Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 29: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:18, 30 July 2007 editLAz17 (talk \| contribs)6,728 edits →Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:30, 30 July 2007 edit undoProveIt (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users55,408 edits →July 29: no moreNext edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Thank you for your cooperation.		Thank you for your cooperation.
	-->		-->
	==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
	<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->		<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->

Revision as of 03:30, 30 July 2007

< July 28	July 30 >

July 29

Category:Forgotten Corner of Cornwall

Category:Forgotten Corner of Cornwall - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete This term is just a tourism marketing slogan for part of Cornwall. Wimstead 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think the article is acceptable, and references use of the term, albeit mostly from tourism publicity, but a category is a step too far. Johnbod 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from St Helier

Category:People from St Helier - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category no longer has any pages within it. RichardColgate 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep and repopulate It's empty because you emptied it immediately before making this nomination. Such attempts to preempt discussions on this page are very bad form. Wimstead 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment was part of extensive sub-categorisation of Category: People from Jersey have now sub categorised by religion, educational establishment and profession, peviously this was one of only four sub cats. Is was never really relevant as nearly all people born in Jersey are born in St Helier since that is where the maternity hospital is.RichardColgate 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maya Master

Category:Maya Master - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: "Award" created solely to promote award-giver's products Maya by promoting award-giver's users of said product. Comparable to 7 Up giving an award for 'best 7-Up consumer'. Seattlenow 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - also may be some COI and autobio issues involved. --Orange Mike 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete No article on this award, and only two winners anyway, so category not needed. Johnbod 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Big-bust models and performers

Category:Big-bust models and performers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete this category has arbitrary inclusion criteria akin to the Category:Men with unusually large penis, except here there's not even a guidance as to what chest measurement or cup size is the standard that must be met. It's trivial and not really encyclopedic - we do have a list, which can capture the, ahem, various dimensions and source them, the category is otherwise superfluous. An upmerge may be ok, if we're sure that all these models and performers are really of the "adult model" genre. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is apparently the 3rd go around for this cat: first debate resulting in deletion; it was re-created, a circumstance not discussed or considered at its second debate that reached no consensus. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Epbr123 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Ebyabe 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the inclusion criteria have nothing to do with measurement. They're "This is a list of women known for modeling or performing in big-bust entertainment." You're mis-reading the title. --AnonEMouse 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- What is the distinction between models in big-bust entertainment and models with big-busts? How does Kelly Brook fulfil the criteria, for example? Epbr123 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Big-bust is a genre of erotic films and magazines, in the same way that Bondage pornography, or Altporn, or Big Beautiful Woman is a genre. It is typified by pornographic magazines such as Busty Beauties, Juggs, and Score, and the erotic but not (at least not always) pornographic films of director Russ Meyer (see Russ_Meyer#Big_breast_fixation.2C_or_the_Meyer_physical_archetype, and books such as Meyer, Russ (2000). A Clean Breast : The Life and Loves of Russ Meyer. El Rio, TX: Hauck Pub Co. ISBN 0-9621797-2-8. , Woods, Paul A. (2004). The Very Breast of Russ Meyer. London: Plexus Publishing. ISBN 0859653099). Canonical examples of models and actresses who specialize in this genre are Minka (porn star), Maxi Mounds, Ashley Juggs, Tawny Peaks, Kayla Kleevage, Chelsea Charms, others - you will notice from visiting our articles that they appear in features based on breast size fetishism, and often even choose their stage names based on breast euphemisms. To answer the distinction question, Dolly Parton is probably the canonical example of an actress with a big bust who does not appear in big bust entertainment. I can't speak for Kelly Brook -- it's a category, anyone can add entries to the category incorrectly, that's not a call for deletion of the category, any more that someone putting an incorrect statement in an article is a call for deletion of the article. --AnonEMouse 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    - There are at least 30 articles in the category which don't match that criteria. It does appear as though the category is being used for any model with a big-bust. The criteria for inclusion in the category should at least be made clearer. Epbr123 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I knew this would show up here today, right after the penises...KEEP - for all the same reasons it was kept the last time. This is not a category for performers with large breasts. It is a category for performers within the specific big bust genre. Otto4711 19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- How is the specific big bust genre defined? Epbr123 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  - By examples and consensus of experts in the field. That's the only way genres are ever defined. For example, there is usually a consensus that there is such a thing as horror films, and science fiction literature, and in each case there are canonical examples that everyone agrees typify each, and a pattern that others follow. This is one of those categories, except these are performers that tend to specialize in this genre, so specific parallels would be Category:Horror film directors and Category:Science fiction writers. Please see my comment above for specific examples and more. --AnonEMouse 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- True it is not named Category:Big-busted models and performers, but the current name is ambiguous. If this is for the genre that is clearly defined, then maybe a different name? Vegaswikian 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I fail to see how having had plastic surgery is grounds for notablityRichardColgate 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Otto & AnonEMouse above, noting with slight surprise Otto's respect for genre boundaries here, when he has so often been completely dismissive of much better-established ones in other debates. But there we go. Johnbod 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, by all means make this about me. Otto4711 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Epbr123, and RichardColgate (plastic surgery, lol. good one, RC.) 72.76.78.127 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Misspelled article titles

Merge into Category:Redirects from misspellings, since it should only contain redirects. Misspelled articles should just be renamed, not added to this category. -- Prove It 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge - per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge - per nom. RichardColgate 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category: Information economics

I'm nominating Category:Information economics for deletion. The category only has one article in it besides the main article; and the main article is misleadingly and confusingly named, per the comments at Talk:Information economics. Jeremy Tobacman 12:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges in Abia State

Suggest merging Category:Universities and colleges in Abia State to Category:Universities and colleges in Nigeria

Nominator's rationale: Merge, this category and similar ones are too small so this is over categorization. Bduke 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Include also all other state categories in Nigeria:

Merge as nominator. Most of these categories contain only one entry and the largest number is 4. They are never likley to get much larger. Bduke 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge all to Category:Universities and colleges in Nigeria per nom. The total number of colleges isn't large enough to justify this many subcats. If there were hundreds of colleges, dividing them by state would make sense. -- Prove It 13:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Men with unusually large penis

Category:Men with unusually large penis - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: I speedy deleted this category but I think I was wrong to and per the creator's request I have undeleted it and am nominating it for deletion. I believe this is overcategorisation in that it contains an arbitrary inclusion criterion ("men with penis size over 8 inches"), is trivia, and the title ("unusually large") is probably POV. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 11:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as arbitrary inclusion standards and also WP:V issues. Otto4711 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Having created this category in conjunction with the section Human penis size#Men famous for their large penis, I would like to explain my action. First, I'll mention that that section has also met resistance from another user who has removed it twice. The discussion at Talk:Human penis size will provide my rationale and, I think, will elucidate the problems which AnemoneProjectors sees with the current nominated category.

Phallic worship has been a strong motivating factor, albeit mostly unconsciously, in human cultures always. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages does not have a good article on this despite many books available to source it. So far the topic of penile largeness and everything associated with it, has been left unattended and obviously unsupervised, relegated to the discretion of arbitrary contributors to articles on male porn stars. This has led to the discrepancies and sometimes, I'm sure, unreliable claims upon which this category is based. However, I would urge the community to see the category (as well as the above mentioned article section) as starting points for a much needed work of harmonizing criteria and applying quality control to these articles. Deleting the category (and article section) will diffuse attention once again, removing a strong incentive for the needed clean-up.

I set an "arbitrary" inclusion limit, however, it can be changed following discussion. This should not constitute reason for deletion. Such a discussion may lead to more "scientific" and neutral criteria, i.e. setting the limit based upon an average of the known numbers set for the mean size of of a human penis (discussed in detail in the article Human penis size) and a given percentage above that, perhaps leading to a renaming of the category at that time. I would encourage editors to see this as a work in progress and allow time for needed discussions and clean-up, and see if the situation becomes acceptable when this has taken place. If then, this part of Misplaced Pages still is as messy as it is currently, we can delete then. __meco 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no standard for "unusually large" that is objective. Whatever size you set is going to be arbitrary. Otto4711 12:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There may always be a murky border area, however, I at least do not think that should be prohibitive for having such a category. I also think it would be considered very helpful for people investigating the subject of penis size which should weigh in more than the presented problem of setting a limit. __meco 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, or at the very least Rename to Category:Men with an unusually large penis. I think this subject is more suitable for a well referenced article, rather than a category. -- Prove It 13:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

'Keep but refocus to Men famous for a large penis. There really are a number of people for whom this was an important, or even the most important, characteristic of their notability: John Holmes, Ron Jeremy, Long Dong Silver (from the Clarence Thomas#Anita Hill controversy), etc. That also removes any issues of verifiable measurement or arbitrary limit - we don't care how long the member actually is, just that it got Misplaced Pages:verifiable notoriety as being long. On the other hand, though, this will exclude people who happen to have unusual measurements but aren't particularly notable for them. For example, most male pornographic actors assert above average dimensions, but we don't want to make this a copy of Category:Male porn stars, so I would remove, for example, Mike Branson, Rex Chandler, etc. --AnonEMouse 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Otto4711. 72.76.85.187 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Think this would be better as a list, not a category. Then it could be more accurately sourced. Porn star "measurements" seem to rarely be reliable, being part of the mystique that sells their movies. Most of the measurements in articles currently should be deleted anyway, due to not being verified. But that's another issue... -Ebyabe 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per WP:V issues. I'm also uncertain if the criteria of 8 inches truly counts as a point over which a penis counts as "unusually large"; with the average according to human penis size saying 5 to 6 inches, my gut says more like 9 inches or above counts as unusual. If it turns there are votes to keep (which seem unlikely at this point), then I would rather it be kept under AnonEMouse's suggestion of keep but refocus than just a straight keep. Tabercil 16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable and therefore a vanity vandalism magnet. -- But|seriously|folks 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Epbr123 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable non-defining trivia. Abberley2 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and I'm going to nominate Category:Big-bust models and performers the female category with similarly vague criteria. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95

Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is a nonsenical offensive POV, the same category was already two times (speedy) deleted and now the same vandal using his sockpuppets creates it again. No.13 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. First, prior speedy deletion does not bar re-creation of a category, especially when at least one of the speedies was because another editor intentionally emptied it out. Second, Misplaced Pages is a worldwide encyclopedia maintained by people with diverse backgrounds. This category apparently relates to a regional dispute, so you need to explain why you think it is a nonsensical offensive POV. (Please try to do so matter-of-factly so this CfD discussion does not turn into a mirror of the regional dispute itself.) Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks 16:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a regional dispute, this one person enforcing his nationalist crap over everyone. The so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina was an illegal entity unrecognized by anyone, basically it was occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia. Recently with the confirmed indictments to Milan Martić and before him Milan Babić, it was also confirmed that this illegal occupation was part of the joint criminal enterprise between these men and some others. Basically this quasi state was formed on genocide and ethnic cleansing of these mentioned cities and villages. This is not only ridiculous category because it goes against the rules but it is also highly offensive to any decent citizen in Croatia (regardless of their ethnicity), or anywhere else for that matter. There is absolutly no value or point in having this category as it doesn't belong neither to geographic nor historical subject that would matter, they are only highly offensive nationalist propaganda. --No.13 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, the problem might be solved with a name change to something like "Towns Formerly Claimed by RSK 1991-95". Whether the assertion of dominion over these towns was legitimate or not, it appears to be a historical fact that somebody tried to create such a place. The existence of this category does not per se validate the purported creation of the geopolitical subdivision. We should however strive for a category name that is acceptable to both sides. -- But|seriously|folks 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And of what value would that be? Thats like creating a category "Towns previously owned by Nazi Germany". As you can see it's ridiculous. Sorry but we cannot strive for compromise here because that is simpy impossible. This category is highly offensive, provocative and has absolutly no use or value. I don't see a reason for it's existance and frankly the fact the other two admins who deleted it two times before that speaks for itself, not to mention it is creating by highly disruptive user as I have shown you on your talk page. --No.13 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW lets put the fact that this entity was illegal and created on ethnic cleansing and genocide (confirmed by several indiciments from ICTY also proving joing criminal enterprise by leadership of this quasi state). This has absolutly no sense. Under which social category would this fall? Geography? There is no such thing as region of "Republic of Serbian Krajina". Political? This illegal entity ceased to exist 12 years ago. Historical? This is not a category about history but about illegal political entity. So where is the rationale for this category? There isn't any, it's pure nonsense. --No.13 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to previous debates please? Johnbod 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth does the formation of RSK have anything to do with this? Since people bring up ethnic cleansing, they fail to mention that it was the Croatian who started it, in Western Slavonia in the Summer of 1991. The Serbian reaction was a natural consequence of the Croatian actions such as : cleansing them out of western slavonia, glorifying the nazi ustashe movement (which committed genocide on them - Serbian Genocide, and a new constitution that downgraded them to second class citizens. (LAz17 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

Keep - You seem to be pushing an occupation theory. Most occupation theorits on Misplaced Pages are single purpose accounts engaged in hate speech. From your comments so far, it seems likely that you too are a WP:SPA. If so, please go away. + Restore articles/towns in category. -- Petri Krohn 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete All towns in this area have been included in many political entities in their time - over 10 if they go back to the early middle ages. None of the other former states have "towns in .." categories of this sort. A list would be ok, but this is WP:OCAT. Johnbod 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I strongly feel that this should be kept. The whole RSK and things associated with RSK, have had major influence and impact on the making of Croatia, and this region is unique and had a unique border. Furthermore, places in this region are distinctly different from that of the rest of Croatia. First off, there is still a big presence of serbs, unlike in the rest of the country, the place is much poorer, and the infrastructure is underdeveloped (much being in ruins and not likely to be repaired in the near future). (LAz17 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

Incorporations

Nominator's rationale: See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 26#Category:Incorporations by year where it was agreed that the distinction between incorporation and establishment was not really needed. Tim! 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Tim and pervious discussion. ×Meegs 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Tim! and nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Soviet propagandists

Category:Soviet propagandists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The category is very POV. People who are propaganists according to some are genuine writers, journalists, politicians according to the others. The way the creator put people in the categories seems to be arbitrary. Why e.g. Konstantin Chernenko is here but Joseph Stalin or Leonid Brzhnev not? Why Vladimir Mayakovsky is here and Demyan Bedny is not? Alex Bakharev 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - again POV Onnaghar (Talk) 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. KNewman 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A loaded term. --Ghirla 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Johnbod 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Russian propagandists

Category:Russian propagandists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The category is very POV. People who are propaganists according to some are genuine writers, journalists, politicians according to the others Alex Bakharev 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - many people have different viewpoints. A debate would occur. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. KNewman 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A loaded term. --Ghirla 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete wildly POV category. Johnbod 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users with BLOCKPROOF

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rogue speedy delete to the max. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users with BLOCKPROOF - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Pointless vanity Category Q 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.