -- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep To say that the category is "subjective" as in the nom is to say that the term "anti-Semitic" is "subjective." Of course any adjective or label is "subjective" to some extent. However, to just blithely remove this category on this grounds would render meaningless not just the term but also all terminology relating to hate. -- Mantanmoreland 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per all the above. -- DLand ^TALK 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. so you don't think that pre-Holocaust anti-Semits should be equated with post-Holocaust ones? --  tasc  ^talk _deeds 08:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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