The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Islamic decomracies is an empty concept. There is democracy in countries with a muslim majority (Turkey, ..) There is also Islamic states (Iran, ..). The concept of Islamic democracies doesn t exist. --Helmoony (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Helmoony (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Islam and democracy defines an "Islamist democracy" but provides no examples, nor is a suitable definition to be found in related articles such as constitutional theocracy or theodemocracy. Without a proper scope, the categorization is not useful as the religious adherence of a country's population and its form of government are not generaly a compelling intersection: many states are secular or atheist but have religious populations (e.g. Turkey, Mexico, the Philippines), while others have established or state religions but largely secularized or atheist populations (e.g. Monaco, Norway, England). Since Denmark has twice as many practicing Muslims as Lutherans, would it be fair to call Denmark an Islamic democracy? - choster (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with Choster in that I think the definition could be democracies with Islam as the state religion, but I agree that it's not a notable intersection. --Bsherr (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2010 (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.
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.
I don't have a problem with the rename, but I do have a problem with repeatedly creating a duplicate category before finding out what the consensus is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your following me around and making abrupt reversions, deletions, and page moves seems to be causing multiple unnecessary problems. Here you emptied then deleted a previously non-empty category, using a speedy-deletion reason claim that "category was empty" when it was not, and/or reason that "category has been empty for 4 days" that simply do not apply. --doncram (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the main article clearly uses "R" repeated deletions seem unhelpful. Either of you could have brought the question here first, & should have done. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename also the child categories that use non-capitalized "revival":
Examining a few of their component articles finds them describing places having Moorish Revival (capitalized) architecture. --doncram (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Up merge. The articles are not defined by their location along the route of the Pony Express by rather by simply being a part of the system. Clearly this level of detail is more completely and accurately displayed by using a template and this information should simply be added to {{Pony Express}} rather then creating hard to navigate categories. It is also better in the long run to continue grouping in subcategories like Category:Pony Express riders or Category:Pony Express stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this is already included in Pony Express which includes a map and lists many of the settlements. So I'm not sure that we need another series of articles. Anything that is missing could be added to that article. With the map in there, these categories can be deleted since the information already exists in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
There is an article Love triangle, so it is not a trivial term. There is no article about Death songs but death is still a notable theme for songs, so there does not need to be an article about songs with that theme for a theme to be notable.Cjc13 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is even non-trivial enough to document in an encyclopedia (and I have my doubts that it is), it seems more logical that these would be mentioned in Love triangle. The fact that they are not may say something, but I definitely think we don't need a category for this. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this is unlikely to change your opinion, it does say in the article "Love triangles are a popular theme in entertainment, especially romantic fiction, including ... popular music." Cjc13 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; what I was referring to was the specific songs being mentioned in the article, not the general concept. Having a category takes this to a level of specificity not even yet contemplated by the article. Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is because there is no list that it is helpful to have a category. Some categories have been deleted on the basis that there is a corresponding list. Cjc13 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then make a list—preferably a sourced one. Can such a thing be sourced, or is it all original research? My point is that I think this might be so trivial that neither a list nor a category would be appropriate for Wikipedia. If a list is inappropriate because it would be original research, then surely too a category would be inappropriate. The article hasn't included a list, just a brief mention of the concept. (It's unsourced pop-culture specificity in stuff like this that WP routinely gets pummeled in the media over.) Good Ol’factory(talk)23:02, 28 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Comment. I still think it's ungrammatical, but it may be best to have consistent ungrammatical names than inconsistent grammatical names. I'm not sure the category is appropriate, however. (Individual items) mostly seem to be closer to Redirect from URL than Redirect from domain name. — Arthur Rubin(talk)01:50, 24 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and other such subcats. of Category:Abjad writing systems. Personally, I am opposed to these being named "X alphabet" when they are abjads rather than true alphabets (if they were all "X script" that would just avoid the problem of categorization), but as long as most of them are named "X alphabet" and the main article is named "Arabic alphabet", there is no reason for this to be different. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Script" is more appropriate to the pages and sub-categories in the category. I would also rename the main article Arabic script - the content is broader than the alphabet.--Mhockey (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2010 (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.
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.
Very Strong Keep. Changing my stance here based on the OTRS ticket mentioned below. As I can read that ticket, the content of that message shows that Fidika has not changed and is presenting himself very differently in that OTRS message compared to here. Therefore, I adamantly oppose renaming this category. I can't give my full reasons for doing so without breaking the confidentiality of OTRS, however. For anyone who can read it, I've made a note there (on OTRS). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rename category. Rename user. Reasonable request. Sockpuppetry was five years ago. We can let it go now, and not punish someone for registering under their real name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: the sock puppetry wasn't just five years ago; it's been spread across several years (December 2006 (2), January 2007, April 2007, July 2008 (2), March 2009, November 2009). It only began five years ago. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood. This is a properly blocked person and a sockpuppeteer. However, the wish to remove his real name from the project is reasonable, and it does the project no credit to refuse such a request, no matter who from. Renaming the category should satisfy his wish without reducing our surveillance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename suggestion: to "D.K.(Sockpuppeteer)".
I see this banned-user request as a variation on WP:DENY. I also think we should allow any user, in good standing or not, to remove personal information. These sort of debates sometimes come up at Mfd; this is the first I've seen at CfD. Discussing and deciding an OTRS is probably a good idea. The decision to rename the category should be tied to the decision to rename the user. This is not about the traditional right to vanish, just a change of username. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fidika seems to want to vanish; see this at Wikibooks. Normally I wouldn't want to hinder this. But he has wasted a great amount of people's time here (notably Nihonjoe's time), and I'd want to be fairly certain that he wouldn't waste any more before doing anything that would make it harder for people to see all the "sockpuppetry" and identify and label any more outbreaks. Is Fidika serious in saying that he wants nothing to do with WP? This is what he said (as "Exiled ambition") on 21 July 2008: ¶ There is indeed no place for me in a society defined by peasantry, and that is why I am taking my leave for matters that will rightfully bare [sic] me benefit in showing the talent, perseverance, and ambition which I have fully iterated [sic]. Goodbye. ¶ So far as it is comprehensible, that sounds final. However, it's not final for Fidika, it's instead (more or less) final for "Exiled ambition". Over a year later, Fidika was merrily editing as "IMMORTAL SAMURAI". The latest word (I think) from the already blocked all-caps "samurai" was this: ¶ I'm enjoying my latest account(s) by the way if you really want to know, so enjoy the clownshow you've made up in your heads about how I'm powerless while I continue to edit. ¶ Yes, as recently as 23 January of this year, Fidika was boasting about editing under one or more other account(s). -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Haha, I guess I did make those two statements. Wow, sorry, I'm embarassed how pretentious and insolent I was just a year or so ago. Not to try swaying this debate in any certain direction, but I'm not that person anymore and respect each of you for the good that you're bringing to Wikipedia, especially since you're doing all of it free of charge. I know you could easily dismiss my request, and then I wouldn't be able to do a thing, as this is the internet, so I'm very appreciative for this debate. I'm against Wikipedia, but that's not because I'm the egotistic, insolent, kid I was as Exiled Ambition; I just can't respect how it's anti-capitalistic just like the rest of the internet. Each of you should be paid for what you've done to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.41.91 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strong Keep.As a former user myself now having left Wikipedia for years and given the fact the user has used multiple socks for over 5 years and last act of socking is less than a year old in Nov 2009.Hence the user name and category should be retained for now . 74.220.215.237 (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A request by the subject is likely to be followed by his reappearance with another ID. Sockpuppets are usually vandals who cause the rest of us no end of work in removing their ill-thought out (if not destructive) contributions. If the vandal is truly repentant and is willing to work constructively, it might be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to last three users). You're not understanding the request. I'm no longer asking if the category and the usernames could be deleted; I'm asking if my real name could be removed from the users in that category, including the category title, and be replaced by a random pseudonym. Naturally, since the category and usernames will still be there, surveillance of me won't be any more of a problem than if I never had a name change. This is all that I'm asking, and I'm honored to have Mr. SmokeyJoe's consent on this, who suggested it. Whether you can trust me or not matters very little, as this is the internet, and appearing here as an IP address rather than as a user is the best gesture of honesty that I can give without helping Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't deserve my help, and neither should it from any of you unless communism is what you favor. It's nice to help people, to inform them, but Wikipedia is destroying industries and mocking professional life and capitalism by simply still being alive. Remember, I could simply not edit any samurai articles and attack something else and it would be absolutely impossible for any of you to identify me, but I'm above that, as it wouldn't make the internet any better of a place or Wikipedia any less influential. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.41.91 (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category: Given the facts above, I see no problem with some sort of right to vanish here. NB: This is related to OTRS ticket 2010101210010857, which is from the subject - it's being dealt with here however, not OTRS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Nihonjoe. You write above: the content of that [OTRS] message shows that Fidika has not changed and is presenting himself very differently in that OTRS message compared to here. Therefore, I adamantly oppose renaming this category. I can't give my full reasons for doing so without breaking the confidentiality of OTRS, however. Without breaking that confidentiality, would it be possible for you to say something of how or why renaming the category to (say) "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Exiled Ambition" would be a hindrance? (I'm not asking for the whole story, or perhaps even for the major reason.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the message shows that Fidika is saying one thing in his message to OTRS and another thing in the messages he's posting publicly. This is the same kind of thing he's done in the past to try and garner sympathy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What he's posting here is odd enough itself: the stuff about how Wikipedia aids communism and mocks capitalism (despite its gigabytes of assiduous write-ups of the most ephemeral branded products of capitalism). -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close If there's info we can't see that OTRS has, then perhaps it should be handled at OTRS? I'm aware that "it's being dealt with here however, not OTRS", but I feel whoever makes the decision should have all information available, and that won't be us. --NYKevin @903, i.e. 20:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Peterkingiron and Mangojuice Why do we need to rename why not just keep it particurly as the user has not changed even as per OTRS.Why was this relisted when consenus was for keep.Please let it stay as it is for now.122.164.116.123 (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (maintianing vote above). So Darin Fidika wants to have his name removed from the category name. I assume that this means that he admits his WP crime. He appears to show no sign of repentance. We could rename to one of his aliases, but his real name would still need to appear on the article page, and all sanctions against that name. What does that achieve? If his name is not listed, he will no doubt start another round of mis-editing. Sockpuppeteers are generally vandals, or at best make unhelpful edits; the waste no end of other peoples time and are entitled to no polite consideration whatever, unless repentant. A sockpuppeteer who registers in a new name and undertakes constructive edits and then retains his good character for a reasonable time might be able to ask for his (real) name to be removed from the list; indeed the whole category might then be regarded as redundant. I can think of one user who was formerly blocked and has re-emerged making constructive edits; no dount there are others. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Judging from the article B movie, this designation appears to be one that is very loose and one that has varied considerably over time. Thus it is subjective and/or POV. According to the article's lead, it's generally defined as "a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not definitively an arthouse or pornographic film". Godzilla (1998 film) is included in the category, even though it had a budget of $130 million USD. Obviously, "low-budget" is a floating standard and is not clearly defined. It may be a situation of users "knowing it when they see it", but that doesn't work great with categories. Note that Category:B-movie directors and B-movie actors categories were all deleted because "B movie" is an inherently subjective or POV term. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, no obvious merge target (Films isn't supposed to have articles directly) and the articles should already be categorized appropriately elsewhere. --NYKevin @906, i.e. 20:45, 26 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
"... as ambiguous as [I] suggest". I'm not clear on what you mean. I didn't really say how ambiguous it was or give a degree of ambiguousness—I just said the phrase Quantum Leap is ambiguous, which it is, since that page is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:31, 27 October 2010 (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.
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. I have no trouble deleting a category whose contents are entirely defined by another category at the present. If in 15 years there are more, then in 15 years we can have the discussion again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Jerry Seinfeld (character) and George Costanza would count as non-30Rock members of the category. The reason I created the category at all is because I was editing an article about a real-life General Electric executive, who naturally is in Category:General Electric people, of which Category:NBC Universal people is a subcat, and it occurred to me that Jack Donaghy fits right into both of those perfectly. It seems a shame, somehow, to leave him out. My other argument is a structurist plea. Don't delete categories for data simply because the current population of the category is homogeneously equal to another category's. It's a very immediatist form of taking something perfectly valid that's already been created and destroying it whereupon someone has to re-create it later when there's renewed use for it. That's inefficient use of contributor value. This is a trivial instance of the principle, no doubt. Wouldn't take much to undo the "damage" in this instance. But why do it at all, across thousands of potential instances. Maybe 15 years from now there will be other, new non-30Rock members of the category. — ¾-1000:20, 27 October 2010 (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.
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.
Wait until problems with the associated article are resolved. It's not clear from the article that there is a sound basis for defining this collection of people as a family. It is likely that the category should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be three or four families. The parent article needs to show how they all make up one family (or perhaps clan). Is there a common ancestor for members (including perhaps members' spouses)? At present the article seems to be a random collection of prominent Americans, some descended from an early president. We do not like descendant categories and have deleted categories for descendants of certain British and other monarchs. However, I am prepared to wait as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insights from Britain. In this case, it appears that Roger Sherman is a common ancestral link. The other "family" members appear to be either his sons-in-law or his descendants. However, I don't see much evidence that this is a well-defined political family. The U.S. does have some prominent multi-branch political families, such as the Adams political family (apparently linked to the family that is the subject of this category), the Lee family, the Kennedy family, the Rockefeller-Aldrich family political line, and the Taft family but it's not clear to me that this collection of people has been documented as a political family by a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete where did this come from? Why does it have articles in it (usually WikiProjects only have Talk: pages)? --NYKevin @908, i.e. 20:47, 26 October 2010 (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:Washington Senators (1961-1971) spring training venues
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I am posting this nomination on behalf of User:WilliamJE, who requested help in nominating it for deletion. His rationale, as posted on my talk page: "This category has no potential for growth. The baseball team existed for eleven years, and used just one spring training venue for each of those eleven years. It is rationalization I would use for its deletion." As facilitator, I am neutral. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This category has no room for growth like the examples given Liz Taylor husbands and Beattles wives. The Senators stopped playing at the end of 1971 and moved to Texas. This category will always have one entry and one entry only.-William10:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently constituted the category does not serve as an aid to navigation and appears to be unlikely to achieve that in the future. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Or possible renaming if I can figure out what this category is supposed to be. First off, "Orthodox" is confusing when one considers that Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Orthodox Judaism are not the same thing. Furthermore, this is a subcat of Category:Catholic Wikipedians and that really only makes sense in the "little-o" sense of orthodox Christianity or "little-c" catholicism, as in all mainstream Christians believe in the Apostles' Creed and are non-heretical (by definition) and are universalist in as much as they are all catholic and open to a trasnational character. Anyway, the name of this category is confusing to say the least and it appears to be used by persons who are also Eastern Orthodox, so it may be wise to merge this with Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians and delete it to keep it from being reused or recreated. As best as I can tell, it is not transcluded by a userbox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting nomination. Considering the fact that you made no mention of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are often referred to today incorrectly as "orthodox"(at least in North America), I would say Oppose because not all Orthodox Wikipedians are necessarily all adherents to the Eastern Orthodoxy (if you go to that page and scroll to the bottom under the section "Orthodox Churches and communities not in communion with others" you will see the many exceptions). Categorize EO cat to be within the overarching Orthodox Cat and that will solve the problem of duplication. Outback the koala (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Religion user categories don't support collaboration. Believing in a particular religion does not make someone more more likely or necessarily more qualified to write about said religion. User categories are for collaboration, and maintaining a grouping of users by which religions they follow doesn't accomplish this goal. I would support a category titled Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on Orthodox (insert religion here) topics, however. Failing a deletion, I would support a rename to something to make it more clear which religion such users are orthodox in. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to better reflect this categories role within the parent Category:Catholic Wikipedians. There a re a few dozen members already tagging themselves in this category and justification to see this category as a means of coordinating efforts and interests. Alansohn (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians, which all members seem to be. Adding the Catholic parent, which I have removed, was recently done by User:Outback the koala (above) who must be either a very ignorant or a very mischievous little bear! How likely is it that an Eastern Catholic user would define themself as "Orthodox"?? Is this category created by the "This user is a member of the Orthodox Church" user box? Orthodox Church redirects to Eastern Orthodox Church, & the usebox might be better using this. Deleters should do a mass-nom for all religious memberships user cats. Good luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
