Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

November 25[edit]

Category:Twelve labours of Herakles[edit]

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 rename per nom. "Let's at least match the name of the lead article" is the main argument here. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Twelve labours of Herakles to Category:Labours of Hercules

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article Labours of Hercules. "Herakles" is a redirect to Heracles. Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In accordance with what one would normally expect. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ~~I think Hercules was Herakles once,~~ In fact both Hercules and Heracles exist, about the same guy in Roman and Greek myth, but the labours should be Hercules regardless in my view. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match main article and per the "best known as" convention of article category naming. Note 46,000 non-WP ghits for "Labours of Hercules" but only 2,680 non-WP ghits for "Labours of Herakles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The members aren't "labours", they're people and creatures which may have been associated with one or more of the labours. (Compare to Category:Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove.) The category is also miscategorised under Category:Cultural lists. If kept, I oppose renaming at this time. I think that this needs to be standardised with a broader discussion. Though I think the main debate is over Hercules vs. Heracles (the two article names), I note that there seem to be a scattering of "names". The main article was The Twelve Labours (which sidesteps the question), but was renamed per a move request at Talk:Labours_of_Hercules#Requested_move. There's also a nav template called Template:Twelve tasks of Hercules, but has a navbar stating: The Twelve Labours of Herakles. What fun. : ) - jc37 09:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
partial support. Rename to Hercules or Heracles per WP:GREEK, but keep the number. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's the common name in English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, per WP:GREEK, it should probably be Heracles. The trouble is that this is actually the example for ambiguity. If the two have separate articles (as they are apparently at least slightly different characters), does anyone know if perhaps we'll get lucky and one of the versions didn't perform the labours? - jc37 08:33, 30 November 2007 (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 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:Chinese thought[edit]

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 No consensus to Merge - Though no prejudice against disussing cleanup options (such as to "culture", noted below) and then renominating. - jc37 08:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Chinese thought to Category:Chinese philosophy

Nominator's rationale: Merge or just reorganize? At the moment each category is given as a subcat of the other. The text describing the scope of Category:Chinese thought (which was created first) seems to restrict it to philosophy. On the other hand, there's a case for keeping C. thought & making C. philosophy a subcategory. For comparison's sake, there's a Category:Indian philosophy but no Category:Indian thought) Dsp13 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the nominated merge, as the category contains sub-cats on Chinese science, religion & literature, so "C philosophy" is too narrow. But there is a problem - I understand the intention of the category, but I'm not sure this is actually a helpful sub-grouping under Category:Chinese culture. I don't think we have other "thought" categories, & I'm leaning to a merge to the culture category. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are clearly articles in here, such as Chinese literature, Chinese martial arts, that fit into this catogory appropriately, but not into philosophy. But perhaps chinese culture would be better. DGG (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (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 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:Elementary schools in Palos Verdes[edit]

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 delete, empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Elementary schools in California, convention of Category:Elementary schools in California. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elementary schools are generaly not notable. Are any of these? If not Delete both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, some are notable at the state level, but nothing for this district. All the articles were redirected to the school district since they made no attempt at asserting any form of notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 26 November 2007 (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 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:Articles related to Alice Nine[edit]

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 Delete - already split/empty. - jc37 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, divide between Category:Alice Nine albums and Category:Alice Nine songs. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Note Split appears to have been done. Categ should now be deleted as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (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 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:Deaths from Parkinson's disease[edit]

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 No consensus - jc37 08:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease to Category:Deaths with Parkinson's disease

Nominator's rationale: Nobody dies from it; some people die from complications arising from it. In any event, those who "died from" need to be addde to "People with" ... - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maybe it's me, but that doesn't read right/make sense. I wouldn't say, for example, that Mr Smith died with Parkinson's, but rather he died from it. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he didn't. Nobody does. It is not a cause of death. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most of those people wouldn't have had the complications if they hadn't had PD. JFW | T@lk 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ Merge to Category:People with Parkinson's disease or delete as non-defining (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_6#Category:People_with_diabetes). If Parkinson's itself is not fatal then it should not serve as a death from category. If no actual cause of death is determined then the articles shouldn't be categorized by cause of death. At best it could be Category:Deaths from complications of Parkinson's disease but that may require original research to determine if the Parkinson's was actually a contributing factor and so should probably be avoided. Oppose the rename as somewhat nonsensical and squarely out of naming guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category:People with Parkinson's disease. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!vote modified. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep. Nobody "dies from" a lot of things that we claim they do. Really, it all just depends on how far up or down the chain of causation you go. There are very specific biomedical causes of death, then there are the things that caused the actual biomedical cause, then there are the things that caused that, and so on, and so on. The key in creating a reasonable category is not to go too far up or down the chain of causation. Example: people who die from a heart attack brought on by overexertion. We don't have a category for "Deaths from overexertion" (very far up the chain), nor do we have a category for "Deaths from lack of oxygen to heart tissue" (very far down the chain), but we do have Category:Deaths by myocardial infarction, which seems like a reasonable point along the chain. To insist on categories like this exactly reflecting biomedical processes far down the chain of causation may seem a bit pedantic to the average reader and editor. Snocrates 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In reply to Snocrates. It also depends on how tight the chain of causation is. If your heart stops and stays stopped, you will die, pronto. If cancer takes over your body, you will die as some crucial organ ceases to function. But with Parkinson's the chain of causation seem rather loose, so I'm leaning towards a "delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

That is true that the "tightness" would be a factor to consider also. Snocrates 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dislike most of these "death by ..." categories, which have all sorts of problems like those discussed above, and are not used for historical articles - I'm still waiting for Category:Deaths from imbalance of the humours and Category:Bled to death by doctors, which would cover most French Bourbon royals. Except for nice clear cases like Category:Deaths by decapitation and deaths from Crushing by elephant, they should go. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. In the Early modern period, these things were much simpler: non-violent and non-accidental deaths were usually described as being from either apoplexy (a sudden death) or gout (a slow decline). Crushing by elephant was not particularly widespread at the time, and decapitation could be avoided a by wise choice of husband.
  But in general, I agree that most of these deaths-from-X categories should go. Even in contemporary obituaries, cause of death is usually described in a manner little changed from the early modern period, commonly using phrases such as "died suddenly", "died after a short illness" or "died after a long illness". When the precise cause of death is so often omitted in obituaries of a few hundred words, it's hard to justify it as a defining attribute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems a nonsensical and/or contentious category: proof is likely to be hard to find, if available at all. Vizjim (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nomination. Keep the original Category. deaths "with" just reads all wrong in my opinion. Sting_au Talk 12:36, 29 November 2007 (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 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:Vocal duets[edit]

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 No consensus for rename - jc37 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vocal duets to Category:Vocal duets and collaborations

Nominator's rationale: I am proposing that this category be re-named so that it can be all-inclusive for all songs featuring multiple artists together, and not just duets (e.g. Tracy Lawrence, Tim McGraw, and Kenny Chesney on "Find Out Who Your Friends Are"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A duet is a particular form of collaboration, with its own rhythms and traditions, particularly wrt duets between a man and a woman. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per, um, whoever's comment is above mine (no name in sig?) and in the absense of a discussion of the wider Category:Duets structure. Otto4711 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it was me. Sig now added --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per both, although the category is dubious, most entries seem, like It's All Coming Back to Me Now to be "songs that have been recorded as duets" (or "with dual lead vocals") which is not the same thing at all. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl's rationale; Otto4711 and Johnbod also both have valid points. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2007 (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 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:Filipino Catholics[edit]

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 merge Category:Filipino Catholics to Category:Filipino Roman Catholics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Filipino Roman Catholics, convention of Category:Roman Catholics by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One should not assume that people categorized as Catholics are Roman Catholics. From Religion in the Philippines, I see at least one group (Eastern Orthodox) that identifies as Catholic but is not Roman Catholic. Maralia (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Othodox certainly do not identify as Catholic! I expect you are thinking of Eastern Catholics. These people are categorised as Roman Catholics, so barring the usual mistakes, presumably that is what they are. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Catholic lists quite a few groups that identify with the term that are most decidedly not Roman Catholic—including Eastern Orthodox. Maralia (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a theological technicality, to do with the Four Marks of the Church. The Othodox, unlike some Anglicans, certainly do not use "Catholic" in normal language as a self-descriptor, and it is confusing people to suggest they do. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely saw a slew of articles categorized as 'x' proposed for recat as 'x + qualifier' and thought "hm, is that wise without further evaluation?". I don't consider myself an expert on the distinction between Catholic and Roman Catholic, so I visited Catholic and saw many other presumably valid applications of the term. The one I mentioned above was given as an example to demonstrate this. I don't wish to argue technicalities of the appellations used by various churches; I merely point out that the article Catholic outlines much broader use of the term, so it may be fallacious to assume that a Catholic is a Roman Catholic. I have no eggs in this basket, and I'm certainly not trying to 'confuse people'. Maralia (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be a worry in the Philippines; it might be in Ukraine. The Papal coat-of-arms on the category page suggests so. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unnecessary. These "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" categories aren't very meaningful religious categories, what do these people really have in common? They consider themselves (Roman) Catholic? They were baptized and didn't file the paper work to quit the church? Is this really distinguishing in countries like the Philippines that are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic? no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - They are necessary, considering that 10% of the Phillipenes is Muslim and because, as long as its done under WP:BLP noting a person's religion is a-ok.Baka man 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Soman (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, for consistency. I see that category:Fijian Catholics and category:Korean Catholics need to follow suit; can they be nominated as speedy renames, referring to this discussion? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2007 (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 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:Middle schools in Palos Verdes[edit]

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 merge. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Middle schools in California, convention of Category:Middle schools in the United States... there's only three of these. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2007 (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 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:Tri-City Valleycats alumni[edit]

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 rename (already done).--Mike Selinker 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tri-City Valleycats alumni to Category:Tri-City ValleyCats alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename: Mispelled team name. JB 82^c 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty and express confusion as to why baseball players are being categorized as "alumni" rather than as "players." Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 25 November 2007 (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 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:Charmed characters[edit]

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 Rename Category:Charmed characters to Category:Charmed (TV series) characters. - jc37 08:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Charmed characters to Category:Charmed (TV series) characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - name is ambiguous. Clarfying that it refers to characters from the TV show and not fictional characters who have themselves been charmed. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Disney characters by medium[edit]

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 No consensus - It looks like this nom has expanded to several subcategories. (Which themselves aren't tagged for discussion.) Please feel free to relist/renominate based on the discussion below. - jc37 08:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: These categories were created some time ago to help keep the parent category, Category:Disney characters free of clutter. Unfortunately this does not seem to have worked, and the categories remain largely unused. I suggest a rename in order to expand the scope of the categories, in order to properly partition the parent cat. In particular, I suggest renaming to keep in line with the more popular Category:Disney comics characters, although a simple omission of the word "originating" in each case would also be acceptable. -- Supermorff (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the entire group... I'm tempted to say upmerge television, film, and comics up and distribute to the various "family", franchise, and project subs. As they stand there is a lot of miss steps:
- Donald Duck in the base, comics, and Donald Duck universe/family cats. Similar for for other keynote characters.
- Various characters not getting removed from the parent when they exist in one of the subs.
- Licensed characters getting tagged in.

Beyond that, the "originating in" does seem to be there for a purpose. The cats seem to be limited to characters that first appeared in either film or television, not every character to appear that way. - J Greb (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But the cats aren't limited to those characters first appearing in film and television (see Baloo and King Louie as a subcat of Category:TaleSpin characters for example, or have a look at Category:Disney's Aladdin characters in which most of the articles are about characters from the TV series but not the films). I admit that I don't know if my suggestion is the best solution, but clearly the system isn't working properly at present. -- Supermorff (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - True... and that brings up a whole 'nother can-o-worms with the Disney cats: Disney has had a track record of characters "jumping" shows/films.
    It may be that the entire schema needs to be re-worked from the ground up. Maybe the "Characters from show/film/franchise" being moved to direct subs of Category:Disney characters and eliminating a character from the parent if it resides in one of more of the subs. Eliminate the intermediary steps entirely. - J Greb (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That makes sense. -- Supermorff (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (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 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:Episode articles not asserting notability[edit]

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 delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was created to serve a now failed proposal on how to deal with episode articles. The template that was used to populate this article no longer exists. In addition, the category is not really useful for entire articles on an entire season (how episode articles should be dealt with), because they are only listed by the name of the episode, with no reference to the show from which it is from. I (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tim! (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2007 (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 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:Domain-specific languages[edit]

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 merge.--Mike Selinker 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Domain-specific languages to Category:Domain-specific programming languages

Nominator's rationale: The distinction between the two categories is unclear at best. The defining statement at Category:Domain-specific languages even mentions specifically that it is for "programming". –Henning Makholm 03:53, 25 November 2007 (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 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[edit]

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 rename. However, this is not precedential toward Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, which is about actions taken against those of Muslim faith. As Itaqallah notes below, there's a reasonable difference between criticism and prejudice.--Mike Selinker 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-Islam to Category:Criticism of Islam

Nominator's rationale: Labeleling something or someone as "anti-Islam" is completely POV; calling living individuals such may in fact be libelous. The proposed new name is in line with the category's parent cat, Criticism of religion, and even fits the subcategories better (such as "Critics of Islam" etc.) VanTucky ^talk 02:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the same can be said for Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, which was recently renamed from "Islamophobia" and kept. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that that particular cat would be ripe for merging with Criticism of Islam, if the renmae goes through. VanTucky ^talk 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- a rename of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment may not be appropriate. not all negative expressions against Islam can be termed "criticism" (e.g. Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment). many of the organisations listed in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment which have wrote on Islamophobia and prejudice/discrimination againtst Islam and Muslims (Runnymede Trust, EUMC) simply would not fit in Category:Criticism of Islam. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming Current name is definately in conflict with our NOR and NPOV policies. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per nom. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom 152.30.5.1
Support, but not for the reasons stated. This one seems to be trying to be a subset of Category:Criticism of religion so should just be criticism for sensibility sake. However "Anti" categories are not disallowed in themselves as of yet. See Category:Anti-communism, Category:Anti-Gnosticism, and Category:Anti-Hinduism. And by the same token, yes, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. I get that Islam is "different" and that they're "all crazy" or whatever. However I think some of us are policing that category enough that living people are rarely in it and when they are they're often just researchers of the issue. (Or in a few cases people imprisoned for violent hate crimes on Muslims)--T. Anthony (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The idea that the cat has been policed enough seems false to me. I just removed Sam Harris from it as I made this nomination. VanTucky ^talk 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He must have been on for like a minute because I check it regularly.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Anti-Islam appears to be redundant in the light of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. as said above, not all Anti-Islam views can be classed as criticism, so any entries within the renamed category would require re-examining. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - deletion would be better but failing that a more NPOV name should be used.--Boreas 21:40, 29 November 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.