The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Purge biographies -- They should either be in a subcategory or not in at all. If a person regularly cross-dresses as a chosen lifestyle, it may be legitimate to put them in a category for that. Equally actors who regularly take parts requiring that. However male comics who play pantomine dames should not appear as that is a mere PERF category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia sign-up lists for subscription delivery
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Signature songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted once before over
10 years ago. Because consensus can change, I'm bringing this relatively recent recreation to CfD. Previous arguments point to the subjectivity of one's signature song with I believe some confuse with biggest hit (which can also be subjective). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Petroleum companies by year of disestablishment
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
But Diamond, iron ore, gold, silver companies aren't energy companies. They are a non-renewable resource company. This point was raised first
[2] by another editor. Not all non-renewable resource companies are energy companies. Besides if you looked closely oil companies are categorized both energy and non-renewable.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?10:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I made a mistake with that petroleum category. Mistaken edits by me aren't uncommon and I fix them if I discover them (or after being notified
[3] by another editor) and usually with a edit summary of 'Oops' like here
[4]. Trout slap me for the petroleum edit if you want. I deserve it. Cheers!
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?12:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional medieval people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose -- One of the people is clearly Asian. The problem is that the category is misparented. If anything the subject should be a child of the target, not vice versa. However much of the content needs moving to the target, which is more specific.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:HK LegCo Members 2020–2024
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:HK LegCo Members 2016–2020
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Laura Dzhugeliya
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:College athletic coaches in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Islamophobic publications
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - I would not oppose this category as a matter of principle but I note that the categories are populated by articles that do not have Islamopohobia as a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename but purge --
category:Anti-Islam publications. Some of the content relates to publications that are specifically and mainly ant-Islam. Others (such as
Chick tract) are specifically promoting something else and have on occasions taken a swipe at Islam; another was a Hindutva publication promoting Hinduism and the ideology of BJP and its RSS militant affiliate. Where an organisation's main objective is to oppose Islam, it should be categorised as such; where it is about promoting another ideology, it should not be.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - The category serves important purpose for readers to know such publications which are self declared anti to a particular religion or community. This serves better purpose.
Penandpencil2021 (
talk)
09:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm not sure exactly what I said previously, but since WP is not censored, and covers negative and unpleasant topics, it has to organize them appropriately.I think that categorization of topics such as these is essential to our users, and can be done unambiguously for the obvious cases. , Of course, the categories should not be applied when it is not fully justified by excellent sources and explained in the WP article--and when it's a significant characteristic of the publication. But making these decisions is the same for all categorization. Of the ones listed in this group, most of them clearly qualify, while a few are incidental or just general far right wing. DGG (
talk )
08:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete it remains my opinion. I think we have to look at the larger picture here. Yes you can have a publication that is Islamophobic, and neutral sources saying so. OK fine for some given individual case. The problem is, it doesn't scale. It's a constant headache to monitor stuff like this, and a damaging thing to ever get wrong, and an attractive nuisance for more-heat-than-light arguments about this fraught subject.
What's the purpose of a category? Mainly (not only, but mainly) so that readers can quickly find a list of closely-related articles. So, when a reader goes to this category page, is she looking of a list of Islamophobic publications, or a list of what various Wikipedia editors at various times and with various justifications using various interpretations of what sources are truly "neutral" or "have standing" (that is, sufficiently important for the reader to be notified of what they say), and (occasionally, sadly) various agendas, have elected to put in that category.
And after all, even if Time magazine calls a publication Islamophobic, it's still just their opinion. It's different then when Time states the publication's street address. And nobody's going to argue that Time is biased for or against Islam regarding the street address. For stuff like this, they sometimes will.
We don't have this problem with most categories.
Category:Airplane crashes for instance. It either crashed or didn't. Sure, lots of categories have questions at the margins -- does
USS Alaska (CB-1) belong in
Category:Battlecruisers? It's debated. But in or out, including it can't unjustly insult and damage the reputation of the Alaska. It doesn't care. Being unjustly (or marginally, debatably unjustly) accused of Islamophobia is different. It is potentially libelous, actually.
Sure, we lose a little bit of value by not using this category or others like it. It's worth it not to make headaches for other editors and just have a generally annoying running sore, to my mind. And... I mean, it'd be a disservice to the reader to include the Alaska in
Category:Battlecruisers, but not that huge a deal. But falsely informing her that a publican is Islamophobic when that's debatable... that's a problem.
Comment - As I recognize that my opinion is counter to the RfC on the policy in general, I will not bold a !vote here, and leave this as a comment instead. I still believe that "bias categories" should be allowable for people and organizations that have been explicitly described as such in multiple reliable sources (and if they haven't been described as such in multiple reliable sources, then the article should be immediately removed from the category, as per any unsourced "fact", and also per BLP policy). This is not current wikipedia policy, which is frustrating to me. Per current wikipedia policy, I guess the category must be deleted, but I don't agree with it.
Fieari (
talk)
03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Sadly, "then the article should be immediately removed from the category" doesn't mean "then the article will be immediately removed from the category". That's the rub.
Herostratus (
talk)
06:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
My argument still remains as follows: Say that someone adds a bias category to an article, but no one notices it to remove it. Under the policy, nothing happens, because no one has noticed. Then someone notices it! Under the policy, it's removed immediately, but under how I think it should be done, it can be critically examined at this point and argued for or against. Before someone notices it, however, there's utterly no difference between the policy and not having the policy... noticing it is a prerequisite for ANY action, whether that be summary removal or otherwise.
Fieari (
talk)
07:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Islamophobic publications are very much a real phenomenon (though obvious that Western/Eurocentric types wish to deny the existence of such) and should not be denied. We do not deny the Holocaust or the fact that Holocaust denial publications and websites exist. Why is there always a double standard when it comes to Islam and Muslims? Denial of the existence of Islamophobia is wrong and as the phenomenon of publications advocating for violence and genocide against Muslims is real and cannot be denied, we should absolutely maintain this and similar categories.
Laval (
talk)
10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge if necessary. Sorry for !voting so late after I was tagged, going through the articles included I think this category is at least partially valid.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
18:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anti-Islam political parties in Europe
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep but purge -- Some of the parties categorised are specifically pro-Christian, in the sense of promoting the traditional values of a country. Unless the part is specifically anti-Islam and says so, it should not appear in the category. I found an Australian party that was pro-Australian values; and a Korean one that was merely ultra-nationalist, with noting being said of what it was against: South Korea is strongly Christian, but the traditional religion is Buddhist.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep with the same careful judgment as for other similar categories. The RfC �was 11 years ago, and it cannot be assumed to still have the same consensus. We've gotten better at handling these topics since then. (or is it just that such organizations are now more prominent and clearer about their purposes, and therefore can be categorized more accurately. ) DGG (
talk )
08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Copied from similar CfD above, Comment - As I recognize that my opinion is counter to the RfC on the policy in general, I will not bold a !vote here, and leave this as a comment instead. I still believe that "bias categories" should be allowable for people and organizations that have been explicitly described as such in multiple reliable sources (and if they haven't been described as such in multiple reliable sources, then the article should be immediately removed from the category, as per any unsourced "fact", and also per BLP policy). This is not current wikipedia policy, which is frustrating to me. Per current wikipedia policy, I guess the category must be deleted, but I don't agree with it.
Fieari (
talk)
03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anti-Catholic publications
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a category that must be necessarily empty: [[
As per wikipedia consensus (apparently, but no one upholds it) you are not allowed to categorise people, groups or media as "anti-catholic" yet this is a category for exactly this. Either this category needs to be deleted or we re-evaluate the consensus. --
Mvbaron (
talk)
12:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
No, it’s based on the widespread descriptions of virtually all categories of this sort, which links to a discussion from 2011.
Mvbaron (
talk)
05:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
KeepAnti-Catholicism is a properly defined viewpoint and groups such as the Ku Klux Klan made anti-catholicism a core piece of their ideology at one time. Whatever the previous consensus, these categories should be kept as defining. If we need to prune it to remove unrelated articles, then that is a different situation.--
User:Namiba11:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
An RFC related to these categories can be found
here.
Delete - Name-calling is not a good use of Categories, neither useful nor pragmatic and just seems slimy. Limit such categories to be it's defining behaviours or events and not as subjective judgements put by WP on people or organizations. Have content in their article text, as supporteable, but do not insert them into categories that oppose
WP:BLPSTYLE or
WP:LABEL. There was the
2011 discussion of bias labels and individual one
Individaul discussion of Category:Homophobia - and nothing seems changed as to this being a bad thing to do. Delete the sub-categories specific to labelling activists, publications, and organizations. Cheers
Markbassett (
talk)
03:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge -- Some of the articles are not specifically about antagonism to Catholics, but to ethnic or other groups who happen to be Catholic. Thus I find among the content a group that was anti-Ukrainian (but also persecuted Pentecostals) and an American one opposed to Irish immigration to America at the time of the potato famine. In both cases the underlying basis is ethnic, not religious. This similarly applies to loyalist (or Orange) organisations in the Northern Ireland troubles. There is a genuine place for these categories, but principally where the distinction really is theological, not ethnic/community.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Will ping RFC participants who haven't expressed an opinion yet, per discussion with Tavix. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
JehochmanTalk01:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. with the same careful judgment as for other similar categories. If we cover thre topics, we need to organize them. The RfC was 11 years ago, and it cannot be assumed to still have the same consensus. We've gotten better at handling these topics since then. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Copied from similar CfD above, Comment - As I recognize that my opinion is counter to the RfC on the policy in general, I will not bold a !vote here, and leave this as a comment instead. I still believe that "bias categories" should be allowable for people and organizations that have been explicitly described as such in multiple reliable sources (and if they haven't been described as such in multiple reliable sources, then the article should be immediately removed from the category, as per any unsourced "fact", and also per BLP policy). This is not current wikipedia policy, which is frustrating to me. Per current wikipedia policy, I guess the category must be deleted, but I don't agree with it.
Fieari (
talk)
03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.