Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

October 3[edit]

Category:Hilary Duff movies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we honestly want a category for every movie actor in existence, nor do we want movies to belong to a category for each actor which starred in them. Better served by listing the movies in the Hilary Duff article. See also the CFDs on Category:Movies Rated PG and Category:Diana Ross movies Jdavidb 23:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - From WP:CG, Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, cool; thank you for providing me with the appropriate cite from policy. So categories named "Persons named George Herbert Walker Bush" are not useful, huh? :) Jdavidb 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jdavidb. Such list of films starred should be placed in the actor's article. Creating a specialised category will be inappropriate. *drew 02:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jdavidb; Hilary Duff is a fluff! --WindFish 09:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. Shouldn't the same standard then be applied to all the other "films by/films of" categories - director, writer, producer, language, culture, country, genre, etc. etc., for the same reasons? 12.73.194.233 13:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have come to a consensus earlier that grouping films by director was appropriate, but grouping by actor wasn't. -The Tom 23:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to smack of Auteurism, a decidedly POV approach to film. It would appear the most appropriate course is to either not categorize films by any personality, but rather include links to them as lists within the articles on each member of cast or crew; or else, allow categorization by everyone from director to gaffer (with "star-worship" surely a more common basis for film study than "laborer-worship"). In that case, the action here would be to rename to something along the lines of Category:Films of Hilary Duff since a) "movie" is slang and b) "works of foo" is the standard format (n.b., "Films starring Foo" would be incorrect, as Foo may not always be the *star*, and may not even always be acting but rather directing, writing, etc. Also note, the question of whether "Hilary Duff is a fluff" is not a valid ground for either keeping or deleting anything about her, i.e. that is also POV reasoning. 12.73.198.38 12:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categories are needed to relate a set of articles that have no other easy to make connection. So "Films made in Germany" or "Films made in 1943" would be legitimate categories. But a bunch of films featuring the same person should all be found in a list under that person's article. So "Films featuring Hilary Duff" should be a subsection of the Hilary Duff article, not a category. MK2 03:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Golkar[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. The political party does not merit a category at the moment. Furthermore, the anon who created it reproduced a notice letter (probably hoax) claiming that some of the party members supported the nomination of a guy as a S. Jakarta mayor for 2007. Delete. *drew 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Iranian ethnic groups to Category:Ethnic groups of Iran[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form Category:Ethnic groups of Iran. (note that there is also category:Iranian peoples for groups in any country which speak a variety of the Persian language. This category is just for groups in the state of Iran.) CalJW 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. No argument. siafu 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Repressed Wikipedia Users[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a joke category, it only contain one users talk page, wich include a "plea for help" against repression concerning the deletion of one of his joke articles. Delete. --Sherool 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; nonsense. -WindFish 09:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BJAODN. siafu 01:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:War Criminal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Mis-capitalized. Mis-pluraled (no 's' at the end). And potential POV issues with it even if it was properly named. 4 strikes and it's out? TexasAndroid 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedia Users to Category:Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete or merge remaining. ∞Who?¿? 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstandard category name. TexasAndroid 19:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Elitist, and otherwise useless, vanity category(-ies). 12.73.195.79 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. The second one is the high level category for all other categorization of Wikipedians. It has an extensive sub-category tree. To delete it would orphan everything under it, and IMHO is a really bad idea. TexasAndroid 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, the "Wikipedian" categories are all nothing but trivial vanity pages, and should all be deleted. Just designating people as "Wikipedians" (as vs. non-Wikipedians) is elitist in the extreme and quite POV; some of us who visit/contribute to this site would never presume to classify ourselves as other than contributors and human beings. If you want a category for article contributors linking to their user pages, so others can check out their credentials, that would make sense. But even user page content isn't restricted to a didactic documentation of qualifications to write/add to/correct Wikipedia plus a small personal biography; there's tons of fluff and fancruft and self-aggrandizement. To continue extrapolating outward from that sort of crap only makes Wikipedia (and "Wikipedians") look even more juvenile, frivolous and cliquish than many of the articles (or lack of them) already makes it appear to the average person. 12.73.194.233 13:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indoor arenas by nationality to Category:indoor arenas by country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 05:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A subcategory of category:categories by country. — Instantnood 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean Category:Indoor arenas by country, surely? Hiding talk 20:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Since category names can only begin with a capital letter there is no difference. CalJW 00:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename then if you are sure. I just want to make sure correct procedure is followed. Hiding talk 09:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:sports venue in Foo to category:sport venue in Foo[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ∞Who?¿? 05:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per local usage (like transport/transportation). In Commonwealth English sport is not spelt with the s.

Categories affected:

 — Instantnood 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm an advocate of avoiding inappropriate usage of American English, but I don't think this is anything of the kind. While in the UK we certainly say "sport" rather than "sports" for sporting activities generally, we also say "sports venues" (check usage on the BBC site for example) - or occasionally "sporting venues", but I think that is perhaps a little old-fashioned. If there are any countries where this is not the case they can be changed, but is there clear evidence that there are? CalJW 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in those cases where the correct term is sports venue - such as Australia, India, New Zealand, pakistan, Scotland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom... (don't know about the others, but I advise checking). To be honest, I didn't realise that the US (or anywhere else) used the term "sport venue" which - to me at least - sounds horribly stilted. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. doesn't. The idea behind this proposal is that these ones should be changed because Commonwealth English does. CalJW 01:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. The idea behind all the opposition is that these ones should remain as they are because Commonwealth English does. Grutness...wha? 07:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it through again, you'll find you are the one who is mistaken I think wha?
Ah... right. Failed to parse one of my own sentences correctly. Commonwealth English does think it's stilted, and Commonwealth English does use the S. :) Grutness...wha? 22:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not too sure if this is really an issue of Commonwealth English usage, but Singapore, a Commonwealth country, tends to say "sports venues". "sport venues" somehow dosent sound grammatically correct.--Huaiwei 12:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think we've heard from enough people from enough Commonwealth English-speaking countries to determine that "Sport venue" isn't really standard anywhere. -The Tom 23:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bhoeble 13:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Comedy books to Category:Humor books[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reverse merge. ∞Who?¿? 05:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge newly created category:comedy books into pre-existing category:Humor books. Also "comedy books" sounds weird. Book stores have a Humor section, not a Comedy section. MakeRocketGoNow 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Reverse merge instead because "comedy" is neutral between British and American English, but humo(u)r isn't. The older category is hardly bursting with content, and almost of much of what little there is, is "humour" as is "humor" CalJW 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per CalJW, reverse merge, for the reasons stated, although I'd be happy with the neutral "Humorous books" (though that may be a more POV title). Neutral English terms are better where possible. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Humor is the common name of the genre. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mightn't "Comedic books" make the best grammatical sense? -The Tom 23:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as per Grutness. Bhoeble 13:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians in Kingdom of León[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been created to hold one person. TexasAndroid 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Normaly I'm all for Wikipedian categories, even with just one member. However this category doesn't make any sense. The Kingdom of León was a long defunct state, most if it's former lands are within Spain (see Leon (province)). Going by the users userpage it's either a joke, or a political statement (seperatism). Hard to tell sometimes. --Sherool 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could be very educational if presented in the correct way. Mirlin 12:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no longer a Kingdom of León. If there were something worth mentioning on say, List of active autonomist and secessionist movements interested in creating such a state, I might consider it, but there isn't. siafu 02:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians on Break/Holiday[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; we don't need to see who's on holiday. -WindFish 09:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Could be useful. Suppose I was hoping to collaborate on an article with Wikipedian_X and Wikipedian_Y. This category, properly used, could inform me that one or both were taking a WikiBreak (which I assume was the intended purpose). -Seth Mahoney 17:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful as a category. Cuñado - Talk 21:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:2100 deaths[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, too far in the future to be a useful category, IMHO. TexasAndroid 16:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For all we know, the world will end next week and there won't be any deaths in 2100. siafu 18:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per siafu's optimistic comment.  BD2412 talk 22:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:2240[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Way too far in the future for the category to be useful. The one entry, 2240, is also in Category:Years in the future, which IMHO is sufficient. TexasAndroid 16:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. metropolitan areas to category:Metropolitan areas of the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 06:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was the only abbreviated category in the United States menu and I was going to nominate it for renaming until I discovered that category:Metropolitan areas of the United States already exists. So merge into that instead. CalJW 11:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Airports in Foo[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. ∞Who?¿? 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A misinformed anon created this category just to ask what it is. Speedy delete. --Huaiwei 09:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Should this be moved to speedy? — Instantnood 09:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suspect this is related to the cfru text applied to the subcats of category:airports. We should probably keep the category around until the category:airports discussion is closed. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; just a mistake/test/nonsense. -WindFish 09:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "airports" discussion is now closed, so this can go. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bad popes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously POV. -- Beland 07:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is ridiculous. Is there an applicable speedy criteria?--Pharos 07:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a speedy. CalJW 11:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have proposed a speedy criterion along these lines if people wish to comment. Hiding talk 18:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have? Which part of the linked page are you referring too exactly? CalJW 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section "Controversial" people or things, which leads into Speedy category deletion criteria where I talk of making the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people speedy criteria, although the conversation ran out a bit. Specifically here, Use the most neutral and/or generic name, which this most certainly does not do. Hiding talk 09:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note I have reproposed the criteria on the talk page. Hiding talk 11:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh I love this category <3 -WindFish 09:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike Category:Charismatic religious leaders, the name does refer to a POV value judgement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:London shops to category:Shops in London[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not in the standard form for categories of man made places. Rename category:Shops in London. CalJW 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Towns in Slovakia to Category:Cities and towns in Slovakia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that no distinction is made between towns and cities in Slovakia, and this category includes the largest settlements in the country. In these circumstances the standard policy is to use the form Category:Cities and towns in Slovakia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Charismatic religious leaders[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 20:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By who's measure, reference or citation, the included people in the list are considered "charismatic"? This is contradictory with NPOV. Delete. ZappaZ 02:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Many people are voting based on an incorrect assumption that "charismatic" in the title is intended to convey whether the leader in question "has charisma", in the sense of personal magnetism. It instead refers to whether the leader's authority meets the sociological definition of charismatic authority, a different thing altogether from personal charisma. Please make sure you understand what the difference is before you vote.
It doesn't make any difference. Academics do not own common English words. The category system is a navigation tool, and the terms used must be as clear as possible. CalJW 07:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"When assigning an article into categories... The topic may be associated with a geographic area, a historical period, an academic subfield..."* Sorry, I'm just not having any luck finding these policies that people seem to be referring to that say categories must be deleted if they use words in their academic senses, or that if there is some perceived problem with a category's name, deletion rather than renaming must be the solution. Well, then, I guess we'd better delete Category:Type-M stars, since the average Joe doesn't know what that academic distinction means. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too vague and too broad. CalJW 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually, "Charismatic" can have a rather specific meaning in Christianity, but that is clearly not what is intended here.--Pharos 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there are several leaders who are explicilty described as charismatic. e.g. rajneesh and Prem Rawat as ideal types in Paul Schnabel's dissertation about new religious movements. This category is based on mainstream, generally accepted scholarship, like dr. Eileen Barker's unlike deleted categories like "founder of religion" that are far more vague. Andries 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Almost every religious leader has charismatic authority; actually I think this itself is far more vague than a "founder of religion" category, as unworkable as that may be.--Pharos 05:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The great majority of religious leaders have no charismatic authority. Examples are almost all priests and imams whose authority is traditional authority. Andries 17:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The degree may be somewhat lessened, but I think it's still there. Anyway, who could deny that major traditions like Protestant Sunday preachers have very primarily charismatic authority?--Pharos 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: POV. Is there a "non-charismatic religious leaders" category? Why not just "religious leaders"? --Yodakii 07:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the current Pope would probably be considered an excellent example of a non-charismatic religious leader. This is not to say that Pope Benedict XVI is lacking in personal magnetism, but to illustrate that "charismatic authority" and "personal charisma" are two different things that sometimes can intersect but are hardly synonymous. Pope Benedict gets obeyed partly because he is the Pope, and good Catholics traditionally follow the Pope's orders (traditional authority), and he gets obeyed because he wields power in the hierarchy of the Church (for instance, if you don't obey his orders, the Pope could excommunicate you -- rational-legal authority). However, very little of Pope Benedict's authority derives from his own perceived characteristics. Contrast this with Pope John Paul II, who not only had the traditional authority and rational-legal authority of the Pope, but who wielded such charismatic authority that even those who were completely outside of John Paul's actual sphere of power gave his pronouncements attention and respect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pharos. --goethean ॐ 14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote based on Anteus Feldspar's comments. Delete. Charismatic religious leaders based on Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority is not notable enough. We don't categorize people based on sociological theories. --goethean ॐ 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't? How interesting; I was not aware that there was policy excluding sociology from the fields that we cover. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then name your category that and see how far you get. --goethean ॐ 22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unworkable and POV. For some it will be "how come name XYZ is not included?: and for others will be "how come you are including ABC as one?" (Yodaki: there is already a Category:Religious leaders, this being a sub-category of that) ≈ jossi ≈ 14:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Categorization of people Use the most neutral and/or generic name Hiding talk 09:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This applies to how to select a name when Creating a new category. It does not apply to whether a category should be created or deleted. — RDF talk 04:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So when we are creating a new category, we use the most neutral words possible, and that doesn't apply how? Of course it applies. Categories should have the mose neutral name, this is not a neutral name. Are you proposing that once a category has been created this guideline no longer applies? That means it has no value, since one could just disregard it and create any category one chooses and then point out that since it is already in existence the guidleine should not apply. Of course it applies. Otherwise all guidelines and policies would be so flawed. Hiding talk 12:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hiding's assertion that this category is not neutral is nonsense. From the article charismatic authority "Note that according to Weber, a charismatic leader does not have to be a positive force; thus, both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler could be reasonably considered charismatic leaders." Andries 20:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. It is not neutral because it is either an objective distinction or a meaningless one. Either all leaders have it, at which point it is a meaningless distinction, since we can simply remove the term charismatic from the category title, or only a number of leaders have it, at which point it becomes an objective distinction. Did Iain Duncan Smith have charisma, to choose an example from the political sphere you also cited. In religion, did John Knox have charisma? It's hard to quntify, wouldn't you agree? These distinctions should be made in articles where they can be sourced and both points of view can be presented. It is my belief that we can not empirically state that someone has charisma, therefore it is wrong to do so. Hiding talk 12:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This isn't "Religious leaders who have charisma". This is a category for religious leaders whose authority is primarily charismatic in nature. They are two different things; in fact, just about their only intersection is that personal charisma is one of the possible personal characteristics on which charismatic authority could be founded. Note, though, that a public figure can have very little charisma and still have charismatic authority. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There are several religious leaders who are categorized as being charasmatic and the charasmatic movement seems to be growing. May I ask, what is exactly wrong with having categories that are a little more specific. Most categories are so broad. Another idea is those categories you wish to delete, why not atleast consider them for sub-categories? Mirlin 12:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category does not refer to the Christian religious movement; it refers to people who have charisma – that is, those who evoke positive emotions in others. I voted to delete the category because it is a highly subjective matter to decide who has charisma and who does not. --goethean ॐ 22:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that's completely wrong. The category does not refer to people who have charisma; it refers to leaders whose authority can be classed as charismatic authority. Please go back and review your vote, since it is based on a misunderstanding of the criteria. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's absolutely no fundamental reason why such a category can't work, if NPOV truly is the objective. The three types of authority described by Weber are as clear as just about any other sociological classification system. "In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition, in charismatic authority from the personality and leadership qualities of the individual (charisma), and in legal (or rational-legal) authority from powers that are bureaucratically and legally attached to certain positions. A classic example of these three types may be found in religion: priests (traditional), Jesus (charismatic), and the Roman Catholic Church (legal-rational)." - Tripartite classification of authority. The issue shouldn't be about the category. It should be about the veracity of the evidence to place a potential candidate into the category. Let the system work on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, NPOV is prevented from having even an opportunity to be expressed. — RDF talk 04:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no objective source or even collection of sources to consult to determine who should or shouldn't be considered "charismatic". NPOV applies, but also (and more directly) Wikipedia:No original research. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for sure. Cuñado - Talk 21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, arguments for far more persuasive than arguments against... "for sure". I will admit I didn't know how to vote until I read the other comments for awhile tho. ;) Sam Spade 17:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination, and many of the votes, seem to be based on a confusion between the sociological meaning of charismatic authority and "charisma" as it is used in common discourse to indicate personal magnetism. If this category actually was about "religious leaders who have personal magnetism", then I would actually agree with those who say it's based on POV judgements. But if there's anyone who actually thinks that classifying a particular leader's authority as "charismatic" in the sociological sense of the term is automatically a POV judgement, well, then, I hope they will show consistency and vote to delete all information on sociology from Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category names should not be based on academic usages of common words. Bhoeble 13:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note users should be careful as to which biographies they place in this category, and have some reference to avoid POV categorization. ∞Who?¿? 20:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Slovak regions to category:Regions of Slovakia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the "of" form, which is standard for subdivisions: category:Regions of Slovakia CalJW 01:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Love songs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highly nonspecific and non-maintainable. --FuriousFreddy 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete CalJW 01:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator LiniShu 01:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and LiniShu -WindFish 09:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sounds like a good category to me, especially since there are SO many of them, and so many different ways to sub-categorize, including love song writing, love song instrumentals, love song artists, ... the variety is quite endless. Mirlin 12:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly vague, and really not worth subcategorising. Bhoeble 13:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Uniterranism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles, one of wich is of somewhat dubious notability. Anyway at first I was going to suggest merging it with Category:Unitarianism (not the biggest of cats either) becuse I thought it was a mis-spelling, but aparently they are two seperate things, this one aparently deals with things related to the Uniterran Church, and currently there seems to be rather few things of note other than the article about the church itself and a 2 year old holiday they "invented". I say delete this category at this time. If more articles about uniterranism appear it can always be recreated at a later date. --Sherool 01:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The topic just isn't broad enough. Also, the article about the holiday should probably be merged.--Pharos 07:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. As for the category, well more and more articles WILL be added. Not only by me but others who profess the faith. Starting the category now will ensure they have a place to put them, but if you and others insist upon weeding it out now because it is not large enough yet, then you have that power. How many times will we have to create the category only for you and others to mark it for deletion because you feel there are not enough articles? 10 times? 30 times? 3000 times? I suppose editing 2,800 some odd articles does have a way of making you feel powerful, powerful enough to quash something that perhaps you yourself may not fully agree with, but like I said, that is your power. I can only humbly submit to whatever is decided.Mirlin 08:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.There is only so much that can be written about any religion that is only 3 years old; the situation would be the same, with, say, Christianity at that age. I suggest that you focus on improving the Uniterran Church article, adding all relevant info, and only split stuff off if that becomes inordinately long. Don't spead yourself too thin.--Pharos 14:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned, having an article (Though it is at least a decent article) is borderline to vanity enough; having an entire category just seems to border absurdity. (In a joking fashion, I did laugh that the religion is only three years old, and clergy must apparently undergo a rigorous three-year training session ;) ). I'd also side with Pharos in suggesting that you focus on making the single article on the faith superb, and not create new sub-par articles for each aspet of the faith. Readers are likely to read the entire initial article, but are much less likely to actually go read tangents off of it. Sherurcij 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_3&oldid=1122050127"