Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23[edit]

Category:Userboxes made with userboxcreator[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this category could be useful at all. Who cares what a userbox was made with? Can't think of any use someone would have in looking through this category. VegaDark 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only possible use I could see would be to track usage so that changes to userboxcreator could be somehow updated in all the boxes using it. Not sure if that is a valid reason or not though. -- 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Shouldn't this discussion be taking place at WP:UCFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, UCFD should only be for categories that contain Wikipedians. I've been one of the most active editors on UCFD for the past 6 months, and I have never seen a category like this on there, so I figured this is the right place. VegaDark 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need it so i can update the userboxes made with the program for example added User:Java7837/ut to all of the userboxes made with the program --Java7837 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I'm not sure if this is a valid reason or not-If so, I think this would be the first category of its kind, and would justify many more similar categories, which I am not sure we want. VegaDark 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only program of its kind so how could similar programs be made when it is the only program of its kind besides i need it to be able to update userboxes made with the program so they won't lose support after an update to the program --Java7837 13:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What essential function does your program perform in constructing an encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories don't have to categorize articles they can categorize templates, userboxes, and userpages also --Java7837 12:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. but my question is this: What essential function does your program perform in constructing an encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The program accessable at User:Java7837/userboxcreator makes userboxes it loads a page with the following code {{userbox|id color|text background color|id|text}} and some more stuff and loads a page which shows u what it looks like

it looks like by the way like this

mad-5

this user is really mad just kidding

--Java7837 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what it does. Could you answer my question, please? --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom as trvia, and because even the categ's creator doesn't know what purpose is served by the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the category is to be able to edit to easily access userboxes made with the userbox so i can update them easily so they won't malfunction when i update the program--Java7837 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of now it doesn't benefit an encyclopedia but it can give me a suggestion and i can make it beneficial to an encyclopedia--Java7837 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Java7837, in response to your concern I need it so i can update the userboxes made with the program you could simply make a sub-page in your user space, transclude it into each and every userbox made with your program, and then get all of the links to it when you need to update. The category is not really needed to manage updates. --Iamunknown 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bryce userboxes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be created specifically to categorize userboxes having to do with Bryce (software). Looks to be the only category of its kind, and with only one template in the category, seems extremely unnecessary. VegaDark 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this discussion be taking place at WP:UCFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, UCFD should only be for categories that contain Wikipedians. I've been one of the most active editors on UCFD for the past 6 months, and I have never seen a category like this on there, so I figured this is the right place. VegaDark 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter... --Iamunknown 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OrchWyn 10:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other example of this kind of categorization. Falls under WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion and WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Also as per Category:Hispanic inhabited regions deletion (Nomination). -- Cat ^chi? 21:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category has survived 4 CfDs (1, 2, 3, 4), the last two by the same nominator. Results were "no consensus" x3, and "keep" (last). Niko Silver 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as these regions are cited to be inhabited by Kurds, there's no real reason to delete the cat. Niko Silver 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would Michigan State University qualify? There lives at least one Kurd there. Majority would be Arbitrary inclusion. Categories should not be used to convey census data (not to mention there is no census on Kurdish population). -- Cat ^chi? 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources though. when we say "inhabited", we certainly don't mean a couple of students. No brainer. Niko Silver 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do "we" (who is we anyways) mean? 10 people? 100 people? 1000 people? 40% population? How is that not arbitrary? -- Cat ^chi? 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said, no brainer. Won't you ever quit? Niko Silver 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will never "quit" if I feel something falls under WP:OC and that it has been kept by WP:CANVASSed votes. -- Cat ^chi? 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious allegation. Do you have equally serious proof to back it up? Niko Silver 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence should be self evident. Two users with Greek POV are voting before anyone else. One of them voted just minutes after the nomination and is not a regular participant in CfDs. That aside a number of people who participated on the earlier votes have been sanction on various degrees for disruption. -- Cat ^chi? 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Practice what you preach on your userpage: WP:AGF. Niko Silver 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith. These greek/armeian/kurdish voters had stumbled upon the CfD by sheer coincidence. Some made their first (and last) projectspace edit also coincidentally. Some didn't even know english and yet find their way to the nomination pages by sheer coincidence. You were inquiring if I were to ever "quit" a few lines above. Funny you bring up WP:AGF... -- Cat ^chi? 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but I'm not Greek or Armenian and I don't think I've ever met a Kurd. I did consider your proposal as I can see how an ethnic region could be potentially ambiguous. However Wikipedia allows similar things with several other ethnic groups and, despite some fuzziness with the concept, I think it is encyclopedic. The Kurds could be what's termed in anthropology an "ecumene." This use of the term is not really in Wikipedia so I'm not linking to the article on ecumene. What I remember though it defines a kind of cultural space where the force is weaker the further out you go into its "hinterland." It inherently has fuzzy borders, but it is nevertheless real. In that sense the Kurds could be similar to the Maya or the Basque.--T. Anthony 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea about what you're saying, since I didn't participate in any of them. Judging by your accusations now, I understand there are more cabal theories coming. However, disputing an admin's decision in closing a previous CfD has proper venues, and this one is simply not it. Niko Silver 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I suspect it will be CANVASSED as well... Sorry if I do not sound enthusiastic - but it is merely the result of previous noms... I am not accusing anyone specifically - but thats how CfD's are. Anyways, I do not believe I will pay any more attention to this particular nom. I made my arguments. -- Cat ^chi? 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why this all seems familiar :) This has been looked at before, the category states it's for the traditional Kurdish-inhabited area - evidently Michigan State University doesn't qualify. Other places though, such as Diyarbakir do (as affirmed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica); inclusion should be approached on a case-by-case basis and if there are none, such articles have no place in the category. Reliable sources for each included article are needed; when such sources are found for Michigan State University, then that may be included also. I find Cool Cat's grounds for proposing deletion baseless; this is evident to anyone who sees the kind of examples of "non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference" and "arbitrary inclusion criteria" cited in that guideline. Also, I must say, I do find Cool Cat's persistent assaults on all things Kurdish very tiresome.--Ploutarchos/Domitius 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about categorizing random cities in Greece, Germany as "Turkish inhabited" or Cities in United States Hispanic inhabited... How is that helping navigation? -- Cat ^chi? 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't compare the situations. Are there any "traditionally" hispanic areas in the USA, or have all inhabitants been there for the same time. I would not object to categories on the locations of American indians though because that is a very similar example to this case. Niko Silver 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty. All of Greece was traditionally Turkish during the ottoman empire. So no problem in categorizing every single city. Every chunk of the United States is native American traditional area. Hispanic people have traditionally lived in a vast amount of area. There is even verifiable information on percentages. Yet - cities are not categorized accordingly. Can you identify the so called black belt? How many categories do you think every single US city would need? -- Cat ^chi? 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greece remained ethnically Greek under the Ottomans. I believe it also constituted an administrative region and those have categories too. The regions of the US that remain Native American dominate are in Category:United States communities with Native American majority populations. (It might be worth considering a rename to "places with Kurdish majority populations" if ambiguity is the problem) You seem to be arguing the Kurds are not a nation, but that is not technically relevant see Category:Balochistan or Category:Buryatia. If you want to argue that all ethnic region categories should be deleted that's a different discussion and one that, it appears, you would lose.--T. Anthony 03:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fundementaly different examples. "Category:United States communities with Native American majority populations" is based on a census. "Kurdish inhabited regions" is not. Weather Greek remained ethnically Greek or not isn't the point. If it is fine that Turkish cities are going to be baselessly categorized as "kurdish cities", why shouldn't Greek cities be baselessly categorized as "Turkish cities"? -- Cat ^chi? 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. I take it as implied that these are regions with a large or majority populace of Kurds. If you think that's insufficiently clear I'm open to it being renamed "Category:Regions with Kurdish majority populations." Others may not like that, I can't speak for them as I don't even know most of them, but I would think it okay. Would you be okay with that or would you reject such a rename?--T. Anthony 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing three important points:
Why is categorizing by ethnicity relevant?

How is "majority" not arbitrary / What do we consider "Majority"? +50%?

Without a census how on earth can we know who is "majority" and where?

"Who is a Kurd" can be a controversial topic among people themselves. Some Zazas feel that they are not "Kurdish people" or that they are separate some other people feel Zazas are indeed Kurds. If you check meta logs there is a zaza wiki for this reason.

I just feel a machine generated list (category) is unworkable. I have no problem with an article list. On a list we can provide information on why a city or province is "Kurdish majority" and based on what site. The "data" isn't being purged. I just feel it would be better to convey it via an article list.

Honestly speaking this CfD is a lost cause. People are name calling me and making this personal. Another Canvassed CfD as far as I care.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really trying to be fair and I was not canvassed in any way. You seem to be saying all these ethnicity things are unnecessary. I don't agree with that, but if that's your position you need to do a better job at dealing with them as one. You tried that with Category:Films by culture, but the history of this hurt your case. If you want to do a "test case" on these ethnicity things try to "mix it up" as much as possible. By repetitively picking the same group, be it Kurds or Berbers or Pygmies, it makes a person look biased whether they are or not. Or maybe you really are biased, I don't know you well enough to exonerate or criticize, but even then you'd be more sensible to mix it up to hide that. Hope you do better in the future or what have you.--T. Anthony 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am NOT accusing you or anyone specifically, that would be outright unfair. You are actually listening to my arguments and I am grateful for that. The problem is as you point out the people participating this and similar discussions are casting a vote based on the "who the nominator is" and not "what the nominators rationale suggests". Issue can be raised when the sandstorm settles. -- Cat ^chi? 08:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is everything Kurdish always up for deletion? Again and again and again? This is relevant information and the deletion is fundamentally based on straw man arguments. While we have a category Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus where cities of Turkish inhabitants of that island are placed, I suppose the nominator would prefer a Category:Kurdistan rather than the current name? Thought not. Carlossuarez46 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Cyprus, Nagaro-Katabag, Sealand claim to be a country. There is a "defacto official claim". Kurdistan does not claim to be a country there is no "defacto official claim". I will personally tag cities under Category:Kurdistan if a defacto/dejure Kurdistan country starts to exist. -- Cat ^chi? 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as nothing has changed from the previous failed CfDs, and the subject matter it still notable and still exists, despite those who fervently wish it not to be so. Tarc 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per previous discussions. AshbyJnr 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per previous discussions, the last of which was only thirteen weeks ago. There appears to be nothing new in this nomination, and the most recent CFD closed with a clear consensus to "keep". CfD shoukd not be used to endlessly rehash the same arguments when a consensus has been reached so recently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not significantly different from Category:Zazaish inhabited regions, Category:Lapurdi, or Category:United States communities with Native American majority populations.--T. Anthony 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. A Musing 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Cat, you've been nominating Kurdish categories for deletion for years, and they don't get deleted, so what is the point? Sumahoy 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is verifiability and neutral point of view. Many "kurdish" related categories I nominated had been deleted such as Category:Kurdish terrorists or Category:Sport in Kurdistan. I do not see these deletions as a "success" or anything. -- Cat ^chi? 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sport one was because Kurds do not have a state or a national team. Other stateless peoples have categories for their region while lacking a sports category. There is no Category:Sport in Tibet, for example.--T. Anthony 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... When I say that same thing, people name-call me "anti-kurdish" (whatever that means)... It is still a kudish category I nominated for deletion and it did end up getting deleted. -- Cat ^chi? 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:NikoSilver and Domitius. It's also true that CoolCat tries to delete Kurdish related categories/articles. It's unbelievable - soon I'll let the admins know about his behaviour. Özgūr ^Talk ^Hist 00:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to "let admins know". I am not hiding anything. It is actually on ANB/I. -- Cat ^chi? 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger into Category:Kurdistan, and relevant subcats. --Soman 09:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and Admin warning to the nominator for pursuing his WP:POINT campaign, against powerful community consensus. This Kurd-obsessed nonsense has got to stop. --Mais oui! 09:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge you in filing an arbitration case if you really think this is "disruptive". -- Cat ^chi? 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read hubris and Nemesis. Niko Silver 11:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really am uninterested in mythology. -- Cat ^chi? 13:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you haven't even got a supporter yet, that's not really nice is it? Özgūr ^Talk ^Hist 12:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, unless your remark is relevant to the CfD discussion, please do not bother making the remark. -- Cat ^chi? 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article has survived many nominations -- can't keep redoing the discussion indefinitely. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish figure skaters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of previously CfD'd content. VegaDark 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated recently deleted category. Kolindigo 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - recreated content. Otto4711 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Was deleted at an afd only a few days ago. see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 14#Category:Jewish figure skaters Dugwiki 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disputed convictions[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, To quote: "This category lists people who have been convicted of crimes, but whose convictions have been controversial. People listed in this category have not currently been proven to have been wrongfully convicted, although their cases may be under review." Controversial convictions come in many stripes as evidenced by the people included: that the convicted person didn't do it (actual innocence), that s/he didn't get a fair trial, that the law itself was unfair or should be repealed, and others. And how does WP verify that any of these is true? Well, evidently, the "controversial" nature of the conviction just means that someone (the convicted person usually first) thinks that the conviction was wrong. This category does not make any attempt to differentiate among the various members who really have little in common but for some undefined but apparently expansive view of "controversial" and them being convicted of some crime or another. One might sense that the entire category is a POV problem (that it is a subcategory of "human rights" seems to beg the question of just because popular belief or conspiracy theorists make something "controversial" it becomes a human rights matter). But, at bottom, because there are no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion, it's a POV quagmire and uncurably so. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename. It is not true that "the entire category is a POV problem". The two articles I've worked on in this category (Peter_Hugh_McGregor_Ellis and David_Bain) are good examples; each case has been through several appeals, with both now being appealed to the Privy Council, and each has been the subject of multiple books. The fact that these convictions were controversial is not in dispute. Categories that have grey edges, and where strong opinions are involved, e.g. Category:LGBT people, should not necessarily be deleted; we just need to ensure that there are clear criteria for inclusion and to insist that the reason for placing each article in the category (here, that the conviction is controversial) must be verifiable. The nominator has not discussed their concerns on the category's talk page; I think the human rights categorisation should probably be discussed there, although I don't have any objections to its removal. Would we perhaps have fewer problems if the category was renamed "Controversial convictions"? -- Avenue 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the other "controversial" category deletions. Most convictions will be controversial to someone. Doczilla 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Lesnail 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. The only convictions which are not disputed are those where the convict pleaded guilty, without arm-twisting or plea-bargaining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not every conviction will have a book written about it, i.e. not every conviction will be verifiably disputed. I think that's the critical point here. -- Avenue 22:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas can be verified from the court records, so I think BrownHairedGirl's point stands. Xtifr _tälk 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that some of the subcategories of this category already cover many of the less controversial possible members, such as the Salem Witch Trials and Category:Wrongful convictions. What remains therefore are articles about people who are convicted, whose conviction has not been overturned, and whose innocence has not actually been established, but whose appeals of conviction have gained some sort of media attention. Just my opinion but this seems to subjective to be a good category criteria. I would disagree with Avenue's stance above that "Categories that have grey edges, and where strong opinions are involved ...should not necessarily be deleted". Rather I would say they usually should be deleted, with the burden of proof to keep the questionable category squarely on the shoulders of the editors who want to keep it in place. Note that this is slightly harsher than the criteria to keep a questionable article; bad categories have broader negative effects than bad articles and thus the barriers preventing bad category creation are higher. Dugwiki 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete per nom and per BrownHairedGirl. The argument that "books exist" only convinces me that the articles should mention the dispute (and the books), not that this category should exist. Note that this seems to be related to the on-going dispute about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 20#Disputed convictions in the United States where this category was mentioned. Xtifr _tälk 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reflecting on Dugwiki's argument, I've changed my mind (and struck out my vote above). I still think there is some scope for a useful NPOV collection of these sort of cases, but I now agree that a category is not the best way to do this. Delete. -- Avenue 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Disputed convictions" is as subjective and as opinionated a category can get. -- Cat ^chi? 13:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 20#Disputed convictions in the United States. Tufflaw 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Chinese celebrities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Australian celebrities this is not a useful sub-level category. The individual articles should all probably be in some other more apropriate category, such as Category:Chinese actors. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't categorize people as "celebrities" Xtifr _tälk 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Otto4711 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting point, but that category seems to mostly contain articles about celebrity status, not about individual celebrities (although some of the subcats are more debate-worthy). While I will admit that it is not, perhaps, quite as clear-cut as I first suggested, I think that category mostly reinforces (rather than undermines) my position. Xtifr _tälk 02:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I did look in the parent before I nominated this category, and did select it based on seeing no need for celebrity by nationality subcats. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless Category:Celebrities is also deleted. I haven't decided yet whether "celebrities" can be a category with clear enough inclusion criteria to be viable, but if Category:Celebrities exists, then national subcats are a useful way of dividing it. Jade Goody, for example, is a classic celebrity, famous for being famous, but only in the UK: there is little sense in putting her in the same category as a Chinese celebrity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, Category:Celebrities does not contain articles about individual people, so its existence seems irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps it should be renamed to Category:Celebrity—but that's an issue for another day. Xtifr _tälk 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no national subcat structure, this is the only one other than the empty Australian one as far as I know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Find better categories for each person. AshbyJnr 09:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Communities in the Mojave Desert[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. Sam Blacketer 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and Delete. Same reasons as Cities in the Mojave Desert. I have had issues with many subcats in Category:Mojave Desert. I think the suggestion to listify these is the right way to go. Vegaswikian 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons as discussed below at CFD for Cat:Cities in the Mojave Desert. "I have issues" is not grounds for deletion: please explain what those issues are, so that editors can assess whether they agree or disagree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If and when I decide to nominate those categories, I list my issues. But in general this seems to be over classification. As an example, we have been cleaning up flora and fauna, but we have these categories for the Mojave desert. But for this nomination, I agree with the reasons offered below for cities. That is a specific reason and not an I have issues that are not defined. Vegaswikian 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: a reasonable subcategory of the 'Mojave desert' category and the 'Mojave desert' category is similar to all other state region categories and should be kept and maintained as they are useful to readers. Hmains 03:27, 25 April 2007 (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:Lost in Space episodes[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: reverse merge Category:Lost in Space into Category:Lost in Space episodes then delete Category:Lost in Space. Sam Blacketer 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost in Space episodes to Category:Lost in Space

Merge, populated only by one stub Stlemur 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge population one. Niko Silver 21:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and place Category:Lost in Space episodes in Category:Episodes by television series tree. Everything in the LIS category is an episode summary or an episode list. Otto4711 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge into Category:Lost in Space episodes As per Otto above, Category:Lost in Space episodes should be kept within the Category:Episodes by television series scheme. The eponymous category Category:Lost in Space, however, can be safely deleted and its episode articles moved to the episode category. Dugwiki 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per Otto. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (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:History of Kurdistan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of Kurdistan to Category:History of the Kurds

Nominator's Rationale: Rename/Merge, Borders of Kurdistan is vaguely defined. Declaring something inside/around "Kurdistan" can be and often is controversial. However establishing a connection with Kurdish people is non-controversial. Since the intended coverage is "Kurdish history" such a rename should be trivial. -- Cat ^chi? 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vaguely defined or not, it is still a de facto state as much as Palestine is. Tarc 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is NOT a defacto state unlike Palestine. Kurdistan doesn't claim to be a country. No one claims Kurdistan to be a country. -- Cat ^chi? 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is entirely your opinion, which really does not factor into deletion discussions. Tarc 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Can you cite evidence of this defacto Kurdistan government that claims to exist as an independent country? -- Cat ^chi? 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi Kurdistan, for one, but what it does or does not "claim" is not the point. One does not have to nation status in order to be recognized as an entity notable enough for an article or category in the Wikipedia. See: Sealand, Kosovo. Tarc 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi Kurdistan claims to be a federal state of Iraq. Sealand claims to be a country unlike Kurdistan. Defacto countries are fine. Kurdistan is a defacto country no more than my living room. You are yet to cite evidence otherwise. -- Cat ^chi? 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are unaware of Category:History of Sikkim or Category:History of Saxony. Whether Kurdistan is or isn't a country, we have "history of" federal states. We also have Category:History by ethnic group and subcats like Category:Roma history. So you'd have to argue that the Kurds are also not a state or territory and not an ethnic group to make this valid.--T. Anthony 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, "...what it does or does not "claim" is not the point." Kurdistan is an entity, whether it is informal or de facto or whatever is besides the point; IT EXISTS. And despite your bad-faith nominations across the board of Kurd-related issues, it will continue to exist. Tarc 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have an article named Kurdistan, talking about a historical which presumably has a history, so a category called Category:History of Kurdistan is entirely appropriate. There is no need that Foo must be a country in a Category:History of Foo, we have Category:History of Oregon (and 49 others no doubt), we have Category:History of Germany and Category:History of Italy that have lots of articles which predate the formation (and re-formation) of those countries. The argument that the borders are vaguely defined or changeable is also a strawman argument. The borders of the US have changed since 1783, those of Germany were constantly in flux, like those of nearly every nation over time, that doesn't mean that the category is invalid. A history of the Kurds may overlap with but not be the equivalent to the history of Kurdistan. Just like a History of the Turks would differ from a History of Turkey category. One may talk about what the Turks did before they came to settle in Anatolia; the other about the civilizations in Anatolia before the Turks arrived. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we are going to imply Kurdistan a country status? Kurdistan to this date never had defined borders. Nothing strawman about that. -- Cat ^chi? 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can do that, but WP doesn't have to. Oregon is not and never has been a country, yet it has a history category. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regions are entitled to their historic cats. Niko Silver 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever Kurdistan is or is not now, it was once a country, and it is certainly a region, even if a troublesome one to define. I don't see why it is not entitled to a category. Although this is not strictly relevant I note that we also have a category Category:History of the Suvadives abot a now defunct country. Lesnail 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan was never a country. If the historic topic is relevant to Kurdish independence, it can be called just that. If it is relevant to a defunct country, it can be categorized accordingly. Category:History by region prefers History by city, by continent, or by country. There are far too many geographic regions out there and if we decide to use one we will have to use them all. Area occupied by Kurdistan probably overlaps Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Assyria, Middle east, Western Asia Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, and half a dozen other regions. -- Cat ^chi? 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category:History of Macedonia which is for Macedonia (region).--Ploutarchos/Domitius 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not bring such highly controversial matter as a rationale to this discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...because Kurdistan isn't controversial? Niko Silver 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish users claimed that yes. Macedonia terminology has an entire article about it. It is far more controversial and is definitely not the best possible example in many ways. -- Cat ^chi? 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I wouldn't know about that... The point? Niko Silver 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally categories should be well defined and non-controversial. The point is "Kurdistan" is an unnecessarily controversial term which can be avoided with relative ease. "Kurdistan history" and "Kurdish history" go hand to hand unlike "Macedonian (region) history" and "Greek/Bulgarian/Macedonian (people)".
Since I do not stalk people or review their contributions aggressively, I have no way of knowing on who is active on which article. My apologies for attempting to "lecture" you on "Macedonian terminology".
-- Cat ^chi? 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing not "well defined" about it. It may include a)Kurdish language films, b)Films with/about Kurdish people, c)Films shot in traditional Kurdish areas etc. A category's existence being depended on the perceived controversiality [sic] of the subject is beyond me. Stalking is occasionally an acceptable practice; when someone is vandalizing or when someone displays a pov rage for instance. Niko Silver 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking is prohibited behaviour. Reviewing contributions of a disruptive user is not considered stalking. Making it a habit to review all contribution of people one happens to disagree with constitutes as stalking. There is no verifiable source that establishes "well defined" borders for Kurdistan. There are no natural boundaries nor any agreement on maps. See this map or this map for examples. The maps hardly match. One reaches the Persian gulf while the other removes Turkey from existence. We could use retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters's solution to Mideast as our map as well. (Map suggestions were not intended to be taken seriously) -- Cat ^chi? 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If inconsistent boundaries rule out a category, then it's bye-bye Category:Poland: over the last few centuries, the country has been abolished on more than one occasion, and in the mid twentieth-century it was moved 200km westwards. But regardless of its current boundaries, Poland (or even whether it currently exists as a country), Poland has a history, so Category:History of Poland would useful even if the country as carved up again today. The same applies to Kurdistan, regardless of whether any of us thinks that should or should not be one or more states called "Kurdistan". We can wind ourselves into big knots if we fall into the trap of thinking that a nation-state with fixed and defined boundaries is the only way useful form of geographical or historical categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poland is a country today. We know its borders. We know exactly how Poland's borders changed. We know how Poland ceased to exist for a while during WW2 (and after IIRC). Kurdistan never had any kind of borders so the borders never could have "change" (since they never existed). The area Kurdistan occupies is a "really hazy geographical concept". Usage of "Kurdistan" itself is entering a gray and a highly controversial area. Categorization of articles based on a gray area rational itself further enters that area which can be easily avoided. -- Cat ^chi? 13:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of God, what on earth has the clarity/vagueness of borders have to do with the existence of history in an arbitrary/well-defined region? Europe is arbitrary, so is Asia, the Balkans, Macedonia, North America etc. Why do you want to cleanse WP from every instance of the word "Kurd-" and its derivatives? Niko Silver 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Kurdistan says that it "is the name of a geographic and cultural region in the Middle East, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds". That seems clear enough to me to provide a solid basis for a historical category. Using it for a geographical categorisation might be more difficult, but (per NikoSilver) the issue here seems to be one editor's personal determination to expunge the word "Kurdistan". NPOV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should be expected to follow NPOV as per WP:CAT#Some general guidelines. My personal opinions have NOTHING to do with this. No one (at least I am not) trying to cleanse WP from "Kurd-". Your baseless accusations against me belong to WP:ANB/I -- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about it being "Category:Kurdish history" to put it in line with Category:Roma history and other ethnic history. Would you accept that? Why or why not?--T. Anthony 05:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat, you have nominated for deletion a group of Kurdish categories, and in each case you are so far the only "delete" !voter; at least one of the categories was the subject of a previous CFD nomination by you (and closed with a consensus to keep). You have also nominated a bunch of tangentially-related categories for spurious reasons in an attempt to establish precedent, so I stand by my comments. Yes, this probably ought to be taken to WP:ANI, and no doubt someone will bring it there. --15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per all the reasons set forth above. A Musing 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all reasons above and Coolcat vazgec kocum. Özgūr ^Talk ^Hist 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. WP:POINTy nomination. Editor is trying to disrupt Wikipedia by nominating every single Kurdish-related portal or category for deletion. CloudNine 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (Closing all three discussions at once, since most of the comments generally applied to all 3 categories.) - If there had been a single name that all agreed on, I would have closed these as Rename. Just a thought: One word that was implied several times in the discussions is prejudice, perhaps in the future just adding that word to the category name may resolve at least some of the concerns. - jc37 10:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Buddhism[edit]

Same as below. Other anti-religion categories are being deleted with rationales that are unique to those particular categories. See below. Andrew c 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions&Comments -- have you or any of the people that voted to delete these "anti-[religion]" categories ever been involved with the maintaining/building of these categories before you all decided to come along and delete them all? That doesn't seem to make make much sense does it? I mean we are talking serious data loss with the mass-deletion of all of these categories (the loss of data at the anti-Islam sentiment category alone was bad enough, all of which happened with VERY LITTLE REAL DISCUSSION), and frankly it is idiotic to just wipe them all out like that (all the while leaving Category:Antisemitism of course and probably Category:Anti-Judaism too). These matters need to be extensively discussed further by the interested parties before these rash deletions proceed, not handled by a bunch of these disparate and random one-line editors who could care less if all of these categories stay or go. --Wassermann 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Subjective inclusion criteria as well. -- Cat ^chi? 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, subjective category per many precedents. Doczilla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is especially absurd considering the general policy of renunciation that is central to Buddhism. Anon166 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Anon166. As with other "anti-xx" categories or "critics of xx", there is no way of defining a set of objective inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 'Religious persecution of Buddhism' or some other name. Provide positive alternatives, not just 'delete, delete, delete' Hmains 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- firstly, ballot-stuffing is 'illegal' here on Wikipedia, right? Secondly, please see my response below under "anti-Judaism" for a fuller response to these idiotic deletion attempts. --Wassermann 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per previously-given reasons regarding subjective categorization and past, deleted anti-* categories. Tarc 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This rash and imprudent deletion of these categories does a disservice to Wikipedia users. The categories Category:Anti-Mormonism and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (although it should have been renamed Islamophobia or the like) should never have been deleted. These catagories are useful reasearch tools and although they are sometimes abused, those instances are usually quickly remedied. I looked at the contents of the Islamic category before it was deleted and all of the articles in it were fairly categorized. None of them were about events, people or groups who merely and fairly criticized the religion. The same is true about this and the other religous based bigotry categories. Religious based bigotry is a real phenomenon just as race based bigotry is. This category should not be deleted anymore than should the antisemitism category. The categories do not really refer to holding an opinion and are not truly subjective as their critics have maintained. When a reader is researching bigotry against Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Christians or Mormons, these categories are very helpful in locating related articles. I would suggest as a potential remedy that all the categories since deleted be restored and that each of the categories carry the caveat that the anti-semitism category does (to the effect that the article relates to antisemitism (or other subject) and that inclusion in the category does not necessarily mean that the individual or group is anti-semitic (or otherwise bigotted). Religious based bigotry is documented and recognized in academic study. It is also prohibited by law in virtually all democratic counties. It is not mere opinion. Deleting these categories does a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Mamalujo 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wassermann and Mamalujo . Shyamsunder 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC
Delete: Per all the reasons. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep per reasons above. -SESmith 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments in anti-Hindu below. Hornplease 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with being against Buddhism. These deletions seem like a knee-jerk over reaction. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: Unfortunately User:Hmains has created [1] a duplicate called Category:Buddhism-related controversies while this vote is still in progress. He has also done so in the case of Category:Anti-Judaism, see details at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 27#Category:Judaism-related controversies. Thank you, IZAK 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inventing new anti-ism-terms based on the OR principle of gathering disparate incidents belittles Anti-semitism. Anti-semitism isn't just a series of random acts of prejudice against jewish individuals, its an ideological construction that survived and developed for centuries. Anti-hinduism, anti-christianity, anti-judaism, anti-buddhism or anti-(insert name of social feature here)-ism are not comparable by any means, even though all these groups at times have been victims of persecution or harassment. --Soman 09:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to Category:Religious persecution. Or rename to "persecution of Buddhism."--T. Anthony 03:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep per statement at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 18#Anti-Christian and related--T. Anthony 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Hinduism[edit]

Other anti-religion categories are being deleted left and right. I would have liked them all to be considered together as a block, but now that some are already gone, it seems unbalanced to have some but not others. The more specific rational can be found below, or in the previous debate. Andrew c 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions&Comments -- have you or any of the people that voted to delete these "anti-[religion]" categories ever been involved with the maintaining/building of these categories before you all decided to come along and delete them all? That doesn't seem to make make much sense does it? I mean we are talking serious data loss with the mass-deletion of all of these categories (the loss of data at the anti-Islam sentiment category alone was bad enough, all of which happened with VERY LITTLE REAL DISCUSSION), and frankly it is idiotic to just wipe them all out like that (all the while leaving Category:Antisemitism of course and probably Category:Anti-Judaism too). These matters need to be extensively discussed further by the interested parties before these rash deletions proceed, not handled by a bunch of these disparate and random one-line editors who could care less if all of these categories stay or go. --Wassermann 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Subjective inclusion criteria as well. -- Cat ^chi? 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're generally not supposed to categorize people based on opinions. Doczilla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anti-belief is a false dilemma: even-handed criticism cannot be judged as opposition in full without asserting one's moral superiority. Anon166 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Anon166. As with other "anti-xx" categories or "critics of xx", there is no way of defining a set of objective inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 'Religious persecution of Hinduism' or some other name. Provide positive alternatives, not just 'delete, delete, delete' Hmains 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- firstly, ballot-stuffing is 'illegal' here on Wikipedia, right? Secondly, please see my response below under "anti-Judaism" for a fuller response to these idiotic deletion attempts. This system of minimal 'voting' and discussion MUST cease because large amounts of relevant data is being lost just because a few teens are on a deletion spree. --Wassermann 11:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per previously-given reasons regarding subjective categorization and past, deleted anti-* categories. Tarc 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This rash and imprudent deletion of these categories does a disservice to Wikipedia users. The categories Category:Anti-Mormonism and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (although it should have been renamed Islamophobia or the like) should never have been deleted. These catagories are useful reasearch tools and although they are sometimes abused, those instances are usually quickly remedied. I looked at the contents of the Islamic category before it was deleted and all of the articles in it were fairly categorized. None of them were about events, people or groups who merely and fairly criticized the religion. The same is true about this and the other religous based bigotry categories. Religious based bigotry is a real phenomenon just as race based bigotry is. This category should not be deleted anymore than should the antisemitism category. The categories do not really refer to holding an opinion and are not truly subjective as their critics have maintained. When a reader is researching bigotry against Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Christians or Mormons, these categories are very helpful in locating related articles. I would suggest as a potential remedy that all the categories since deleted be restored and that each of the categories carry the caveat that the anti-semitism category does (to the effect that the article relates to antisemitism (or other subject) and that inclusion in the category does not necessarily mean that the individual or group is anti-semitic (or otherwise bigotted). Religious based bigotry is documented and recognized in academic study. It is also prohibited by law in virtually all democratic counties. It is not mere opinion. Deleting these categories does a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Mamalujo 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- These catagories are very useful reasearch tools . Religious based bigotry is a real phenomenon just as race based bigotry is. This category should not be deleted anymore than should the antisemitism category.--Shyamsunder 8:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per reasons above.-SESmith 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete if other similar categories are deleted. Many articles that have been tagged with the Anti-Hinduism category have been disputed or do not meet NPOV. They have been written with a very biased view. Take Goa Inquisition. The creators of the article have made it look like Hindus were the main target of the Inquisiton in Goa while in fact it was targeted at Jews and Christians. Another article that has been wrongly tagged is Teesta Setalvad who has stridently worked against communalism and hence has not been in the good books of Hindu fundamentalists. This one is the best of them:Moplah Rebellion. The article does not mention anything about Hindus and the rebellion was directed at the British. Yet it has been tagged as Anti-Hinduism. Doesn't too much Anti-Hinduism rant(or for that matter Anti-anything rant) actually turn into Anti-everything-else? Too much of anti-discrimination can itself turn into discriminaton against others. And dont forget one man's hero is another man's devil--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Anti-Islam sentiment went recently. I rather think that if that one went, this one should, if we prize consistency. I personally could take it or leave it. Hornplease 07:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking around, Delete. I notice that many pages have been moved into Category:Hinduism-related controversies, which I cant help thinking is a better fit in almost all cases, and the remainder are those which could be filled up by some 'persecution of Hindus' cat. Hornplease 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the deletion of the anti-Islam category was a MAJOR blunder (it was nominated for deletion over and over again until deletion finally succeeded; it was unfairly targeted over all other "anti-[religion]" categories, and so forth). Luckily it has apparently been 'resurrected' at Category:Islam-related controversies, so perhaps the category could be started again properly as Category:Islamophobia or something similar and we can begin discussing these categories as a GROUP rather than continuing to single out individual cats. for un-discussed and biased deletions. Since the anti-Islam category has now been restored, it looks like the anti-Mormon one must now be restored as well while we discuss the overall validity/usefulness of these categories as a GROUP rather than individually. --Wassermann 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I prefer "Cat:Mormon-related controversies", rather. That does not mean all these anti-X cannot be deleted, with their contents replaced in the X-rel cont cat, as has already been dome with some of them. Hornplease 08:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do people around here have against theology? -- Kendrick7^talk 13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what on earth does that mean?Hornplease 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my case I'd say that categories, and to a lesser extent lists, involving religion tend to be deleted more easily than others. Category:Sicilian-American jazz musicians, Category:Catalan scientists, or Category:Welsh poker players are in a safer place than Category:Salvation Army writers or Category:Roman Catholic musicians ever were. Even though it is might be harder to definer "Catalan science" than it is to define "Catholic music."--T. Anthony 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: Unfortunately, Hmains (talk · contribs) took it upon himself to do a mass moving of articles from Category:Anti-Hinduism to Category:Hinduism-related controversies while this vote is still in progress, in addition to his other pre-emptive arbitary moves by creating duplicate categories for Category:Anti-Judaism and Category:Anti-Buddhism while votes about them are still inprogress, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 27#Category:Judaism-related controversies. Thank you, IZAK 08:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per various other anti-cats. Do note how this category is being used to push political pov. --Soman 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to Category:Religious persecution, now that I've thought on this enough. Or rename to "persecution of Hinduism." Do not delete.--T. Anthony 03:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep per response and vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 18#Anti-Christian and related--T. Anthony 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Judaism[edit]

Now that Anti-Islam sentiment and Anti-Mormonism have been deleted, and the 3 Christian related Anti-s are on there way to be deleted, I'm proposing this one to be deleted as well. The rational is that these sorts of categories are hard to define and can be used slander people or organizations. Also, per over categorization, holding an opinion is not always a defining characteristic. Andrew c 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions&Comments -- have you or any of the people that voted to delete these "anti-[religion]" categories ever been involved with the maintaining/building of these categories before you all decided to come along and delete them all? That doesn't seem to make make much sense does it? I mean we are talking serious data loss with the mass-deletion of all of these categories (the loss of data at the anti-Islam sentiment category alone was bad enough, all of which happened with VERY LITTLE REAL DISCUSSION), and frankly it is idiotic to just wipe them all out like that (all the while leaving Category:Antisemitism of course and probably Category:Anti-Judaism too). These matters need to be extensively discussed further by the interested parties before these rash deletions proceed, not handled by a bunch of these disparate and random one-line editors who could care less if all of these categories stay or go. --Wassermann 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Subjective inclusion criteria as well. Anti-semantism was deleted before IIRC. -- Cat ^chi? 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight...you can't even SEMITISM and you purport to know the intricate ins-and-outs of anti-Judaism? What about the subtle differences between anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism, racial anti-Semitism, economic anti-Semitism, the new anti-Semitism, and so forth? How old are you and what is your knowledge of this field? --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they gave a sound reason that applies to all such categories, regardless of the specific one. But since you raised the issue (while on a soapbox), you once misspelled "consensus" (using caps) while purporting to know what it means. Anon166 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague, subjective category per many precedents. Doczilla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you consider stuffed ballots and the recent hushed and rushed deletions of those other categories to be "precedents." What a joke this 'voting' is. --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implies the false dilemma of either pro- or anti- and serves to censor criticism in part by labeling it as opposition in full. Anon166 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I didn't listen to my parents and go to law school 25 years ago...however, that doesn't mean that I can't easily spot a patently false, meaningless, and circuitous faux-legalese nonsense sentence/argument when I read one. Nice try though. --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Anon166 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that that's what this is doing and Wasserman points that out. Pointing out the existence of an "against us" faction does not per se create a "with us or against us" dilemma. For example Category:Anti-communists does not imply that being a communist is a person's only alternative. One can be neutral, indifferent, or disinterested in communism. Likewise Category:Judaism and Category:Anti-Judaism does not necessarily imply that these are the only options. It only states that they are two options and that individuals have taken them.--T. Anthony 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: For example Category:Anti-communists does not imply that being a communist is a person's only alternative. Anti-communist implies that one opposes communism without qualification. In religion, if one does not use "anti-" to describe themselves, then it is a label given to them by the pro- camp as a mark of bigotry against them, because it implies that the anti's are trying to ban their freedom of belief, when that is rarely, if ever, self-claimed by critics. Furthermore, by asserting the anti- label against criticism is a form of psychological projection on the part of the accuser, and asserts the accuser's claimed moral superiority because it knee-jerk reflects their own black and white thinking about religion (ie, that criticism is morally wrong). I notice that you brought Judaism into the discussion, but nobody is trying to delete that one, which makes my point. The proper articles should be "Judaism" and "criticism of Judaism" if the latter exists as a critical tradition. NPOV policy exists because of things like religion, not as an exception to it. Anon166 01:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying the difference is that anti-religion terms are only used by opponents in order to make critics sound more critical than they are? It's an interesting theory. I don't think it's entirely valid as many really have stated they are anti-Judaism or Anti-Catholicism. In addition to that we have subcats of Category:Anti-national sentiment which could be likewise.--T. Anthony 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you just admitted that you utilize the label to describe people who don't describe themselves as anti-. Anon166 16:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think if I ever denied that it's used for people who don't self-identify this way. Not all categories we have are based purely on self-identification. Do you think Benedetta Carlini identified herself as a "LGBT person from Italy" or that Tadeáš Hájek thought of himself as a "Czech astronomer"?--T. Anthony 08:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you seem to confirm that if it's not a fact, then it shouldn't be used to describe someone. Just imagine if personal descriptions were disputed by your subjects, and combine that with the fact that the labelers are proselyting the absolute truth. There's your real problem. Anti- is not a fact when it originates from the pro- mentality. It's a psychological projection of the labeler who is not allowed to critique, therefore anyone who does so is "anti-" or opposed to the belief structure itself. To find this label in a world encyclopedia with unlimited participation shows how those beliefs seek to gain a censor foothold by establishing an entitlement from criticism. Anon166 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Anon166. As with other "anti-xx" categories or "critics of xx", there is no way of defining a set of objective inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I normally respect many of your views BrownHairedGirl when it comes to categories, but in this case (and with the other "anti-X" cats.) you and the other ballot-stuffers are dead wrong. --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasserman, I object very strongly to your serious accusation of ballot-stuffing; the reason I have recommended deletion of all "anti-x" categories is because I believe that they make unworkable categories. If you disagree, let's hear the arguments; and unless you have some particular evidence that I have engaged in "ballot-stuffing", please withdraw that remark.

The problem here is that although I agree that Anti-Judaism does exist, I don't think that it bis possible to define it in a sufficiently clearcut way to use it as a category. You disagree, so let's hear how you would define it; calling me "dead wrong" is an insult rather than argument.

Anti-Judaism has been the basis of a pernicious, deep-rooted and wickedly long-lived part of Europe's history. The problem, though, is that for it to be useable as a category it needs to be more than a significant phenomenon; it needs some reasonably clear and simple threshold for inclusion. The article anti-judaism defines it as "a total or partial opposition to Judaism—and to Jews as adherents of it—by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior"; as far as I can see includes anyone who believes that a) Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and b) those Jewish people who reject Jesus as the Messiah have taken an inferior position by rejecting the son of God. (I'm not a Christian, so that's not my viewpoint, but I hope it's fair assessment of the definition).

Those two points seem to me to include nearly every Christian perspective on Judaism, from those who sees judaism as merely "inferior" to those who regard rejection of the Messiah as a particularly pernicious form of wickedness. I would have no problem at all with including articles such as Martin Luther and the Spanish Inquisition in an anti-Judaism category, but the current definition would also include just most practising Christians, which makes it useless. (You yourself seem to be saying below that it includes Jesus, which makes it likely that it should include his followers).

If you can come up with a simple, clear, workable definition for this category, I'll be delighted; but without such a definition, then it remains too broad to be a useful classification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

There's a difference between thinking a religion is incomplete or even inferior and being "totally or partially opposed" to anyone believing it. For a variety of reasons Theravadin Buddhism has about no appeal to me, but I'm firmy against hating or coercing their adherents.--T. Anthony 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 'Religious persecution of Judaism' or some other name. Provide positive alternatives, not just 'delete, delete, delete' Hmains 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- this is hardly "overcategorization"...and will some of you here on Wikipedia please provide some JUSTIFICATIONS other than these pathetic one-liners -- does a sentence from each of you justify the deletion of valuable data? In regards to anti-Judaism, haven't you all ever heard of Martin Luther? Jesus, Paul of Tarsus, and the early Christians? Otto Weininger? The Inquisitions? Karl Marx and his views on Judaism? The eventual Nazi banning of any and all Jewish religious organizations and the large scale torching of synagogues? [as opposed to Nazi racial antisemitism and economic antisemitism] Soviet anti-Judaism (especially post-WWII)? You people are FAR too delete happy and seem to be going a bit wild here; to be frank, you all are trying to stuff these ballots -- you all think that you are somehow 'improving' Wikipedia but in reality you are wrecking it, as categories are BY FAR the best way to group together related information. The deletion of this "anti" category along with the others is/was a mistake, as they are all very valuable (examples: Category:Anti-Mormonism was deleted even though the vast majority of Americans say they still don't trust or like Mormons, with some openly hostile toward them; Category:Anti-Islam sentiment was deleted even though we are currently living in one of the most Islamophobic periods the world has ever seen, etc). I said it before and I'll say it again: this whole "voting on categories" thing is a total sham and SOMETHING (ANYTHING!) MUST BE DONE SOON to remedy the Wiki-destruction that is happening through irrational, rash, unfair, idiotic, and stacked category deletions. Additionally, this category was nominated by a user who doesn't even know the difference between "their" and "there," or "rational" and "rationale." Enough said. --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough, really. You act like information is being censored on the Wikipedia, when it clearly is not. This is just to see whether or not people think that categorization is appropriate for anti-* beliefs. Calm down, and please stop with the "ballot-stuffing" allegations and other incivility. Tarc 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with Jesus being called "anti-Judaism." Maybe "critic of Judaism as practiced in the 1st century AD" or "anti-Pharisee before that became the vastly predominant stream within Judaism" or some such. Otherwise you make some valid points. There's a tendency at Wikipedia to delete anything that relates to the history of religions and this disturbs me. At the same time I do fear the abuse of "anti" categories, but it seems like it's still "delete religion first last and always" thinking. We aren't seeing people try to delete Category:Anti-communists or Category:Anti-national sentiment, but those have some potential for misuse as well.--T. Anthony 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previously-given reasons regarding subjective categorization and past, deleted anti-* categories. Tarc 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This rash and imprudent deletion of these categories does a disservice to Wikipedia users. The categories Category:Anti-Mormonism and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (although it should have been renamed Islamophobia or the like) should never have been deleted. These catagories are useful reasearch tools and although they are sometimes abused, those instances are usually quickly remedied. I looked at the contents of the Islamic category before it was deleted and all of the articles in it were fairly categorized. None of them were about events, people or groups who merely and fairly criticized the religion. The same is true about this and the other religous based bigotry categories. Religious based bigotry is a real phenomenon just as race based bigotry is. This category should not be deleted anymore than should the antisemitism category. The categories do not really refer to holding an opinion and are not truly subjective as their critics have maintained. When a reader is researching bigotry against Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Christians or Mormons, these categories are very helpful in locating related articles. I would suggest as a potential remedy that all the categories since deleted be restored and that each of the categories carry the caveat that the anti-semitism category does (to the effect that the article relates to antisemitism (or other subject) and that inclusion in the category does not necessarily mean that the individual or group is anti-semitic (or otherwise bigotted). Religious based bigotry is documented and recognized in academic study. It is also prohibited by law in virtually all democratic counties. It is not mere opinion. Deleting these categories does a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Mamalujo 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wassermann and Mamalujo . Shyamsunder 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Between this XfD and the Anti-Islam Sentiment XfD, I've come around to thinking that cats such as these are more detrimental than they are helpful. I shared the same concern as Mamalujo, although upon further consideration, I'm not sure this will impede research in any way. After all, there are articles for "anti-*", and those would make more than adequate starting points for research. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can there be "lists of" the various anti-religion topics instead? Maybe that could give more context than categories.--T. Anthony 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a perfectly good way to sort through articles related to anti-Judaism. Which, last I checked, is the purpose of categories. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I can't believe Category:Anti-Catholicism just got deleted. I'm surprised categories with main-articles (i.e. Anti-Catholicism and this one) are getting proposed for deletion without any mention on the main-article talk page. Seems very sneaky. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called 'deletion' of "anti-Christianity" and related categories was a SCAM (or either an honest mistake)! There were 11 votes to keep, and only 10 to delete! Could you please file an immediate complaint to get them to keep these categories before they are unjustly deleted -- I would do it myself but I don't know how... --Wassermann 04:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to consider starting over and putting all the "anti" religion categories in some kind of blanket discussion. Including the ones already deleted like Anti-Christianity. There have actually been some good arguments for delete, but this seems like it's going to become a weird mixture where equally valid "anti" categories will be kept or deleted almost at random.--T. Anthony 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's too broad and would be easily prone to misuse and misapplication, and hence both meaningless and dangerous. Theoretically, almost anything that is not purely "Judaism" can be classed as "anti-Judaism" -- indeed see the lead article of Anti-Judaism (essentially deals with Christian hate of Jews and Judaism) which is also very problematic (mercifully people have not gotten around to placing Category:Christianity and Category:Atheism or Category:LGBT in Category:Anti-Judaism, which they are.) Anyhow, what's wrong with plain old Category:Antisemitism? IZAK 08:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hate is such a strong word, Izak; I would hope there is room to disagree? Though the problem with theology -- versus mere philosophy -- is that theology makes itself a matter of after life or death. I continue to reject the proposition that anyone who rejects Judaism as a path to God is an anti-semite, while rejecting any anti-semitism that dares build itself off of such a theology. Any religion that was arguably true would not be so opportunistic with the times but would be able to stand on its own merits, as I truly imagine Judaism could. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kendrick: I was talking more in the historical context, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Khmelnytsky killings, Martin Luther and the Jews, Blood libels against Jews, and religious antisemitism in general and not about the present or about theoretical points of agreement. IZAK 11:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be, and appears to be, restricted to those subjects on which sources tell us they are strongly opposed to Judaism. As long as it's kept a small, and well-sourced, cat, what's the problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: Unfortunately User:Hmains has created [3] a duplicate called Category:Judaism-related controversies while this vote is still in progress. He has also done so in the case of Category:Anti-Buddhism, see details at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 27#Category:Judaism-related controversies. Thank you, IZAK 08:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, problematic delinations, unclear purpose. --Soman 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Move most articles to Category:Judaism-related controversies. —Ashley Y 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and move articles to Category:Antisemitism. Controversy is next to denial. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and move to Category:Antisemitism--Sefringle 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to Category:Religious persecution, now that I've thought on this enough. I considered keep with many of these, but possibly it could lead to too many. I'm open to a rename to "persecution of Judaism." I'm against delete and I'm also against a merger to Category:Antisemitism as that's primarily about ethnic hostilities.--T. Anthony 03:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep per response and vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 18#Anti-Christian and related--T. Anthony 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I still don't understand why you all wish to delete this category and the other "anti-[religion]" categories, but especially in this case because anti-Judaism is certainly distinct from anti-Semitism; Cat:Antisemitism is already overpopulated and this category helps to somewhat mitigate that. Anti-Judaism refers directly to measures/actions taken against Judaism (the Jewish religion), while anti-Semitism is a broader term meaning general persecution of the Jewish people. --Wassermann 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Years of the 18th century in the United Kingdom[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. Sam Blacketer 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801, separate categories exist for events in Great Britain and in Ireland for this period. Tim! 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and salt in case another well-intentioned editor gets confused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it seems the UK started in 1707. See the history articles on UK Hmains 02:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after 1707 -- what gets formed in 1801 is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; but 1707 is the Acts of Union. Perhaps an explanatory note can be added to the category. A Musing 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The start date usually given for the UK is 1801, not 1707, even if there is an alternative view. Sumahoy 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:04, 27 April 2007 (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:Famous man-eating animals[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. I note that the (few) animals in this cat are also already in better cats, like "famous tigers" and so forth. Concerns with the name are founded (e.g. "famous" is a dubious cat'ing term, and not all of these eat men). Several arguments to keep ("it's being repopulated", "IAR", "fun" and "interesting") are pretty week. So delete. >Radiant< 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I know that there are several Famous animal cats which have recently been discussed and closed as no consensus. This one however is empty. Since I'm not sure how long, instead of tagging it WP:CSD#C1, I'm placing it here. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequately defined category with sexist name. Doczilla 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist? I hardly think "man-eating" is sexist, that phrase has been and still is used as standard.Ninja! 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete Just to reply, I'm not sure the name is sexist. It refers to "man" as the species, not the gender, as in To Serve Man. The word "Famous" isn't needed, though, and "eating" might not always apply (such as when an angry elephant accidentaly kills a handler - the elephant isn't trying to "eat" the person.) I'm borderline on the category definition, too. All in all I'd support deleting the category, but I'm also open to suggestions to rename or replace the category with something similar possibly. Dugwiki 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DNWAWC -- Cat ^chi? 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's now being repopulated after some idiot gutted it. Burntapple 00:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:IAR, if necessary. It's a really fun category. Rename to "Individual animals known for eating many people", maybe. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name of the category describes the reason why these animals have articles. OrchWyn 10:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Wouldn't "infamous" be the appropriate term here? -- Stbalbach 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer so long as the category exists I don't think it matters what it's called so long as people can figure out what these animals all have in common. Burntapple 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An excellent category that will no doubt grow and bring about some interesting surfing opportunities. Change the name as suggested above. Lumos3 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete "Famous man-eating animals in fiction", "Famous man-eating animals in religion", should they ever arise as categories as well. Per Cool Cat above, an article on the topic might be interesting. Ronabop 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change that ridiculous name. Change it to "Animals that have killed people" or something similar. The "famous" part is unnecessary (if it's not notable it shouldn't be on-wiki anyway). And the animals have not necessarily eaten the person (man or woman). --Fang Aili ^talk 14:43, 30 April 2007 (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:Famous Wild West gunfights[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:American Old West gunfights. Sam Blacketer 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous Wild West gunfights to Category:Wild West gunfights

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Per WP:NCCAT, only famous ones are in Wikipedia. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Old West gunfights per the category description of its scope. Otto4711 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do note that Wild West redirects to American Old West, so that seems a reasonable alternative as does Category:American Old West gunfights, I suppose. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:American Old West gunfights per nom and suggestion by After Midnight. Note that this category was not parented in any Wild West category, so I have just added it to Category:History of the American West. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American Old West gunfights per nom and AfterMidnight. Lesnail 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American Old West gunfights per nom and AfterMidnight.Filceolaire 21:53, 29 April 2007 (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:Cities in the Mojave Desert[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to Delete. Feel free to maintain both a list and the category, per WP:CLS. - jc37 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorize cities based on geographic regions. A list could be better. I created List of Cities in the Mojave Desert for this purpose. -- Cat ^chi? 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Maybe not the most significant geographical region, but reasonably well-defined. fI don't see anything that the list does better, and several things it does worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list contains the same data that was in the category, so how could it be better or worst? I did change the order so that the cities are grouped by state, something you can't do in a category. Vegaswikian 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Ordering by state is useful, but so is alphabetical ordering: I like to have both, and the combination of list and category achieves that. What a category does better is to facilitate navigation, which is why I think that removing the list is a retrograde step.
    Cool Cat seems to have some deep-seated objection in principle to any geographic category, for which I have not seen any plausible explanation: in the case of the related CFD for Cat:Cities on the Great Lakes, Cool Cat argues for this this vague anti-geographic principle to trump specific evidence of usefulness. I'm not sure what this is all about, but with all due respect, the case for deletion seems to be based solely on a personal axiom, not on a reasoned argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can do both in a list. I redid the list and renamed it as settlements for the heading. This would allow inclusion of other settlements and you would then be able to also sort by settlement type. So with the list article, you can look at these cities by name, state, time zone, settlement type or any other criteria you fell like adding. I would have no objection to renaming this list from cities to settlements and merging in the data from the communities nomination above into it and then deleting both categories. Vegaswikian 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would support that. -- Cat ^chi? 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify & delete as suggested above. >Radiant< 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cities on the Great Lakes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Feel free to maintain both a list and the category, per WP:CLS. - jc37 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorize cities based on geographic regions. A list could be better. I cerated List of Cities on the Great Lakes for this purpose. Cat ^chi? 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expected to agree with the nomination, but this one looks to me like one of a few a useful exceptions to the rule. Sure the usual division of Category:Cities is by country, and in North America they are usually divided further by state (in the USA) or by province in Canada. However, there are several other categorisations in use too, including:
- Coastal cities: Category:Coastal cities in Canada and Category:Coastal cities in the United States
- Port cities: Category:Port cities in Canada and Category:Port cities in the United States
- Another geographical division: Category:Cities in the Mojave Desert
The Great Lakes region is not just a major geographical region with a clear definition; it's also an economic region and, perhaps most importantly, a cross-border region, the only clearly-defined cross-border region in North America. I don't think it would be helpful to have a proliferation of other geographical categories, but this is a valuable exception to the rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
I think that is a bad example. "Coastal cities" merely means the city is near the shore. (I dispute the usefulness of that category too btw). I am not certain what the intended scope is, should Lansing, Michigan be tagged with Category:Cities on the Great Lakes? Wouldn't a list be better? -- Cat ^chi? 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not consider this a geographic region, but instead a geographic attribute. Cities on the Great Lakes have a commonality when it comes to history, and human affairs that could be interesting for WP users. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I recommend a list instead? -- Cat ^chi? 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the advantage of creating a situation where, for example, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario are not in any common category? I don't see that we gain anythig from having a list, and we lose the flexibility and navigational assistance of a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see the point of having a list. These are Wikipedia pages that share a certain characteristic. I'd say it was a perfect candidate for a Category. A list is not necessary, in my opinion, since all cities have WP pages, there is no extra information that needs to be added to put each entry in context, and there is only one usual way to sort these items (alphabetically). I don't se ethe advantage of a list, I'm sorry. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that. There are far too many geographic regions out there, some controversial (such as "Eastern United States"), if this is allowed so should they be allowed. It would be messy. Being on/around the great lakes can be mentioned in the articles. Overall it is trivial information hence not warranting a category. -- Cat ^chi? 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there are some really hazy geographical concepts out there, and Eastern United States is a good example of one that's too vague to be useable. However, this one has a clear definition (albeit badly worded): cities which front the great lakes or are alongside rivers connected to the Great Lakes. And far from being trivial info, I'd have thought that being on the edge of the Great Lakes was one of the defining features of places like Toronto, Thunder Bay and Duluth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BrownHairedGirl - the fact that a city was located on the Great Lakes was a defining factor in their growth. It's not a regional thing - it is a geographical attribute. This has nothing to do with borders or political boundaries, but something that is easy to define, significant in the history and growth of the communities, and of interest to researchers looking for commonalities between the locations. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is all encyclopedic and verifiable perhaps. This would make fine encyclopedic article material. Using categories to define "significant in the history and growth of the communities, and of interest to researchers looking for commonalities between the locations" sounds subjective to me. -- Cat ^chi? 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is it that geographic things are not categorized by geographic region? IT seems like a logical category tree. 132.205.44.134 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the uselessness of geographic definitions and their vauige/overlapping borders. Political (Country/State/Province) are on the other hand useful. Also for consistency purposes. -- Cat ^chi? 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chi, I dunno what's going on here, but your arguments all seem to be of the general form that "geographical categories are useless", without offering any explanation of why they are useless. It seems to me that we have a specific example here of a category that is clearly defineable, and where geographical attributes are at least as significant as political ones. Just because some geographical categorisations are vague and/or non-defining doesn't mean that they all are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Look, I do not know the best way to explain this. Consistency will prompt every geographic region to become a category should this be kept. Great Lakes is a better defined region, few people would find it controversial or ill defined. Exact borders of Great Lakes is far from certain though unlike political borders. Other "Regions" such as "Eastern United States", "Invisible pink unicorn inhabited area" and etc will also want to be categories. Even continents have ill defined borders. Precise division of Asia and Europe is a notable controversy. We do not categorize cities by fundamental geographic regions such as continents for this reason. -- Cat ^chi? 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Cat, I think the crucial point here is that you acknowledge that "Great Lakes is a better defined region, few people would find it controversial" ... except that you do, as the only delete !voter in this CfD.
The reason we don't categorise cities by continent is that with the exception of about four of 190 countries, countries are wholly within continents ... so the issue there is whether it is helpful to subdivide the "by country" categories, not to splat "Cities in Europe" over hundreds of articles where we know perfectly well that France is in Yurp.
As to the broader question of geographical categories, you seem to have very little faith in the ability of CfD to determine whether a particular geographical category is useful. I have little doubt that "Eastern United States" would have a short life as a category, and that "Invisible pink unicorn inhabited area" would be terminated with extreme prejudice: these are straw man arguments.
Given all your other nominations, and your fixation on Kurdish categories, I have to wonder whether your insistence on nation-state categorisation might be intended not as a goal in itself but as a way of creating a convention to justify the eliminating the Kurdish categories which cause you so much upset?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've had issues with Category:Coastal cities since it was first created, namely that it did not follow the definition of a coast and specifically included communities on the Great Lakes. I would more than agree that any of these categories is unnecessary, however to prevent Great Lakes communities from erroneously being described as coastal, I would ask that the category be kept until such time as it and Coastal cities are both removed. Note that there is a corresponding Category: Towns on the Great Lakes.Plasma east 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as suggested above. >Radiant< 12:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rhinos[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:Rhinoceroses. Sam Blacketer 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rhinos to Category:Rhinoceroses

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Rhinoceroses is a more encyclopedic name. Note that the main article is under Rhinoceros and that rhino is a disambiguation page. Also see this similar discussion on Hippopotamuses: [4] Lesnail 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also nominating subcats Category:Prehistoric rhinos, Category:Famous rhinos, and Category:Fictional rhinos. Lesnail 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. and comment. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename per nom. I say "weak", because "rhinos" is easier to spell correctly, and although its an abbreviation it's a very widely-used one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The formal name should be used, even if it is slightly more difficult to spell. Dr. Submillimeter 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we have Category:Rinoserosses as a redirect? ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Rhinoceroses Category names should almost always match the spelling of their associated main article, which in this case is Rhinoceros. Sure, it's harder to spell than "Rhinos", but Rhinos simply isn't the proper word to use to match the main article. Dugwiki 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, we do not expect users to "spell" categories but instead click them. -- Cat ^chi? 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is also useful to be able to type a category name into the "go" box, so in general I think that easily-typed category names are useful. But I agree that in this case, spelling "Rhinoceroses" doesn't require an IQ in the stratosphere :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could the closing adminsitrator also create some redirects? Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 25 April 2007 (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:Kurdish films[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, do not rename. Sam Blacketer 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kurdish films to Category:Kurdish-language films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, As per Category:Films by language syntax, should be merged to Category:Kurdish-language films. -- Cat ^chi? 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Kurdish-language films already exists and Category:Kurdish films is a duplicate of it. Lesnail 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as many language/nation combos (i.e. Category:French-language films & Category:French films) have distinct categories. One refers to language spoken in the film, while the other is where the film originates. Not always the same. Tarc 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, France is a country, Kurdistan is not. Big difference. -- Cat ^chi? 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, no. Tarc 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy and simple. Niko Silver 21:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A nation-state is not the only useful form of geographical or cultural categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we will end up with two identical categories. "Kurdish" is not a geographic categorization. "Kurdish-language films" is the cultural category. So what is the point of this one? -- Cat ^chi? 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what if the film is by -say- a Kurd producer, but spoken in -say- English? Niko Silver 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can be categorized based on country of origin of the film. We do not categorize films based on the ethnicity of their producers or cast. We use country of production, genre, and other more notable characteristics such as the language of the movie. -- Cat ^chi? 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Cat, "Kurdish-language films" is a linguistic category, just like other subcats of Category:Films by language. The point of this category is the same as that of the subcats of Films by country: to provide a geographic/cultural category. Yes, Kurdistan is not a nation-state ... but that's not a reason to create a situation where there is no "Kurdish" category for a Kurdish film in English. Unless, of course, someone has a deeply ingrained anti-Kurdish POV ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit conflict more than covered me. I'd have written "Don't we? Check out Category:Films by culture, Category:Films by location..." Niko Silver 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated "films by culture" for deletion too. Films by location would not apply since "Kurdish" is not a location. -- Cat ^chi? 13:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am stopping here, because I am about to indulge in adhering to m:How to win an argument. Niko Silver 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... -- Cat ^chi? 10:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I did actually consider the proposal of a merger. However we define nationality at Wikipedia in a sense that isn't about whether a place has a recognized nation or state. Hence there is Category:Tibetan films, even though that might offend a Chinese Wikipedian. (Well in theory, in reality I think Wikipedia is banned in China) So this looks fine as is, no need to rock the boat.--T. Anthony 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That said I can see logic in a debate about what should be considered a nationality at Wikipedia. Wikipedia treats the matter like it's much clearer and more undebatable than religion, but there's been enough cases that I'm not sure of that. However I think a debate about nationality in general is separate to this. Going by the standards at present I think this has to stay and that's why I said keep. If Wikipedians from certain nations are increasing, and angry, it might become necessary to start a dialogue on the matter.--T. Anthony 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A Musing 21:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per defendant users. Özgūr ^Talk ^Hist 00:59, 26 April 2007 (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:Heritage registers[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, do not rename. Sam Blacketer 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heritage registers to Category:Public registers of buildings and structures

Rename. I'm not sure what on earth we should call this category, but it certainly should be something a bit clearer than "heritage registers". (While we are here, does anyone know what the German, Polish, Russian, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Indian, etc. equivalents are? Wikipedia seems to cater rather poorly for this type of topic.--Mais oui! 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose suggested rename, but open to other suggestions - While "heritage register" is an unclear phrase, "public registers of buildings and structures" is even more unclear. However, I do agree that the category needs a new name. Maybe someone can suggest an alternative? Dr. Submillimeter 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suggested rename, but open to other suggestions, per Dr S. I hate the word "heritage", but it may be the best available ... and a further problem is that Category:Heritage registers includes a lot of entities which are not really either buildings or structures, such as gardens and landscapes, wrecks, trees, an island and some battles sites. I think that the current name may be the best we can come up with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the last two - "Official registers of notable buildings" , or "historic buildings", perhaps? Johnbod 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ahh, to be young again :) Heritage registers are documents that I use frequently (I used one tonight here, as it happens), they are the principal document in any heritage foundation. There is nothing unclear about this. The category contains 12 other categories, these contain the various types of heritage. Google gives "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,110,000 for Heritage registers. (0.10 seconds)". Please close this before damage is done. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 23:13, 25 April 2007 (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:Reformed theologians[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:Calvinist ministers and theologians. Sam Blacketer 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a sub-category of Category:Calvinists, so I propose renaming it to Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians because:

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between ministers and theologians proper (the two fields often overlap).
The terms "Reformed" and "Calvinist" are often used interchangeably. Some (including me in the past) have tried to draw various distinctions between the terms -- e.g., Baptists and others who don't accept traditional Covenant Theology cannot be considered "Reformed"; or Karl Barth (and other non-traditionalists operating from the Reformed tradition) should not be considered "Reformed," though Barth is called such in reliable sources such as the the Harvard Theological Review ("...Calvin and Barth, as Reformed theologians, ..."[5]) and the Scottish Journal of Theology ("Barth [is] Calvinism's greatest theologian since Calvin"[6]). Since the terms are often used broadly and interchangeably in reliable sources, since there are no agreed-upon criteria for distinguishing the two, and since WP:NPOV requires us to represent all significant points of view, we must be as inclusive as our most inclusive sources, rather than as exclusive as our most exclusive source. That is, we must describe how the terms are commonly used rather than how some particular party thinks they ought to be used.

Hence, John Piper and Charles Spurgeon, for example, should be members of Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians rather than just Category:Calvinists.

This nomination is the suggested follow-up to a failed nomination that did not achieve consensus. This nomination solely deals with the renaming (i.e., it does not concern super-, sibling, or sub-categories). --Flex (talk

Oppose for now, for two reasons:
1. ~~although ministers and theologians overlap, they are discrete categories. However, I could be persuaded to change my mind on that point if someone had some rough numbers on the extent of the overlap~~
2. my theology is a little rusty, but isn't the label of "reformed" widely used to include Calvinsts, Lutherans, Zwinglians and all the other offshoots of the reformation? (Anglicans, for example, have often described themselves as "both Catholic and reformed"). You may be able to correct me, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to have Category:Category:Reformed theologians with subcats Category:Calvinist theologians, Category:Category:Lutheran theologians, Category:Zwinglian theologians etc? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strikeout my second grounds for objection, now that I have read Reformed churches, which I should have done at the outset :( However, I have another question: to sidestep the arguments about the relationship between the concepts of "calvinist" and "reformed", shouldn't this category be named as something like "Calvinist and/or reformed"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding #1: While there is certainly something to be said for the distinction between "minister" and "theologian", in this context, I think it is just to combine them because Calvinists tend to be rather intellectual and involved with the abstract parts of Christianity, viz. theologizing. The two roles are more overlapped than in other Christian groups, methinks. Many (most?) notable Calvinist theologians are/were also ordained as as ministers in some Reformed denomination (e.g., J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, John Frame, Andrew Purves, James Petigru Boyce, Michael Horton, Meredith G. Kline, Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, the Princeton theologians), and may serve/have served in a church as their primary occupation (e.g., Jonathan Edwards, John Gill (theologian), John Piper (theologian), Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller) while publishing theology on the side. Not many (any?) notable ministers in the Calvinist/Reformed tradition aren't also theologians (that's usually why they're notable!), though there are a few theologians who were never ordained as or served as ministers (e.g., Wayne Grudem, R. Albert Mohler). I'm not opposed to having two subcats (Calvinist theologians, Calvinist ministers) in principle, but since it seems to me that the wide majority of the entries would get both, doing so would not be particularly helpful as a categorization scheme. Better would be a cat for Calvinists by occupation, which would have subcats of Calvinist ministers and theologians, another for Calvinist politicians, another for Calvinist artists, etc., so that the contents are well differentiated and overlap is notable (e.g., with Abraham Kuyper being both a Calvinist theologian and politician). --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding your question: it just seems too bulky to have both "Reformed" and "Calvinist" in the title, and since they are often used interchangeably in reliable sources (cf. also the intro to Calvinism), I think it's fine to pick one. As to which one, I suggest the more common one: Calvinism (cf. Five points of Calvinism, Neo-Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, History of the Calvinist-Arminian debate, Template:Calvinism, WP:CALVINISM, etc.). Besides, the primary point of this renaming is to abolish the non-neutral distinction between "Calvinist" and "Reformed". --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (changing my !vote). Thanks, Flex, for the patient explanation! You have persuaded me on both points. I do wish that more CfD nominators had such a good grasp of the subject matter and could explain it so well ... and sorry for being a pedant :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, we like pedantry -- we're Calvinists :) (did I say that? -- maybe Wikipedians might've been the more relevant classification :) ). And speaking of pedantry, Calvinist ministers who might not be Theologians could be missionaries (William Carey). -- TimNelson 10:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Rename -- TimNelson 10:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pro I can see the pros to having two distinct categories (Ministers & Theologians) but I believe the amount of overlap does warrant the combination. Seraphim84 05:45, 1 May 2007 (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:Marvel Comics registered superheroes[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. Sam Blacketer 08:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous, non-defining, likely temporary, potentially disruptive to parent categories. Also, it's a "current status" category like "fictional teenagers". Should delete under the same rational as "depowered mutants" in the wake of the House of M crossover. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by a storyline element (as the characters are registered in the fictional universe, not the real one). This can change over time, or it could become irrelevant. I therefore recommend deletion. Note that similar categories have been deleted in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this "current status" category per above. Doczilla 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:25, 25 April 2007 (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:Huxtable family[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure if this qualifies as speedy/empty. There are listings in the category but all of the listed items are redirects to The Cosby Show. Otto4711 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~Redirects don't qualify for categorization.~~ Redirects should not ordinarily be put in regular cats, and there is no case for an exception here. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty Redirects should never be categorized. I removed all the redirects from the category and it is now empty. Dugwiki 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, redirects absolutely should be categorized, but generally only with the specific templates designed for that (i.e. {{R from misspelling}}). However, I believe there are certain cases where assigning a category directly to a redirect is both reasonable and appropriate (though this is not such a case, IMO). I know of no general rule against putting redirects in categories. Wikipedia:Redirect says merely, "Redirects should not normally contain categories that would fit on the target page" (emphasis mine). In practice, that means most but not all redirects will not need non-redirect-specific categories. Xtifr _tälk 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted. This, however, is not an exceptional circumstance, so the standard rule applies. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the correction. I should have said that redirects should rarely be categorized, not never. Basically only the actual article should have category tags most of the time; otherwise yuo end up with duplicate article listings within the same category. The only real exception I can think of is when you have a category that is specifically categorizing redirect links for maintainence purposes, such as the templates Xtifr describes above. Obviously this Huxtable category is not one of those exceptions. Dugwiki 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. I didn't think it likely that you or Flex would change your positions, but I thought it best to check. (Plus, I wanted to make sure that the notion didn't turn into a rumor.) Taken all-in-all, I'd have to agree that this is probably an inappropriate category even if those redirects were articles. Characters-by-show is one thing; fictitious-characters-by-fictitious-family (without obvious reference to show) is quite another. and seems like definite overcategorization. So delete. Xtifr _tälk 01:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gnostic saints[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. >Radiant< 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - William Blake, Paul Gauguin, Merlin, Moses, Muhammed, Odysseus, and Osiris are all currently labeled as Gnostic saints, even though they would not be regarded as saints by the vast majority of people or possibly even by every Gnostic church. Maybe listifying would be appropriate just to indicate the saints recognized by the various Gnostic churches. Dr. Submillimeter 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gives undue weight to tiny minority views. I wouldn't be opposed to a reliably sourced list of Gnostic saints for notable denomination(s) under WP:NPOV#Undue weight since it is not intrusive toward the articles in question. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but seek expert input.
Given that we categorise saints for other faiths, and because it seems that gnostics have a rather different set of saints to the christian churches, I think we should start from the presumption that we should try to have a categ here if it can be made to work. A list )or lists) would be a good idea, and the category would help in compiling the list, but I think we really need some guidance from editors with expertise in gnosticism: I know too little about the subject to understand how much divergence there is in the list of saints held by each strand of gnosticism; if those lists diverge too much, then I think that the category would be unworkable (and I note Gnosticism#.27Gnosticism.27_as_a_potentially_flawed_category). I'm wary of seeking out such editors in case some accuses me of canvassing, but I hope that note at Talk:Gnosticism will be acceptable. I am quite open to changing my vote, but for now I think I have insufficient information to reach a conclusion that "gnostic saint" is an unworkable concept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- vote changed, see below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to have to agree with the deletes above. When we are categorizing William Blake and others, we find the the most defining characteristics. Unfortunately, the fact that he is a gnostic saint isn't in the top ten list of most defining characteristics. How many books on Blake mention this? And if any do, how much space do they give to that aspect compared to his other defining aspects? Contemporary Gnosticism is very small. Allowing their POV to be placed on all these otherwise irrelevant pages is giving undue weight to a minority view. -Andrew c 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question That's a persuasive argument, but what about restricting the categ to 3rd-century gnosticism (Gnosticism as a potentially flawed category? Would that be workable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd agree to that but not under the category "Gnostic saints" but rather "Gnostics". It's not clear whether Gnostics even had "saints". IPSOS (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list of "saints" is completely idiosyncratic and was made up out of whole cloth by Aleister Crowley for his Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. While there might be some agreement on some of these "saints" from other modern branches of Gnosticism, most of them are peculiar to Crowley and his followers. IPSOS (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note: - a short search turns up this article, Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, as the source for this list. IPSOS (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew C Johnbod 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cite the following sources, Thelemapedia, MEDITATIONS, The Gnostic Saints and The Apostolic Gnostic Church in America (AGCA):. Bottom line, there is support for this class of saints and unless there is strong evidence that they don't exist, we should keep this category. Vegaswikian 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The issue is not referencing. Instead, the issue is whether most people would identify these entries as gnostic saints. For example, most people would identify Paul Gauguin as an early modernist painter, not a Gnostic saint. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changing my !vote), particularly after reading IPSOS's contribution and the links supplied by Vegaswikian. The two central problems seem to me to be that a) "gnosticism" is a term used to describe some very loosely related groupings from widely distinct eras, so much so that "Gnosticism" is a potentially flawed category; b) the concept of "gnostic saints" appears to be only 100 years old, so it is not applicable to 3rd-century gnostics. Additionally, as Andrew C notes, inclusion in the Thelemapedia list of gnostic saints is not a defining characteristic of characters such as Moses and Paul Gauguin.
This is a subject crying out for a list, preferably a discursive one which explains the history of the notion of sainthood in gnosticism; that would be a great article, but it makes a bad category --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename I'm agreeing with everyone else. As named this is fundamentally WP:OR. I agree if it were renamed to a list then it wouldn't be a problem (Famous Gnostics). Here is an example of such a list. BTW I should mention I contribute on gnosticism related pages. jbolden1517 ^Talk 20:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a major issue here is the strong disconnect between historical Gnosticism and the Gnostic revivals of Crowley. It seems like Crowley's Gnostic saints should be listified as they are at Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. However, the view of Crowley isn't notable enough to add another category on all these people's pages who are only retroactively 'gnostic'. As for the historical Gnostics, there aren't that many of them, but we could go through Category:Gnosticism and see if there are enough historical individuals to make an new cat for them.-Andrew c 03:27, 25 April 2007 (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:Saudi Arabian political parties[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. >Radiant< 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Political parties in Saudi Arabia. Soman 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per convention of Category:Political parties by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename... as per nom. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:06, 25 April 2007 (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:Darwin — Wedgwood family[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, but would suggest a new nomination to discuss deletion. >Radiant< 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Darwin — Wedgwood family to Category:Darwin-Wedgwood family

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, main article was just moved with consensus to Darwin-Wedgwood family. Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Postlebury 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the far superior article on the family and the family tree, which do a much better job of illustrating the complex family relationships than an alphabetical category can and which serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the various interlinked articles. Otto4711 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per discussion at Talk:Darwin_—_Wedgwood_family#Requested_move. Keep category as a useful way of linking the articles: with 58 members so far, the category is big enough to be navigationally useful, and it serves as a handy adjunct to the family tree and article. This family includes so many notable people that the categ is well-worth-keeping as a useful exception to our current good work on pruning family categories ... and it is also useful in that it includes more than just people. The only non-biog article I see so far is Down House, but others could usefully be included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep per nom. and BHG. Lesnail 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and BrownHairedGirl Tim! 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and BrownHairedGirl Johnbod 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my opinion here) Personally I am very leery of allowing family tree categories (I'm perfectly ok with family tree list articles). The reason is that family trees grow exponentially with generations and the further back you quickly become more and more likely to have intersections between famous family ancestors. Go back far enough and include enough trees involving famous historical figures and there's no potential limit to the number of such family tree categories you could end up with in many bio articles. The fact that this category has a large number of articles only makes me even more cautious, as it indicates to me the potential for many similar such categories to likewise have large numbers of articles creating a potential overlapping redundant mess. Lists avoid the problem, so I'd say stick to those. Dugwiki 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Category:Baldwin, Evarts, Hoar & Sherman family which is up to four different family names in the category title and encompasses people with 50 different last names. No one looking at that category could have the slightest notion of the familial relationships. Otto4711 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can all come up with examples of where this sort of categorisation doesn't work, but Category:Darwin — Wedgwood family does work. Dugwiki and Otto4711 raise very useful tests to apply to family categories, but in this case we're in danger of ditching something that works in practice because something similar might not work in theory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The inclusion criteria seem very fuzzy. The category actually appears to contain three other families (the Barlow, Galton, and Keynes families), and it looks like it could continue to expand to encompass half of nineteenth-century England. How far out should the category be expanded? How many distant ancestors or descendants should be attached to the category? When you look at the tree, it is possible to see that some of the relations are really remote. Should these people at the remote fringes be grouped together in this category? Deferring to a family tree would probably be more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep. Per all above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki, or if not deleted, prune to include only people who bore the name Darwin or the name Wedgewood at some point in their life. OrchWyn 10:33, 29 April 2007 (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:Tramp oil[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. Sam Blacketer 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid category. It appears the new author wanted this to be an article. Samw 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nearly empty category. Doczilla 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this is a substub article in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 23 April 2007 (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:Semi-Synthetic[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. Sam Blacketer 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a meaningful category. I believe the new author intended this to be a new article. Samw 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nearly unpopulated category. Doczilla 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this is a misnamed substub article in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:05, 25 April 2007 (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:Princesses of France[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. >Radiant< 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Princesses of France to Category:French princesses

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match siblings in Category:Princesses. Brandon97 03:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the reverse. How about doing it the other way. Category:Princesses of FOO makes more sense IMHO. All siblings should be renamed accordingly. -- Cat ^chi? 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per convention of Category:Princesses. I think that cool cat has a point in suggesting that Category:Princesses of FOO may be useful, but that discussion really ought to take place in a CfD on all subcats of Category:Princesses. The two mean different things: if a German woman had married Prince Charles, she would definitely be a "Princess of Britain" (or whatever country name we use for that monarchy) but arguably both a "German princess" and a "British princess". However, I note that the subcats of Category:Monarchs are riddled with inconsistencies: we have Category:Kings of France as a subcat of Category:French monarchs, Category:Kings of Lithuania as a subcat of Category:Lithuanian monarchs, and Category:British monarchs includes both Category:Scottish monarchs and Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom (though the latter is possibly because the United Kingdom is not the same as the Kingdom of Great Britain, and apart from Tom Nairn's use of "Ukanian" there is no adjective for the UK).
Maybe this discussion should take place first on Category talk:Royalty by nation? It seems to me that it would be useful to see if a consistent approach can usefully applied to the whole of the Category:Royalty by nation category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There is already consistency for princesses apart from this category, and there is no problem with classifying people by more than one country - it happens all the time across all biographical categories. The problem with "Princesses of" is that some categories would have to be divided up into small slices that would be of little use. Haddiscoe 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. With nearly forty sibling categories, the current consensus for this category seems quite clear. Broader renamings of large swaths of the royalty category tree should probably be discussed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty workgroup. Xtifr _tälk 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sumahoy 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BHG. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2007 (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:Attractions in Greater Miami[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. >Radiant< 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Attractions in Greater Miami to Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per Category:Visitor attractions in Florida and convention of Category:Visitor attractions by city. Oliver Han 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in the greater Miami area - the suggested rename implies that "Greater Miami" is a city. Renaming as I suggest addresses that possible ambiguity. Otto4711 21:32, 28 April 2007 (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:Louisville arts venues[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. >Radiant< 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Louisville arts venues to Category:Arts venues in Louisville

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention for buildings and structures. Oliver Han 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawing pending the outcome of this CFD regarding renaming some categories currently under "Louisville, Kentucky" to "Louisville." If that doesn't pass it's likely that the entire tree will be nominated to be renamed to specify "Kentucky." Otto4711 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to ensure that the word order issue is not overlooked. The inclusion or otherwise of "Kentucky" can be dealt with separately. AshbyJnr 09:04, 24 April 2007 (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.