Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4[edit]

Category:After War[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: rename both. — ξxplicit 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the previous Cosmic Era and Correct Century/After Colony/Future Century nominations and in keeping with WP:WAF were we should maintain an out-of-universe perspective, categories should be named after the name of the respective series instead of the fictional time lines the series are set in. A previous renaming nomination bundled with Category:Universal Century resulted in a no consensus do to opposition to the renaming of the UC cats. —Farix (t | c) 23:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what on earth is this about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that "After War" refers to a particular period of time (an era) in the fictional Gundam universe timeline, and the plot of After War Gundam X, which is an actual work of fiction, is set in the "After War" era of the fictional timeline. The purpose of this nomination is to adjust the criteria for categorisation from "topics associated with the "After War" era in the fictional Gundam timeline" (in-universe) to "topics associated with After War Gundam X, the work of fiction" (out-of-universe). If I've understood correctly, then rename per nom. If not, then I'm afraid that I have no idea. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename per Black Falcon's very helpful explanation. I do wonder whether it is a really appropriate to have so much material on a TV series that it needs multiple sub-categories, but that's a matter for AFD, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, cleanup on these and the (at one time) hundreds of other Gundam-related articles have been ongoing for years, and there are actually very few articles remaining, compared to what there once was (that's not to say the work is almost done; there's still plenty of merging, deleting, sourcing, and general cleanup to do). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - the nomination wasn't entirely clear (not really the nom's fault; he just spent a bit too much time explaining the background without clearly covering the details of his nomination), but Black Falcon's explanation was spot-on. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames From in-universe terminology to an out-universe one. Black Falcon's explanation is correct. --KrebMarkt 16:18, 8 December 2009 (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:MALE UAVs[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MALE UAVs to Category:Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance unmanned aerial vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Yea, its a mouth full, but the abbreviations are gone. I'm not sure what needs to stay as caps given that the title for the Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance uses all caps. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to expand abbreviation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. While the new name might be a mouthful, it makes sense to anyone, unlike the current name. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Female UAV's? Then I for one do not wish to be an UAV either! Debresser (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2009 (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:Wiccan people[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wiccan people to Category:Wiccans
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to follow the pattern of Category:People by religion of using Fooians (the only other ones are where the name of adherents is ambiguous with the name of the religion. Wiccans is not ambiguous). A holdover from a time when we prefered Fooian people. Mairi (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. No connection with Wiccipedians? Debresser (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some Wikipedians are also Wiccipedians. Blessed be :) Grutness...wha? 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Wiccans is at least as precise as Wiccan People, and more succint. Josephus (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match standard of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2009 (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:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category created as part of a spree of questionable BLP-violating categorization of politicians. There is no evidence that ANY of the people added to this category when it was created were actually in the category, which questions the very basis for its creation. See [1] for more background. Jayron32 20:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this category, I strongly object to the wording in this deletion proposal. This is a valid category (see citations below), not "created as part of a spree of questionable BLP-violating categorization of politicians." I have requested that the editor remove these unfair and inappropriate mischaracterizations. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong and speedy delete: Clearly a BLP nightmare. – ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this category has been emptied, making it harder to judge (and given the BLP nature of it, that emptying was likely appropriate), the link Jayron32 provided shows that little to no support was given for the categorization of the BLP to the category. Given the potentially controversial nature of the Family and BLP guidelines, Delete Eastshire (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and add link The category provided no information about what the Family is or a link to any article about it, however one exists: The Fellowship (Christian organization). I don't think there is necessarily a BLP problem here because the group does exit and these people are widely reported to be members. Of course, additions to the category should be required to contain a source. Specifically addressing the nominator's points, adding articles to a new category—a "spree"—is natural after creation of a new category, and the most if not all of these people are listed and sourced at the article I mentioned. However, the name is unnecessarily long: "Members of the Fellowship" would be sufficient. -Rrius (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply for violating BLP with conspiracy theories. Fences&Windows 22:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What conspiracy? The group exists, and many members are known. What's more, the fact of their membership has been reported in reliable sources. Please explain. -Rrius (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comments at Talk:The Fellowship (Christian organization). The sources all say things like "reportedly attended a prayer meeting" or "allegedly met with members of..." There is literally almost NO connection where someone either self-identifies or is there any source which is a membership list released by the organization itself. Its ALL the sort of "unnamed sources" stuff, coupled with some serious novel synthesis of ideas (since when does attending a meeting make someone a MEMBER of an organization, much less being "reported to have attended meetings"...) This sort of stuff is not concrete verification of anything. --Jayron32 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contents can only ever be speculative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where membership has been reported, as it has for many members of Congress, how can it be speculation? -Rrius (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Membership has NOT been reported for members of congress. Members of congress have "allegedly attended" some "meetings" according to every source I have checked at the article. There are almost no concrete statements in any of these sources which states unequivocally that any member of congress is an actual member... --Jayron32 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A quick check of Google News and using my own recollection of members appearing on television months ago tell me that you're wrong. -Rrius (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not only is it a pure BLP violation, which in cases like this means until and unless we have the individuals asserting their membership themselves, but I don't even see my real name there yet. ;) John Carter (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially defamatory. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 03:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a BLP minefield. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important category. The membership of the politicians included in the Category as been widely reported in the media -- see the citations provided in The Fellowship (Christian organization)#List of prominent Family members. Partial sources:
  • Terry Gross (November 24, 2009). "The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'". Fresh Air from WHYY. The legislator that introduced the bill [imposing the death penalty on Ugandan homosexuals], a guy named David Bahati, is a member of the Family, appears to be a core member of the Family, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfasts, and oversees an African student leadership program.
  • Ruth Gledhill (November 29, 2009). "Archbishop of Canterbury in 'intensive' efforts to combat Ugandan anti-gay death law". The Times. David Bahati, the Ugandan MP who introduced the legislation, is reported to be a member of The Family, The Children of God, The Family International, The Fellowship.
  • Sharlet, Jeff (2008). The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. HarperCollins. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-06-055979-3.
  • Mooney, Alexander (July 17, 2009). "A third 'C Street' Republican embroiled in sex scandal". CNN. Retrieved July 20, 2009.
  • Belz, Emily (August 29, 2009). "All in the Family". World Magazine. Retrieved August 14, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Here is the list of prominent members of the Family listed in WP:CITE sources available at The Fellowship (Christian organization)#List of prominent Family members:
Certainly this category meets Wikipedia's criteria for relevant and necessary categories. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A category is not a list. A list can include references, but a category cannot, which is why there are many situations where a list is acceptable but a category will be rapidly deleted. This is particularly important with controversial BLP issues, such as this one. (see also Wikipedia:CLS#Disadvantages_of_categories, esp item 8). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I recall a category similar to this being deleted once before due to issues that have been raised by supporters of deletion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reasons listed appear to have no bearing on the inclusion of highly relevant and widely reported factual associations in biographies. Blanket assertions of "Blatant BLP violation" or "BLP nightmare" without explanation are simply not valid arguments for deleting facts reported in numerous reliable sources. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Zerschmettert die Schändliche, you misunderstand what is happening here. This CFD will not delete any facts from articles, because CfD does not decide on the content of articles. If an article says that "X was reportedly a member of the Fellowship", then this CFD discussion cannot decide to remove that statement.
    What is being proposed here is simply removing a category which lists the alleged membership of this group, because unlike lists or articles, categories cannot be referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete: To the category's creator: the problem I see is not so much with your source but rather with the fact that category-pages cannot be referenced. With such a contentious claim, I would want to see an inline-ref right after said claim in every instance. As you have noticed for yourself, that cannot be done with categories. To me, that is the main difference between this category and, say, "Mammal" or "born in 1948", which obviously aren't subject to BLP-issues. In addition, I would like to see you establish a consensus on the talk page of each and every article you add your claim to. Your massive and sweeping single purpose account-campaign, the fact that you piped every entry as [[The Fellowship (Christian organization)|the Family also known as the Fellowship]] (rather than the article's actual title), and the ensuing borderline edit wars did not really help your cause. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now leaning towards rename: I guess what ticked most people off in the first place was the unusual name (which could also be interpreted as incorporating a certain POV) as well as the piped link to the main article I mentioned above. While I am still not entirely convinced that any such category is essential, I also do not think it will hurt to have it. Of course, as with any category, which articles will be categorized as such will have to determined on a case-by-case basis -- and that better be damn well-sourced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comment below. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it can be referenced in the article, that reference is sufficient to cover the category. -Rrius (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, although membership in secret societies is not specifically mentioned in WP:BLPCAT, I believe that would likely qualify as requiring that the reference would require self-identification as a "member" of the family. I very, very seriously question whether virtually anyone who was included in the category has publicly self-identified as a "member" of the Family. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. --John (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major BLP issue. Also note that Zerschmettet has been edit warring over the inclusion of information about politicians' supposed membership on Dan Quayle and Richard Lugar, at least. Reywas92Talk 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename The name is a little unusual, but he has actual source which appear to back up the comments he makes within articles about their membership. Also, He qualifies all of these statements within the articles by commenting on who makes this claim for any given politicians membership. The category is simply extra reinforcement of this statement. SADADS (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. SADADS, your comments illustrate brilliantly why a category is inappropriate for this sort of topic. You say that the text "qualifies all of these statements within the articles by commenting on who makes this claim" .... ut the problem is that a category permits of no such qualification. Categories offer a binary choice: either an article is in a category, or it is not. No qualification, no nuances; it's in or it's out.
      The final clincher is your claim that the "category is simply extra reinforcement of this statement". Quite apart from the fact that categories exist to aid navigation, not reinforce content, your assertion that you want the category to "reinforce" statements which you acknowledge need to be qualified goes to the heart of how the category creates BLP problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that is it doubtful that they are members? NO not within the context of apparently reputable sources. If people have doubt why the particular individual is a member of the category, that can clearly see it in the articles. This category aid navigation undoubtedly, what everyone is arguing over is if the members of the category really belong. SADADS (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As discussed below, you would do well another look at those sources, because those sources repeatedly use nuanced and qualified terminology. They describe someone as "affiliated to" the Fellowship (wonderfully vague), or "referred to as a member" (which is reporting someone else's conclusion rather than supporting it).
          This not just a matter of arguong over whether "the members of the category really belong". It's more fundamental than that: it's about whethar there are any cases at all where reliable sources state withut qualification or WP:WEASEL words that somone is a member of this group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CANVASSING alert: this CfD is the subject of canvassing by Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk · contribs). See these edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp, I've noticed that as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. My request for input is completely neutral. Here it is in full.
Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia
It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please back up you claims explaining how this promotes any particular outcome. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CANVASS. Selective notification is not acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any potential BLP problems can be dealt with the way we deal with everything else, requiring solid sources, just like we always do. A lot of hyperbole here I think. Don't care for the name at all, though, so I think a rename should be the next step should this cat not be deleted. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. My request for input is completely neutral. Here it is in full.
Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia
It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please back up you claims explaining how this promotes any particular outcome. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing at ZdS's edits, it appears he notified recent editors at the article The Family on all sides of various disputes there. This seems completely fair. Involved editors have every right to participate in a deletion debate and discussions here are not well-publicized so I don't know how I would have known about it otherwise. I would object most strenuously to any suggestion that I was prompted to !vote in a certain way or that my !vote should me discounted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I offered to support him before this discussion because I knew the topic was fringe and receiving some friction on other pages and requires inclusion, even if it is a rarely discussed topic.SADADS (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the end of the day, we can reference a claim in an article. We can not do the same with a category- checking references would require checking each and every article placed in the category. If someone wants to maintain such a list of members, do it as a list where in-line citations can be used- and will have to be used if you want it to survive AfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fully agree that inclusion of any individual in this category should meet all the standard of reliable sources and for living persons, WP:BLP. To address the questions raised above about the factual support for asserted membership in the Family, here are a few representative citations that I have included in the invidual's pages. For complete citations, simply look at the diffs on my contributions. Here are the facts (the ref syntax is somewhat mangled for inclusion here, on the page, it has the nice hyperlinked structure).
List of citations
He is a member of the Family also known as the Fellowship, described by prominent evangelical Christians as one of the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organizations in the US. Belz, Emily (August 29, 2009). "All in the Family". World Magazine. Retrieved August 14, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Sharlet, Jeff (2008). The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. HarperCollins. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-06-055979-3.
According to journalist Jeff Sharlet, he is a member of the Family also known as the Fellowship, described by prominent evangelical Christians as one of the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organizations in the US. Sharlet, Jeff (2008). The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. HarperCollins. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-06-055979-3.
According to journalist Jeff Sharlet, Bahati is a core member of the Family also known as the Fellowship, described by prominent evangelical Christians as one of the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organizations in the US. Sharlet, Jeff (2008). The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-055979-3. Terry Gross (November 24, 2009). "The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'". Fresh Air from WHYY. The legislator that introduced the bill [imposing the death penalty on Ugandan homosexuals], a guy named David Bahati, is a member of the Family, appears to be a core member of the Family, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfasts, and oversees an African student leadership program. Ruth Gledhill (November 29, 2009). "Archbishop of Canterbury in 'intensive' efforts to combat Ugandan anti-gay death law". The Times. David Bahati, the Ugandan MP who introduced the legislation, is reported to be a member of The Family, The Children of God, The Family International, The Fellowship.
He is a member of the Family also known as the Fellowship, described by prominent evangelical Christians as one of the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organizations in the US. Mooney, Alexander (July 17, 2009). "A third 'C Street' Republican embroiled in sex scandal". CNN. Retrieved July 20, 2009.
And so on. In fact, on many of the pages, the individual's membership in the Family is already well-cited. Given these facts, it is simply absurd not to acknlowledge the participation of some people in the Family. So long as it can be properly cited, members of the Family belong in the category of members of members of the Family. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could see the utility of a Category:The Fellowship, which does not yet exist, which could include articles relating to individuals apparently officially associated with the group, related activities, and a List of individuals associated with the Fellowship. Unfortunately, the very real question as to whether all these individuals are "members" (particularly without a clear indication of what the terms of "membership" are), is, like I and others have said repeatedly, a BLP minefield. And the fact that the individual has chosen to create the existing problematic category with a name different from that of the article itself, which also is, probably, a bit more "sinister"-sounding to those not familiar with it, does not enhance his arguments. There is also the question as to how important their alleged "membership" is to each of these individuals. I note that we do not have an existing category for members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and that causes me to seriously question whether there is any reason for this similar category. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:The Fellowship (Christian organization)-- The main article is called The Fellowship (Christian organization). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus building: Delete or rename per Peterkingiron. Having read the debate, those are my opinions based on debate above. Hiding T 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - agree with John Carter that the secretive, often loosely structured nature of this organization renders the term "member" imprecise. Support JC's suggestion of renaming category to List of individuals associated with the Fellowship. Facts strongly support that the Fellowship exists and has particular public figures associated with it. BLP does not block IMO. BLP rule for well known public figures applies, which says that facts should be sourced. Understandable that politicians will not want to be associated with this group to preserve the secrecy of the group and because of recent negative press. Apposite BLP example and direction re publishing undesired facts re public figures and politicians: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." Full disclosure: I was canvassed, though not sure why this matters on this particular issue which cuts in many different, unpredictable directions.Likesausages (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus building: rename. The suggestion to rename the category to the same name as the related article, The Fellowship (Christian organization), makes a lot of sense, and I'll support a rename if there's consensus for this. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Rename as discussion has progressed.SADADS (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In some way, this proposed renaming will make the category even worse. Omitting the "members of" from the category makes it appear that individuals listed there are more than more members, but central figures; yet despite the apparent certainty offered by the categorisation, it seems that none of the people placed in this category have confirmed their membership. In the case of Tom Coburn, the article merely asserts that he is "affiliated with" the Fellowship (WP:WEASEL if if ever I saw it!), and rents a room in its building. Neither of those two assertions, nor both of them together, is the same thing as "membership", and while Likesausages is right to say that "membership" is probably not an appropriate term for a shadowy group such as this, that's a very poor argument for using an even stronger form of classification. Likesausages is correct to note that WP:BLP does not block including this sort of material so long as the facts asserted are sourced.
    That's crucial, because in the text of an article it is possible to use as many words as are necessary to convey to the readers the precise limits of what is being claimed. So I have no problem with a reliably-soured sentence in an article conveying what conclusions have been reported by a particular source, nor with several paragraphs conveying all the nuances reported by different sources. The problem comes in setting some arbitrary and undisclosed threshold for what degree of alleged "affiliation" qualifies for entry in the category.
    Proponents of this category still seem to suffering from the mistaken assumption that deleting the category will mean deleting the sourced material from the article, but that's not the case: thie issue is solely whether a category is an appropriate tool for organising the sourced material in the articles concerned ... and WP:BLPCAT is explit on the subject: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met: 1) The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; 2) The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.". Criterion 2 is clearly met, but criterion 1 is clearly not met, so this category violates WP:BLPCAT.
    Deleting the category will still allow the articles to be linked from one to another, and as I write there are only 4 articles in the category. Organizing 4 articles does not require a category, so why exactly are the category's proponents so keen to breach WP:BLPCAT? And precisely what arbitrary degree of alleged "affiliation" do they propose as a threshold for inclusion?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Should this category prevail, the creators intend to include ll articles list above (see "List follows" collapsible box) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Do not agree with conclusions of BrownHairedGirl, though agree with many points raised. OCAT:Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation provides "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." IMO US politicians who are associated with a secretive religious group one of whose apparent aims has been to influence the US government rises to this standard. WP:BLPCAT point that "1) The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question" IMO is not a bar here because the figures in question are (a) public figures who (b) have taken an oath to uphold and protect the US Constitution which requires separation of Church and State, (c) are not being "outed" as being Christians but rather are reportedly associated with a particular Christian religious organization whose goal is to influence the government the politicians were elected to govern, (d) with few exceptions (in which case the politicians should not be included as being associated unless there is a public controversy over it) I do not see these political figures challenging reports that they are members of the Fellowship, which for a public figure amounts to or at least comes close to "self-identification" and (e) the proposal is not to call the politicians members but rather report only that they are "associated with" the Fellowship. IMO this is fair to the politicians and political figures mentioned. Last point: should limit CAT to political figures associated with the Fellowship. Likesausages (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see... -- criteria for inclusion is exactly the crux here, as BHG correctly points out. As far as I can see, this whole issue is closely linked to conspiracy-theories/theorists; thus, we have a dilemma: any news-report could be used to "establish" membership in said group, and the reasoning will follow along your line of "if you don't deny it, it must be true" -- easily (and almost naturally) followed by "if you do deny it, of course you do, after all it's secretive and we won't believe you no matter what you say"... Thus, we will have a category with about 20-30 people lumped together, based on "according to XYZ, so-and-so is member of ABC"; to the category, it won't matter if the article continues with "so-and-so denied this". That's very nilly-willy for a CAT.
The only way out of this would be 3 subcategories
- Category:Confirmed members of the Fellowship
- Category:Alleged members of the Fellowship who did not comment on their alleged membership
- Category:Alleged members of the Fellowship who have denied their alleged membership
Quite a mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it might be worth, as the person who proposed the category for the organization proper, I did not and do not think that it should be used for the articles relating to any individuals whose ties to the organization are not an indisputable matter of public record, like being described as "President" of it, for instance. However, having a separate list of individuals associated with the group contained within the category would permit their affiliation to be asserted in wikipedia, provided there is reliable sourcing. However, I do not think that it would make sense to include every alleged member of the group in that category, just the articles on specific incidents and people whose articles are so closely related to that of the group itself, like those of past and current publicly acknowledged officers, that they would be relevant to the understanding of the article on the group. Inclusion of names of individuals who have only peripheral or less clearly notable affiliations with the group would I think reasonably be excluded from the category, but, if their relationship is verifiable, possibly included on the list of associated individuals. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing about making it a list would be that interested people could at least put said list on their watchlist and monitor it. (You can't that with a cat (can you?), unless you show up daily and check manually...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editors should understand that religious beliefs, as explained in WP:BLPCAT, are not relevant to the category of either Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship or Category:The Fellowship (Christian organization). Paraphrasing the Family's leader, Doug Coe,
"You can be a Catholic and love Jesus just the way you can be a Jew and love Jesus or be a Muslim and love Jesus. In other words, being a Catholic in his mind doesn't qualify you as a Christian." (Terry Gross (November 24, 2009). "The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'". Fresh Air from WHYY.)
Therefore, self-identified religious beliefs of WP:BLCAT have no bearing here. The only relevant criteria is whether a verifiable, reliable source can be cited to establish that the individual is either associated with or a member of the Family. If the citation meets a high standard, then a case can be made that the person is in the category. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. ZAS, assuming that reliable sources are available to establish some degree of association, then exactly what threshold of "associated with" do you propose to establish as the criterion for inclusion, and how to you intend to define that threshold without original research?
Is it enough to have once met someone else alleged to be "associated" with the Fellowship?
Or do you need to have been to the same prayer breakfast?
Those questions are crucial, because unless there are clear, non-subjective and non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion, the category fails one or other of WP:OCAT#ARBITRARY and WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you get that No one would confuse a Jew or a Muslim with being a Christian0 both sides would be offended if you did. I'm not sure at all what you're going for with that quote- that Christianity has a long history of difficulities deciding who is and who isn't a Christian? That's part of the historical record dating all the way back to the Council of Jerusalem and has never stopped since. What The Family calls itself is irrelevant- it is clearly a Christian organization. Looking at the relevant policy;

"Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;" (WP:BLPCAT)

Are you asserting that the Family is not a matter "regarding religious beliefs"? Would they let an Atheist join? Nothing I've read indicates they would. Now, for the condition, how many of the "alleged" members have pubically self-identified with the Family? Sleeping in the C Street house doesn't really count here. For Sen. Tom Coburn, the only active politican left in this category, there is no mention in his article that he has ever admitted to being a member. Accused, yes. Almost always assumed to be, yes. Pubically admitted- no.
One more question- why is the list at the Fellowship's article insufficent? In that article, there are souces cited for every name. In this category that is technically impossible. Further up the BLP policy w run into this sentence; "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed" In a category, all material is by definition unsourced. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listing them in the appropriate place, with the proper references present, is perfectly acceptable, but categorizing them by membership in this group is classic WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You failed to note which specific section of WP:OCAT is relevant. Are you saying that the category of members of the Family are like "bald people" or "actresses who have appeared veiled"? None of the WP:OCAT sections appear to apply. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Family is in its own words an "invisible" association, though it has always been organized around public men. Senator Sam Brownback (R., Kansas), chair of a weekly, off - the- record meeting of religious right groups called the Values Action Team (VAT), is an active member, as is Representative Joe Pitts (R., Pennsylvania), an avuncular would-be theocrat who chairs the House version of the VAT. Others referred to as members include senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee (the powerful conservative caucus co-founded back in 1974 by another Family associate, the late senator Carl Curtis of Nebraska); Pete Domenici of New Mexico (a Catholic and relatively moderate Republican; it's Domenici's status as one of the Senate's old lions that the Family covets, not his doctrinal purity); Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa); James Inhofe (R., Oklahoma); Tom Coburn (R., Oklahoma); John Thune (R., South Dakota); Mike Enzi (R., Wyoming); and John Ensign, the conservative casino heir elected to the Senate from Nevada, a brightly tanned, hapless figure who uses his Family connections to graft holiness to his gambling-fortune name. "Faith-based Democrats" Bill Nelson of Florida and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, sincere believers drawn rightward by their understanding of Christ's teachings, are members, and Family stalwarts in the House include Representatives Frank Wolf (R., Virginia), Zach Wamp (R., Tennessee), and Mike McIntyre, a North Carolina Democrat who believes that the Ten Commandments are "the fundamental legal code for the laws of the United States" and thus ought to be on display in schools and court houses."
Therefore, according to this WP:reliable source, it is correct to categorize Sam Brownback, Joe Pitts, Jim DeMint, Pete Domenici, Chuck Grassley, James Inhofe, Tom Coburn, John Thune, Mike Enzi, John Ensign, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Frank Wolf, Zach Wamp, and Mike McIntyre as members of the Family. This is neither WP:OCAT#ARBITRARY nor WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE. On what basis does BrownHairedGirl, or any other Wikipedia editor, deny their membership? Does BrownHairedGirl know better than this verifiable, reliable source? What BrownHairedGirl and others are actually proposing is simply to ignore the facts stated in reliable sources, or pretend that this is some conspiracy theory. Ignoring reliable sources and imposing your own opinions on the content of articles—categories included—is original research. If any of these individuals deny their membership in the Family, that's not Wikipedia's problem—they need to take that up with the responsible news organizations that reported their membership as a fact. All Wikipedia can do, and should do, is fairly represent these verifiable facts. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in this part of your argument, you're presenting one book? I'm sure I can easily find more books which claim that Jews are vermin... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather amusing how ZAS's logic mirrors that of the organisation of which he is so critical. The Fellowship/Family follows the One True Book of revealed truth (the Bible); and now ZAS wants to treats Jeff Sharlet's book as a similar repository of The Truth.
Regardless of that irony, even if we share ZAS's deep (and doubtless sincere) faith in the Truth-As-Revealed-By-Sharlett, it's interesting to pick apart ZAS's reading of the phrasing used by Sharlett:
  • Jim DeMint is not described as a "member", but as an "associate"some wone who is "referred to as a member" (by whom is not clear). Yer ZAS says "it is correct to categorize" him as a member if the family. Not according to the quoted source, isn't.
  • Note that Sharlett does not say that all the others on ZAS's list "are members". Instead the list is prefaced with the words "Others referred to as members include". If Sharlet had wanted to say "Other members include", he could have done so, but he didn't; instead he is distancing himself subtly from a direct allegation of membership. But again, ZAS doesn;t spot the distinction.
Sorry, ZAS but that's not an acceptable way to handle a source. The fact that your one central source is being used by you as justification for a claim which that source does not support only reinforces my concern that the inclusion criteria for this category are at best dangerously hazy. The fact that you do this right here where the whole basis of the category is being heavily scrutinised gives me no grounds to believe that sufficient rigour will be applied when the spotlight has gone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Fellowship hosts receptions, luncheons and prayer meetings on the first two floors of the house, which is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a church. The six lawmakers—Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Mike Doyle, D-Pa.; and Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev. and Sam Brownback, R-Kan.—live in private rooms upstairs. Rent is $600 a month, DeMint said."
  1. "Sanford Cites Secretive Christian Group's Role in Helping Confront Affair". US News and World Report. June 24, 2009.
  2. "Congressional group house is subsidized by religious group, records show". Associated Press. April 19, 2003.
So at the very least, as a participant in this group's activities and a long-standing resident (at a fraction of market rate) at its properties, DeMint is an individual belonging to this group. But wait, that's the very OED definition of a member of that group! I must say that reviewing this CfD shows a long list of bad arguments for ignoring facts published by reliable sources. If the consensus prefers that individuals participating in the activities of the Family be categorized in Category:The Fellowship (Christian organization), let's go with that. Whether this category is appropriate on any individual page must be hashed out through consensus for that page, not here, although the arguments here for not categorizing specific individuals such as Jim DeMint as associated with the Family have been universally terrible so far. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. No, I do not believe that I know better than the sources, and if you had actually read what I wrote you will see that I did not claim or imply that I did. My comment was solely about your claim that one source said things which were not actually in the quoted text. and your continued inability (or wilful refusal, I don't know which) to distinguish between the varying degrees of connection which the sources claim between the Fellowship and various individuals.
    Having misrepresented Sharlet's words, you are now engaging in WP:SYN: Sharlet says that DeMint was an "associate" referred to as as a member" of the Fellowship, and another source says that he rents a room from them cheaply ... so hey presto, you conflate the two and take that as proof that he is a "member". Sorry, ZAS, but that's a brilliant example of synthesis, and it's not acceptable on Wikipedia.
    This discussion has been very useful, because the more that ZAS posts here, the more he reveals his intention to misuse sources to justify placing individuals in this category. This exactly why I and others will continue to argue that heavily-nuanced and hotly-disputed issues like this about the affiliations of a living individual should not be subject to the binary choice of categorisation, but instead discussed within the articles concerned, where each point can be properly referenced. ZAS still refuses to understand the distinction between "ignoring the sources" (which would be the case if this topic was not covered in the relevant articles), and the issue at stake here — which is the much narrower question of whether this contentious, nuanced and unconfirmed material is a suitable basis for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point of order, the quote ZdS put in his last post makes me question his sources reliability all over again. If the source botches something so simple as whether Jim DeMint is a Representative or a Senator- for the record he is the latter- how diligent is the editorial control overall? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FACE PALM! The 2003 AP article refers to DeMint when he was a Representative, you know in 2003. The 2008 Mother Jones article refers to DeMint after he became a US Senator, you know in 2004. That this must be explained at all makes me question this editor's grasp of the issues being discussed. And BrownHairedGirl just has it wrong when she says that Sharlet doesn't refer to DeMint as a member—the only person he refers to as an "associate" in that Mother Jones quote above is Carl Curtis. This has become comical. May we please have a serious discussion about the consensus of the category's name for individuals or subjects associated with or members of the Family, rather than recent comments, which leap to unsupportable conclusions based on inane mistakes? Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the "facepalm" link is a bit much, but, you're right, I fell asleep on the quote of a quote chain. Quote of a quote of a quote, actually, which puts it a little far away from the source for my comfort level. That's neither here nor there, though. WP:BLP makes it absolutely clear that when living people are concerned, we have to make darned sure we're right, and that the facts are backed up. I've made this suggestion before, and I'll make it again: turn this into an article.
The only politician currently in this category is Sen. Tom Coburn. Looking at his article, I see it listed that he lives in the C Street house. Nothing in his article says he is a member- when sources must be cited as far as it goes is "Coburn is affiliated with a religious organization called The Family." Affiliated does not equal member. If it's not in the article, why is it in the category? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ZAS, you are partly right, and thanks for the correction. I mistook my quote, and DeMint was indeed not described as an associate, but as someone who "was referred to as a member". I have corrected my comments above, but the central point still stands: that Sharlett does not say that DeMint "is a member" or "was a member", just that he was "referred to as a member" (by someone unspecified).
      Do you understand the subtle but crucial distinction between "X was referred to as a member" and "X was a member"? "Referred to as a member" is a phrase that can accurately used be to report an allegation on which the writer may not have reached a conclusion, or may even know to be wrong. For example "Jones was referred to as a member by Smith, but no other sources confirm this allegation". You can be darned sure that the lawyers acting for these fact-checked publications are very careful on insist on these subtle distinctions, because that phrasing allows them to honestly say "no, we did not say that X was a member, just that Y referred to him as such. We did not find any corroboration of this claim, and took care not imply that we had".
      You're quite right to express concern about what you helpfully call "unsupportable conclusions based on inane mistakes" — because you are still drawing unsupportable conclusions from synthesising your misreading of the sources. This is no basis for populating a category which raises such strong BLP issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly "The Family" is a conspiracy theory and there is no proof, other than that provided by the research of one author, that people are "members." Delete this now. Rockules318 (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG's invocation of WP:OCAT. Looking at the discussion above, it appears that the category is principally being used to advance a non-mainstream POV on the group's influence in US politics. Given the way the sources dance around just how affiliated various people in question are with the group, I see no particular need to be more definitive than they in assigning people to such a category. Choess (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if a category for The Fellowship in general were to be created, the only extant articles I can really see being appropriate to it are The Fellowship (Christian organization), Douglas Coe, Abraham Vereide, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, National Prayer Breakfast, and the yet to be created List of individuals associated with the Fellowship. Adding any other biographical articles could really only be done after it was demonstrated in the content of the biographical article itself that The Fellowship was a significant enough factor in the life or career of the individual involved for it to merit categorization. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (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:People from the Triangle, North Carolina[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:People from the Research Triangle, North Carolina. See close immediately below. I considered the two discussions together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from the Triangle, North Carolina to Category:People from the Raleigh metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other areas in the USA. Raleigh276 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Category:People from Research Triangle per rationale on entry below. Then again, possibly a better solution would be to upmerge or downmerge this into relevent city and/or state categories. I could see where just using Raleigh or Durham or Cary or whatever would be a better categorization target for this one. However, there is no need to place someone in a "people from a city" category and then ALSO in the "people from the metropolitan area that includes said city" category. I could see merging this one into the relevent cities instead. But if not, then the rationale below should stand for this one as well. --Jayron32 21:07, 4 December 2009 (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:The Triangle, North Carolina[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Research Triangle, North Carolina. There seems to be consensus to change the core of the name from "The Triangle" to "Research Triangle". The dispute is over whether we need ", North Carolina" at the end of the name. The consensus to have the name include the state is less strong, but even if we say there is no true consensus to have the state, we probably need to default to having the state since as currently formatted it does include the state. There certainly is no consensus for removing the state from the category name, so we won't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Triangle, North Carolina to Category:Raleigh metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "The Triangle" is used by pretentious business professionals. "Greater Raleigh" or "Raleigh metropolitan area" is used to match other areas in the USA. Raleigh276 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Research Triangle or Category:Research Triangle, North Carolina to match main article Research Triangle. There is no convention to use "primary city metropolitan area" in naming either articles or categories; rather, articles about metropolitan areas (as opposed to Metropolitan Statistical Areas) are named in accordance with local usage and the categories named to match. Compare at Category:San Francisco Bay Area, Greater St. Louis, Category:Lehigh Valley, Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex.- choster 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Category:Research Triangle per WP:UCN. The metropolitan area is most commonly called "The Triangle" in local media, no one actually uses the phrase "Raleigh Metropolitan Area". Far from being a "business professionals" neologism, its a widespread and commonly understood term for a fairly well-defined geographic area, and has been so for many decades. Additionally, the Triangle encompasses several overlapping metropolitan areas, Raleigh being only one of them, so the OP's desired target for a rename is incorrect as well as being not often used. --Jayron32 20:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Category:The Triangle, North Carolina is the only suggested option that gives me any clue of the whereabouts and nature of this category. Raleigh is ambiguous, and Research Triangle could be anything (a good example of a badly named article which makes a hopeless name for a category). Occuli (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Category:Research Triangle, North Carolina because it's a category with a main article and should use that main article but it needs more identification than simply Category:Research Triangle. The article itself might well be moved. Eastshire (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Research Triangle, North Carolina per Eastshire. That keeps the name per the main article, but adds context to explain what the category is about. Without the "North Carolina", it could be referring to a scientfic technique, something about the sociology of research, or gawd-knows what else. Yes, the main article may need to e renamed, but the category name should be explicit even if the article is not moved. Otherwise readers will be confused and editors who see the category at the bottom of an article will press hotcat's minus button to remove an apparently irrelevant category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Research Triangle to match title of parent article. If additional disambiguation is needed, it should be added to the article title first and then here. There is no evidence that there is any possible confusion with any other article or ctageory or that there is any legitimate possibility of confusing the contents of the category without the inclusion of the state. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Alansohnn, if a reader who knows nothing about that part of USAnia sees "Research triangle" in the category list at the bottom of an article about (for example) a writer from that area, how will they have any idea at all what it refers to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (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:Atheist rappers[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Atheist rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an overcategorization, as both a trivial intersection and a non-notable intersection by religion. Mysdaao talk 18:15, 4 December 2009 (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:Roman Catholic titular dioceses[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Category. Everything in this category fits into "Titular see". There is no need to have "Titular Sees"->"Roman Catholic Titular Dioceses", when we can simply eliminate "Roman Catholic Titular Dioceses" and have "Titular Sees" Many examples of articles with both "Titular Sees" and "RC Titular Dioceses", no need for both listings on the same article. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously narrow category. This refers to the subset of dioceses of which there are a total of 4. Why 11th Century, and not 10th or 12th, or 13th or 14th? I could understand if it was in a group, but it's just this one. Completely arbitrary basis, without given explanation for the use of the category when requested. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – could these categories be restored pending the outcome of the cfd? It is difficult to comment upon empty, prematurely blanked categories. I would think the East-West Schism of 1054 has something to do with the 2nd one; and evidently after a cursory glance Category:Titular sees is much larger than its subcat Category:Roman Catholic titular dioceses (and, being a parent, should not be on the same article as something in the subcat, a matter easily resolved with a simple edit). Occuli (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Roman Catholics (As distinct from both the Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox) are by no means the only group to use titular sees. Was this category emptied? What used to be in there? Also, this is two separate discussions I would like to move that these discussions be separated and conducted as well as decided separately. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the categories are re-populated so that we can discuss them properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Speedy Close the nomination until the contents are restored. Restore all contents and then nominate each in a separate nomination. The 11th century one has to do with the effects of the East-West Schism, so on the surface it seems to be a very reasonable breakout. At this point I'm neutral on the first and leaning keep on the second. I'll try and find somecontent for the first so it does not get nominated as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I found that the first had some articles but it also had 3 subcategories. The parenting of these categories were subject to an edit war, maybe that's why we have this nomination. In any case, I reverted back to what I believe was the partial content that is germane here and I'm going to edit protect these adds for two weeks to allow discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I restored the rest of what I found. This includes one article that appears to be a wikiproject work list that probably does not belong in the main name space. In doing this, I found another issue where the same editor removed category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy and replaced it with category:Defunct Roman Catholic dioceses. While I might be able to support the need for a defunct category, removing the country designation, especially for large RC ones, is not acceptable. So we probably need to cleanup those as well! I wonder what else lies under the surface here. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2009 (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.

ODI cricketers[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: Rename to expand acronyms; leave as Australia (as opposed to Australian). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To expand acronym, as ODI is ambiguous. Also, to fix "Australia" to "Australian". — ξxplicit 05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ODI is undoubtedly ambiguous. 'ODI cricket' is contrast is not ambiguous. Whatever the case there is no point is expanding ODI for Australia and nowhere else. Occuli (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand acronym as above, but leave it as "Australia". Another example would be Brendan Nash, who is an "Australian ODI cricketer", but also a "West Indies ODI cricketer", as he's Australian born but plays for the West Indies. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Expand acronym only per above, though I have to wonder whether all the "Foo women test cricketers" and "Foo women One Day International cricketers" categories should be changed to women's, since that seems to be the standard form of the term in cricket (e.g., Women's One Day International cricket). Grutness...wha? 23:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Grutness, who seems to have the i's dotted and the t's crossed in the debate so far. Hiding T 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above comments; expand abbreviation only. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2009 (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:Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche to Category:Friedrich Nietzsche
Nominator's rationale: Small category, no foreseeable expansion beyond the two articles in the category. — ξxplicit 05:20, 4 December 2009 (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:2009 AFL season[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2009 AFL season to Category:2009 Australian Football League season
Nominator's rationale: Expand acronym and clarify, as AFL can refer to the American Football League, among other things. — ξxplicit 05:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Actually, The American Football League is a bad example, since it's last incarnation folded 50 years ago.  ;) The Arizona Fall League, however, is current, forcing a disambiguation. Resolute 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2009 (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:Roller coasters with serious accidents[edit]

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 result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Roller coasters with serious accidents to Category:Amusement park accidents
Nominator's rationale: "Serious" is completely subjective and is not a neutral term. Additionally, why would someone believe that an amusement park accident is anything less than serious? — ξxplicit 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Roller coaster accidents. Above rationale is correct but there is no reason to lose the roller coaster subject of this category which is a natural subcat of its parent Category:Roller coasters Hmains (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that detail. Renaming the category seems fine as well. — ξxplicit 05:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But these are articles about roller coasters, not roller coaster accidents. Thus, renaming to Category:Roller coaster accidents makes no sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would Category:Roller coasters with accidents make more sense to you? Eastshire (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid listing minor events, there is a guideline for aircraft accidents. I wonder what needs to be done here? Every coaster has an accident or two per year. When does that accident rise to the point that it is so notable that it needs to be categorized with like articles? Is the ride falling down when the park is closed for the winter worthy of inclusion? How about when an employee is injured by a train car when they go into a restricted area? How about if an OSHA violation and fine are involved? How often does a cable snap? All in all I'm wondering if we need this category or even if it needs merging. Nothing in this discussion is addressing the notability of these articles beyond the fact that the rides are notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention in making the category was for injury accidents. Specifically, an accident that required medical care to be provided from first aid all the way up to fatalities. Most roller coasters do not have such accidents ever, let alone every few years. That makes such accidents notable. An additional layer of notability is added that the accident must have been significant enough to make news coverage for it to have a source for the article in the first place. It also differs from aircraft accidents in that this category is a list of roller coaster articles which are notable themselves and also have an accident section in that article. Eastshire (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging to Category:Amusement park accidents is equally flawed. These are indeed all articles about Roller coasters, not about accidents. We need a neutral term for 'Roller coasters that have maimed paying customers'. Occuli (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can support a rename to Category:Roller coaster accidents. However, I can not support deletion as I feel this is a natural subcategory to Category: Amusement park accidents which can include many rides other than roller coasters. When fully populated, Category: Roller coaster accidents will likely contain well over 75 articles. Eastshire (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Discussion notwithstanding. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both the nomination and alternative. The articles are not about accidents. They are about rides that have had accidents. So including rides that have had accidents in an accident category seems inappropriate to me. A better solution would be to add a redirect to the ride for the accident in the parks article. Include the redirect in the accident category and be accurate and complete. I'd still not convinced that the category should stay as it may well be subjective inclusion criteria and if it does stay it still needs a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we had distinct articles about roller coaster accidents, this category would be valid. However, we shouldn't be categorizing the general articles on roller coasters themselves based on whether accidents have taken place on them or not — "Places of Type X type where Thing Y has happened" is virtually always WP:OCAT. Delete; if there are any articles where a roller coaster's safety incident has actually been spun off to a separate article, then move those into Category:Amusement park accidents, but don't upmerge articles that are merely about roller coasters at which accidents happen to have occurred. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Bearcat's reasons above. These are not articles about accidents; these are articles about roller coasters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Disagree strongly with the nominator's rationale, "Serious" is not completely subjective, plenty of accidents involve dropped ice-cream, and roller coaster accidents sounds like a pretty interesting article, but lets have the article before the category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Bearcat's reasons above. If and when several of the notable accidents get articles, then we can consider recreating this category. In the meantime any articles created can find a home in Category:Amusement park accidents. However, if this category is deleted, then we really need to look at Category:Amusement park accidents since the contents there suffer many of the same problems as this category. So maybe a good cleaning to eliminate the rides and then see if there are enough articles left to justify keeping. I'll probably start by moving the RC rides to the subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4&oldid=1143704230"