Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1[edit]

Category:Wizards of the Coast novels[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. Timrollpickering 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We already decided against Novels by publisher. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Novels by publisher precedent. Doczilla 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dugwiki 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:39, 2 January 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:Rakeshsharma/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. Timrollpickering 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as user category. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as user category. --- Skapur 03:51, 4 January 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:Prisoners Confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks[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. Timrollpickering 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Prisoners at the United States Disciplinary Barracks. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Delete underpopulated category that is not noteworthy. Doczilla 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I'd put Leavenworth in parantheses so folks understand what the category is. KP Botany 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for this category, a list would serve the topic better -- in fact, of the 4 current entries, only two actually qualify. Two of the articles clearly state that the subject is no longer confined to the Barracks. TheMindsEye 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think a category being currently underpopulated is a reason for deleting it, as categorizing takes time. I can see a place on Wikipedia for categorizing famous prisoners by their institutions, tying together those who served at Folsom State, those who were at Alcatraz, and the notorious ones who were sent to Leavenworth. I don't quite follow the reasoning behind lists versus categories? KP Botany 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      First, it was the "not noteworthy" part to which I was primarily referring. Secondly, one point is that a category appears on every relevant article, <exaggeration>and some articles have more categories than text</exaggeration>.
      • Comment So, if "not noteworthy" is not the primary reason for omitting it, then underpopulated? But I just got told it was fine to create 3 categories, 2 with 1 person, and 1 with 2 in it. I would like to get these policies straight? Is underpopulated a reason for deleting a category? KP Botany 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Er, you need to read what I actually wrote. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable category --- Skapur 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree. These are the sort of lists that people make all the time, lists of prisoners executed at Leavenworth, list of famous prisoners of Alcatraz ("prisoners of Alcatraz" gets 5200 hits, "inmates at Alcatraz" a handful, "inmates of Leavenworth" some). When people search for this information, "List of prisoners at Alcatraz" they should be able to come to Wikipedia for it. This has utility value beyond its curiosity. And what are the criteria for category notability? KP Botany 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prison can be notable, but this title is unwieldy -- why can't we do "Fort Leavenworth prisoners" and the like? --lquilter 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether a prison is notable is irrelevant to whether it makes sense to categorize who is held there. As noted above, two of the four entries in this category at the time of its CFD listing aren't even at the prison any longer. Prisoners get moved or released. The prison articles (or separate subtopic list articles) are quite capable of listing what notable inmates they have held, when, and for how long. Absent that information of time and duration, this becomes mere trivia, and classification should not be based on such an overly specific and transitory fact. Postdlf 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Prisoners at Leavenworth; Changing my vote, this seems to be one of those cases where nobody uses the official name, and most people don't even know the official name. So, if we keep it, lets just call it Leavenworth. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:54, 7 January 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:Boys Boarding Schools, Virginia[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 merge. Timrollpickering 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Boarding schools in Virginia, or Category:Boarding schools in the United States. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Chicheley 14:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not a useful case of subcatting by gender. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Michael 19:12, 2 January 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 Supreme Court justices[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; rename to Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices. Timrollpickering 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete overly specific, trivial category. It's also ambiguous (which Supreme Court?). It was meant for U.S. Supreme Court justices, but we already have a substantial article on demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Postdlf 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If you add the other Supreme Court justices found in List of Jewish jurists, the cat becomes non-trivial. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ethnic categorisation is rather invidious in this field. Chicheley 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are no different supreme courts for different religions. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.WP is full of Categories by ethnicity.--LAZY 1L 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change to specify that this refers to the U.S. Supreme Court. Michael 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If Jewish people have had to overcome social obstancles (i.e. racism) to get onto the U.S. Supreme Court, then an article on Jewish U.S. Supreme Court justices (with the individuals listed in the article) would be much more meaningful. If Jewish people have not faced problems that are any different from any other U.S. Supreme Court justices, then the category really has no significant meaning. In either case, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and include Supreme Court justices in other countries, or change category to US Supreme Court.
  • Delete Irrelevant and excessive cross-categorisation. Greg Grahame 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overcategorization. Being Jewish is no barrier to being a Supreme Court Justice, so this category tells us nothing special. — coelacan talk — 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being Jewish was a huge barrier to becoming Supreme Court Justice.see [1], and [2].Although now it is far less difficult for a Jew to get onto the Supreme Court, one has to have their head in the sand to think that people are "religion blind" and they do not "notice" when a Jew is appointed to the Supreme Court.--LAZY 1L 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that it was never difficult, but it was no barrier to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It doesn't make sense to tag every Jewish Justice between the Signing of the Constitution and the Great Robot Rebellion. Perhaps you are looking for Category:Jewish Supreme Court Justices who had a hard time getting there. — coelacan talk — 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone with a knowledge of Jewish American History knows the great obstacles due to their religion that most of the Jewish Supreme Court justices had to overcome to make it to the bench. In my opinion it is an important categoty.--Mrs random 09:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Jewish judges in the U.S Amoruso 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's stop all this category hating. There is no great loss to society with the creation of this category. If anything it will be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.21.182 (talk • contribs)
    • What "category hating"? People who care about categories want to see bad ones deleted. Sumahoy 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an irrelevant intersection. Sumahoy 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV category. Piccadilly 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a whole bundle of reasons. First test: were these judges sitting on the Supreme Court in a Jewish way? If not, this is an irrelevant intersection. If this category is kept, then logically all SCJs should be categorised by ethinicity and religion, which would be both unhelpful for navigation and also a form of apartheid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also going to point out again that a substantial article on demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States exists, which documents, in the full context of historical significance, the ethnicity, gender, religion, age, geographical origin, education, and economic background of the justices. The article documents this far better than categories can and without creating category clutter. Otherwise, either a flood of extra categories for all such intersections would result, or the ghettoization of categories such that individuals would only appear within the ethnic/religion subcategories. Postdlf 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep then Rename to make it clear that the category refers to United States Supreme Court justices. Given the significance of religion in judicial appointments nowadays (and no judicial body is more significant than the Supreme Court) in the American political environment categories to outline the religious background of Supreme Court justices is not unreasonable. Last year The Economist had an entire article devoted to the increased appointment of Catholics to the Supreme Court, so "trivial," the matter of religion, is not. Thethinredline 20:50, 7 January 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:Afghanistani women[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. Timrollpickering 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghanistani women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Roughly half of all Afghans are women and "Afghanistani" isnt a correct adjective.Bakaman 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Category:Afghan people, as gendered category. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not Merge. Afghan is the adjective and we do not need the redirect. --Bejnar 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inaccurately named category. Doczilla 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete and block per numerous precedents. Chicheley 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 19:12, 2 January 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:Sermon writers[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. Timrollpickering 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sermon writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There does not seem to be a significant distinction between a minister/pastor/preacher and one who writes his own sermons. Very few preachers give someone else's sermons, and even ministers who are not full-time preachers give their own sermons occasionally. Thus, I think this cat is largely redundant with the existing Category:Christian ministers etc. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment But Christian ministers include people whose ministries have nothing to do with writing (or preaching) sermons. Homiletic ministry is only one part of ministry. Category:Christian ministers may include a vast number of people who minister in all kinds of other ways! Pastorwayne 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a subcategory of Christian Ministers, so I'm not certain of the point of asking this? We have all sorts of plants in the Category:Angiosperms that are also in the Category:Nymphaeaceae, we don't argue that we have to eliminate the subcategory Nymphaeaceae, just because they're all Angiosperms. We don't eliminate cats as a category, just because they're all mammals, or mammals just because they're all animals, or animals just because they're all living things. KP Botany 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Christian ministers seems to be for ordained persons (though I disagree with that inclusion criteria -- ministry can be done by lay as well as ordained). All kinds of people write SERMONS. It is mostly ordained people, no doubt. But not limited to them. And only including those who are known for their sermons, even if they are also known for other achievements. They might also be academics or pastors or whathaveyou. Hope this helps. Pastorwayne 12:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Fair enough, but see my response below to tjstrf about renaming it. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant and inadequately defined cat. Doczilla 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. Don't they all? ST47Talk 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As indicated, the category is redundant. Dr. Submillimeter 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all ministors/pastor/preachers write their own sermons. However, this category has some older well-known preachers in it who were known for their sermons. This was an 18th and 19th century American oratory tradition, preachers who spoke all over the place, delivering sermons they had written, and had published versions of their sermons that were collected in works sold to their audiences. I believe the tradition was not simply American, although this is all I know about. Possibly the title does not make the distinction, but there are preachers who are known for their sermons, the ones they write and deliver themselves, but known for the written versions of their sermons. KP Botany 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The category includes living people such as David Jeremiah and Chuck Swindoll who have published books. Should these people also be counted as "sermon writers"? Dr. Submillimeter 22:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Did they write sermons? or just books? If they didn't write sermons, they don't belong. However, I suspect in the long run the list will be peopled with historical examples, not modern examples. KP Botany 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Moreover, many of their books were written first as Sermons (something many of their books openly acknowledge)! Pastorwayne 12:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I am going to guess that this category will be misunderstood (at best) and will be filled with people who do not belong. Therefore, I am still going to advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment But the solution to this is to do away with all categories. It's just impossible to deal with eliminating categories just because someone might misinterpret them. KP Botany 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As you can see, this cat is a subcat of Category:Writers by format. Sermons are every bit as important a form/format of literature as Poems, diaries, essays, speeches, etc. Certainly more important than comics or sketches (at least to many). All of these formats have similar subcats. So should sermons have, especially in an historic sense (but even in a present sense, too). E.g., the sermons of Jonathan Edwards -- extremely important to English literature! Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the past books of sermons were bestsellers. Chicheley 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Writers of sermon books. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is Radiant correct, though, about the format of the title of the category? Just because someone can't use something properly, doesn't mean it should be deleted. I say Assume Competence. KP Botany 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "Assume Competence" -- I like that!! It applies to a whole host of CfD's!! Pastorwayne 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a matter of "competence," it's a matter of whether someone reading the category name can ascertain what you thought it meant. And based on what is now over two and a half years of Wikipedia dealing with categories, we can only assume contributors will equivocate and attempt every possible interpretation that the words can conceivably sustain. Postdlf 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another category that Pastorwayne has failed to justify. — coelacan talk — 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the personal attack? NDCompuGeek 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorisation. - Kittybrewster 14:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So is Category:Hymn writers overcategorisation? Category:Speechwriters ?? Category:Interactive fiction writers ?? We must not need ANY subcats in Category:Writers by format. Let's do away with the whole cat Category:Writers, too, while we're at it! Pastorwayne 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Speechwriter" is a defined and distinct occupation and job title. Is this true of sermon writers, such that there are sermon writers who do not belong in Category:Christian ministers, or members of Category:Christian writers who write sermons only? If not, then why wouldn't inclusion in either of those two suffice? Or are you aiming for a narrower subcategory like Category:Christian ministers who write sermons? Postdlf 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Answer It is not about the writer as much as about the format or genre of the writING. I believe this is a subcat of format, not of pastors or clergy or ministers. Pastorwayne 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it has to be Christian, although it probably will wind up being mostly Western, largely 16th-19th century Christians. And I don't think it would have to be a minister, anyone who writes sermons could be included. And it's a specialized type of speech. But certainly it could be a subcategory of speechwriters, if that's a category, as inspirational speeches are a subcategory of speeches, and eulogies. Again, just because something belongs in a bigger category, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subcategorized. Or maybe I'm missing something in the arguments for, if it can be in a bigger category the smaller category should be deleted? KP Botany 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This category has value as referring to the distinct literary genre of published sermons (whether or not actually delivered) for which many European clerics, from the C16th onwards, were famous in their own day and are still famous - Bossuet, Fénelon, Robert Sanderson, Lancelot Andrewes, John Wesley himself are only a few that spring to mind immediately, and all these (+ many others) could very usefully have this category added to them. (I am not familiar with the American equivalents). These people are not co-terminous with Category:Christian ministers, and I can't off the top of my head think of any notable non-Christians famous for their sermons, as that is a specifically religious form. As writers of a distinct literary genre, sermon writers are surely on the same footing as hymn writers, speechwriters, poets, dramatists, journalists and the rest. HeartofaDog 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are ministers notable for their skill in the authorship of sermons for whom sermon writers is a decent subcategory. For example, Jonathan Edwards of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God fame. --tjstrf talk 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. But what about every other minister who writes sermons but is not widely known for them, like say John Frame? He's well known (at least in certain circles) for his books, essays, etc. but not for sermons, though he does give them from time to time. Is the cat only for those notable for their sermons (in which case it should perhaps be renamed Category:Notable sermon writers, Category:Writers of notable sermons, or similar) or for anyone who writes sermons? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There simply isn't a way to make that kind of distinction in a category. If it's just titled "sermon writers," everyone who ever wrote a sermon is going to be dumped in it because that's what the category name invites. And "notable" is one of the many forbidden category words because, like "famous," it's either redundant to the minimal notability required to even have an article, or it requires an irrevocably POV judgment above and beyond that, kind of "notability plus." Postdlf 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you saying the cat should not exist because everyone who has ever been near a pulpit will be dumped in it, making it nigh unto useless for browsing? (Is that a criterion for keeping/deleting cats?) It would still leave out, say, Carl Sagan even if myriad Christians who aren't particularly known for their sermons will be added to it. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment This argument can be made for almost every existing category. I'll get some random articles for examples, Ya'an, well, that one's well and finitely categorized, La Feuillie, a disambig page to non-existent articles, WWIII Music/AMC, needs major editing, categories, okay, here we go, D'oh, Homer Simpson's catch-phrase, is in the category Words, which has a subcategory, Words by language. So, every word in every language is going to be dumped in it, so it shouldn't exist. If the person merits an article in Wikipedia AND they write sermons, this is the category for them. KP Botany 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — overcategorisation. the category isn't very useful, and who should be included will either be anyone who has ever written a sermon (which makes the category bloated and unhelpful) or (subjectively) those whose sermons or sermon writing are significant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorisation. I think that Mel Etitis sums it up nicely: either the category will be bloated and unhelpful or it will be subjective and POV. --BrownHairedGirl 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, Mel Etitis' comments if applied would shoot the great majority of cats out of the water. Most categories can be messed up if people are dim about using them, but that's no reason not to have them. Sermons are an important genre in the history of European literature, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, and this cat is valuable for those writers (most of whom will admittedly also be Christian clerics, by the nature of sermons) who are notable for their published sermons: that includes some very important writers (I named a few above), many of whom are principally notable for sermon-writing and who would be inaccurately / incompletely categorised if this cat were not available.
Would it help if inclusion were restricted to writers of commercially published sermons (ie, not just in the local parish newsletter? HeartofaDog 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are those who, as mentioned earlier, just write sermons and do not deliver / preach them. There are also those who just write speeches and do not deliver them. Speechwriters have a category to aid in the finding and grouping of these people. This category will do the same. Didn't just about everyone write a speech in high school? Wouldn't that mean that everyone must have an entry in the speechwriters category? Again, I say keep because the noteability baseline will restrict this category from becoming overly bloated, and it will be a help for the categorization of those who write sermons - without consideration if they preach or not. NDCompuGeek 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People who write and --usually--pblish sermons are distinct from preachers writing sermons for their own use. The most notable seermon writer who was not a clergyman was Samuel Johnson who wrote sermons for a number of his friends. Their source was acknowledged, and they form a major category of Johnson's works, comprising one of the volumes in the standard modern edition. As SJ said at one point, (approximately) Sermons are such an important part of our literature that a collection containing no sermons would be altogether incomplete. DGG 06:22, 7 January 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:Military brat[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. Timrollpickering 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military brat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Military brats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete and block This has been deleted at least once before, and I believe more than once. Parental occupation is non-defining and this term is not neutral. Osomec 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide past CfDs, archives, or diffs to support above, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Meegs. [3] The previous category was deleted before Balloonman's work at referencing the term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasons for previous deletion:
    • POV Term---this is not factual. See the article military brats for discussion on linquistic reclamation and acceptance of the term by the described community. Military brat is not the same as spoiled brat.
      • The word brat is the word brat. We don't have Category:Niggers even though lingustic reclamation is going on there as well. Osomec 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please cite your sources. The dictionary will show that your statement is false, scientist/researchers will show this statement to be false, politicians will show this statement to be false, military personell will show this statement to be false. Category:Niggers has not been universally accepted by the described community NOR has it become a studied/investigated subculture. Researchers use the term military brat to describe a definable subculture, they do not use the term nigger.Balloonman 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a defining characteristic. Again inaccurate as it is a heavily studied characteristic.
      • You are making assumptions that studies that support your view are correct and that the results apply to anyone who has ever acknowledged the term in an interview, perhaps humourously or in answer to a leading question. Osomec 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, show me research to the contrary, otherwise your statement is original research.Balloonman 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "[I]t is highly speculative and largely unprovable that it has a major influence on their lives." This is again a false assertation as it has been shown to be a major influence on people's lives.Balloonman 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean their public lives. We should categorise people on the basis of the achievements that made them suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. The most important things in people's private lives like marriages and parenthood don't meet this criterion, so we don't categorise by them. Osomec 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you'll vote to delete EVERY category that describes people---like the ones about where they are from or what high school/college they graduated from? Those are less studied/supported than this term.Balloonman 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a few people have mentioned that parental occupation is not a defining characteristic and thus the category should be deleted. The subject of military brats is a highly studied subject not because of the parents occupation, but rather because of the impact on the individual. It is NOT the same as saying, "Children whose parents were accountants," but more along the lines of a racial/religious/cultural identity. A quick read of the article should show that being a brat does have an impact on who/what one is. It is NOT what your parents did, but rather how that affected the child on the long term. The effect of growing up as a brat have been heavily investigated. The effects can also be found in Third Culture Kid research.Balloonman 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block per nom. What my parents did for a living should not define me as a human being. Doczilla 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I'm talking about blocking the category, not the creator. I see no reason not to assume good faith on the creator's part. Doczilla 06:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If what your parents did for a living had a direct impact on who you were and was studied, then it is every bit as legitimate as many of the other categories out there. Being a military brat is a studied subject.Balloonman 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the fact is that you don't personally know what impact my parents' occupation had on me, so it's not up to anyone except me to declare myself a "military brat" or "preacher's kid" or "teacher's kid" or whatever. A properly cited list of self-declared military brats would make sense. You can't annotate a category. Doczilla 06:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I don't know what the effect of your parents occupation had on you, but has the effects of your parents occupation been studied like military brats? Do children of your parents occupation self identify themselves as whatever your parents were? Military brats and PK's do. Military brats grow up with that term and identify with it. It is a studied term that is used to describe anybody whose parents were in the service.Balloonman 10:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, block creator, non-neutral, irrelevant to the article and its subject. ST47Talk 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Keep It is neutral, I can pretty much guarantee that the people who have voted no, are not brats themselves or they would not question it. Wikipedia naming conventions states "when naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use" and "do not assume that a different term is more inclusive or accurate." As for the relevance of the parents. This is a studied sub-culture. Please see Military brat (U.S. subculture) wherein it discusses the characteristics which are common among military brats. You will also note from the recent FAC that brats supported the use of the term. There are also over 160,000 occurances of the term "military brat" if googled.[4] Also please notice the reference section for the Military brat (U.S. subculture) references [5] numerous books and scientific articles on the subject. This is a bonafide subject and legit category.Balloonman 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Military brats call themselves brats, such as myself, and are proud of it. It is a neutral term in this context. Wiki needs to stop being so *&*(()% politically correct.Rlevse 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is complete nonsense to suggest that this nomination has anything to do with political correctness, which I despise as much as anyone can. Osomec 06:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlevse and Balloonman. Sumoeagle179 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to every addition to the category being well-referenced to reliable sources in the subject's article. Suggestions to block the creator are unwarranted, spurious, and I question the good faith of suggestions to block the creator, considering that Balloonman (talk · contribs) has been very hard at work on referencing the articles and the category, his efforts are in good faith, and his work has been subjected to several peer reviews and FAC. Balloonman asked me to look at this CfD because I have been following the article since it's WP:FAC and peer reviews - I, too, had objections to the term, but he has referenced its usage according to Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Full disclosure. I've contacted those people who are interested in this subject AND those people who previously voted to delete the category. The term is not offensive and is verifiable. I don't want those who are ignorant of the subject determining the fate of the category.Balloonman 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - pick one, and delete the other - is the category brats or brat? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think brat is the appropriate category... when I went online to create it last night, somebody else had beaten me to it... so it looks as if they created the redirect.Balloonman 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment on block I guess others were suggesting a block of ChardingLLNL (talk · contribs); reviewing the history shows that the cat wasn't created by Balloonman. I don't know anything about ChardingLLNL's edit history, but that does change my comments above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, somebody else created it, but I went through and added the category to people who I have been able to document are in fact brats. I would have created it if it wasn't for his beating me to it. Balloonman 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think that "brats" would actually be the better term; pretty much every other category for people is in plural form. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A look at Balloonman's contributions and work at Wikipedia would have been sensible before calling for this user to be blocked--sourced, edited, referenced, peer-reviewed, hard-working, works with others, and a call for this editor to be blocked is issued? I can't know that any more careful look was taken at the term, brat, than at the creator of the category, but I'll assume the comments were done in good faith and that the person actually looked at the category, the term and its creator. I suggest folks read the article Military brat to see why this is a legitimate category and how being the child of military members impacts the life of the child, before saying that elimination of the category is all about "children not being defined by their parents." There is a lot of research referenced in the article, and more can be found all over the web, and in your library and bookstore. There's probably a good article on the nature versus nurture debate on Wikipedia also, for those who consider their parents had no impact on their lives. KP Botany 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other user (User:ChardingLLNL does not appear to be a problematic editor, either, no reason to call for his or Balloonman's blocking appear in either editor's histories or contributions. A simple reading of the article about military brats and looking at their edit histories should have been done first. KP Botany 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the plural one was deleted after this July 26 discussion. ×Meegs 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People who say the term is not neutral obviously weren't military brats themselves. It gets to the point of, "should you speak on something you don't know?" Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt both as recreation of previously deleted category; I also agree that parental occupation is not defining. Postdlf 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do believe the category has a lot of malplaced quality info that should be placed in the article. The fact that the malplaced info was well referenced because it is malplaced. With a proper short category intro this page should be deleted for WP:NN TonyTheTiger 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I the only one unable to follow TonyTheTiger's statement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you are not. Read my comment after my keep vote. It seems to be a case of just that. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tony, could you elaborate, I'm not following your arguments? Are you simply saying it fails notability, and therefore should be deleted? Balloonman covers this issue, if that is the case. KP Botany 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You cite notability. The first sentence in the notability section reads: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." The article for military brat cites over 40 different articles, books, and studies surrounding the subject of military brats. This does not include many of the studies where military brats are lumped in with Third Culture Kids. A google search will pull up over 160,000 hits and there are scores of books and studies on the subject. But to cite a few, from the article:
      • Ender, Morten, "Growing up in the Military" in Strangers at Home: Essays on the effects of living overseas and Coming 'home' to a strange land. Edited Carolyn Smith, Alethia Publications: New York. 1996
      • Morten G. Ender, ed. (2002). Military Brats and Other Global Nomads: Growing Up in Organization Families, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97266-6
      • Musil, Donna, “Brats: Growing Up Military > Project Overview > Integration.” Retrieved December 3, 2006.
      • Quigley, Samantha (25 April 2006). “Author Explains Culture for Fellow Military Brats.” American Forces Press Service.
      • Truscott, Mary R (1989). BRATS: Children of the American Military Speak Out," New York, New York: E. P. Dutton. ISBN 0-525-24815-3Balloonman 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also this list of some pubmed articles on the subject [6]
  • Keep, well-referenced, and apparently a significant characteristic for these individuals. Kirill Lokshin 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coomment BINGO, being one myself, I can vouch it is a DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of my life. That's all that needs to be said here. That is the same reason we have cats for Jewish people, homosexuals, ad infinitum. Those who are not mil brats themselves simply don't know what they're talking about (99% of the time).Rlevse 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe fact that the subject is well chronicled is what makes for such a fine article. It has no bearing on the notability of the category. Individuals in the category must be notable as individuals not for belonging to a notable category. I probably placed the wrong argument. WP:NN is really an argument against articles. What I mean to say is that all of the introductory info in the category is malplaced. A category should not require an essay of introduction. You should not have to cite a category with references (IMO). I am a strong supporter of the article. This does not mean a category needs to be created or that I should support one. All superfluous introductory Category information should be moved to the article page. TonyTheTiger 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I get it Tony's right, it should be famous military brats or notable military brats, not just military brats. I say, replace with Famous military brats. KP Botany 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added the information on the category page in an effort to avert a CfD... I knew that people who are unfamiliar with the term or it's acceptance would nominate it for deletion. So, I tried to avert it by discussing it there. I have absolutely no problem deleting the stuff on the category page as it comes straight from the main article.Balloonman 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict)Keep, per Balloonman, Kirill and others. There does not seem to be any intent to put all offspring of military personnel in this category, which would be problematic. As it stands, it seems useful (and certainly doesn't fall under the description offered in the nominations). Carom 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • after another edit conflict - Tony, I'm still not following your reasoning for a deletion of the category? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the plural version. This category is a cultural identity. The category inclusion criteria are objective with only very narrow grey areas. The term itself is neutral; it doesn't really have the negative meaning the word "brat" alone might carry. Most people categories are plural, so keep cat:Military brats and delete/redirect the other one. (edit conflict) Gimmetrow 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename to "Famous Military Brats." Being a military brat does indeed affect the person you become, as vividly explained in the article it's linked to. As has been argued to death for the benefit of those who apparently don't care to listen, this is not the same as being the child of an engineer, but rather this is a culture in and of itself, like being Jewish or being Cuban or whathaveyou--it directly affects who the individual will be when they mature. The fact that those who oppose the category are the same as those who didn't read the article on the subject really says something--if you're not knowledgeable about the topic, why on earth would you feel qualified to speak on its notability or NPOV? --ScreaminEagle 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and/or Rename per Balloonman and Kirill. However, it should be renamed to "Famous Military Brats" or "Notable". S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The extensive duplicative article material in the Category has to go. Like other categories it, if it survives, should use the Template:Catmore1 to define itself. --Bejnar 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The new article does define the class, and it is relevant to some people. However is the utility of the category outweighed by the likelihood that anyone with military parents will be placed in the category regardless of whether they are self-identifed "militray brats" and regardless of whether they have the attributes discussed in the new article? I think that the utility of the category is low, and the likelihood of abuse is great. I do dismiss the idea of a Famous Military Brats category. It does not solve anything and raises its own problems. Being famous as a military brat is unlikely, and does not go to the attributes that Balloonman has highlighted. Being otherwise famous is irrelevant. If a person is not otherwise notable, then they aren't going to be in the encyclopedia anyway. So, I would delete Category:Military brat because it is almost impossible for it to be used correctly. Instead of a category, I think that a List would be appropriate and would meet the needs of Balloonman and other "military brats". --Bejnar 23:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:LGBT would then be much more problematic. People do consider it vandalism to be called gay/lesbian/etc. People would not find it offensive to be called a military brat, once they understood the term. All of these arguments can be used for a number of other categories. But they still exists. As for usefulness... I think it's just as strong as these other categories. People who are interested in the subject, will want to know and be able to identify them. I should also note, that as a studied subculture, it doesn't matter if the individual self-identifies with the group, they are part of the group. Anyway, the thing that you fail to understand is that it is a term that brats do accept---I have NEVER met or heard of a brat who doesn't acknowledge that fact. I've met one or two who may not like the term, but never one who doesn't acknoweldge that they are a brat.Balloonman 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another example: if someone's bio indicatates they are born in Venezuela, they can be included in a Venezuelan category, even if they no longer self-identify as Venezuelan, have given up citizenship, and renounce all things related to Hugo Chávez's "Bolivarian" Republic. You're born with, you can't get rid of it - as Venezuelan ex-citizens say, Chávez is like gum stuck in your hair. Self-identification isn't part of the category-defining process: Wiki will still categorize Venezuelan-born as Venezuelan, and "brat" (as documented and referenced by Balloonman) isn't harder to reference than LBGT, religion, ethnicity, citizenship or any other category we have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Too go one step further, I've seen articles stating 3 or 4 places with the category "People from." The person may have lived in Colorado for 2 years, and now they are "from Colorado." Being from Colorado has less documented effect than growing up in the military... and is often harder to validate.Balloonman 16:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up---how is it "it is almost impossible for it to be used correctly." One either is or is not a military brat. If one's parent(s) were in the service, then one is a brat. This is usually a fairly easy thing to obtain and obtain reliably. Issues such as sexuality and religious beliefs are often less reliable and/or subjective---especially on a historical basis when those terms meant different things than they do today. Being a military brat simply means that one's parents were in the armed forces. It is something that media outlets and newspapers and politicians use all the time---without fear of being sued. Balloonman 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My father was in the Navy in WWII, I was born after he left active duty, does that make me a "military brat"? My friend grew up and went to high school out of the same house in Virginia, they never moved, his father was a sergeant in an Army band, none of the criteria in the article apply to him (except the occupation of the father). Is he still a military brat. He doesn't think so. --Bejnar 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, technically you're not a military brat, and I thought the article covered that. Balloonman, please take care of this. Really, none of the criteria, not a single one apply to this child of a career military NCO? CWell, he's human, and there are plenty of exceptions. Adult Children of Alcoholics don't all meet all the criteria, neither do children whose parents are Afghans, or all sorts of other people. But a lot of children, growing up under these circumstances, share many traits. The article does explain this, or Balloonman should be called to task. Maybe he's edited this section out. KP Botany 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Opening sentence, "A "military brat" (or "brat") is a person whose parent(s) served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood." Having a parent who is ex-military does not make one a brat. A person whose parent is called to active duty, ala a reservist, is technically a brat but as explained in the article may not identify with the culture or share the characteristics because they aren't really part of the military culture. Balloonman 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up---"likelihood that anyone with military parents will be placed in the category regardless of whether they are self-identifed "militray brats" and regardless of whether they have the attributes discussed in the new article?" The attributes are like any culture/subculture---generalizations about the culture/subculture. An African American is an African American even if he doesn't share any of the cultural generalizations that could be made. A Roman Catholic is a Roman Catholic even if he doesn't share any of the generalizations one could make about Roman Catholics. A military brat is a military brat, even if they don't share all the attributes sociologist have found in that subculture. It is an objective term, accepted and used in the military community. I challenge you to find any source that indicates or implies that military brat is NOT accepted by children of military members. The closest I came was one researcher indicated that 2 older brats (out of 82) didn't care for the term, but acknowledged that they were still brats.Balloonman 10:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we've covered the issue of this term being POV or not. It's not. For the rest, I'd honestly like to see some standard of what categories should be, but I think it's important to take the question of military brat as being an identifier like being born in California, or New York. Or being Jewish. Given that the Wiki-preference seems to be for categories, not lists, I can't see why this category is being singled out. Is there some real policy established anywhere? FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that other categories don't include the famous moniker, just the presumption, as someone states above, that if they're there, they're already famous. I think this is just confusing me. Overall, the category is fine, it belongs, it categorizes something specific. KP Botany 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct - including famous or notable is redundant. "Famous" is unencyclopedic, and notability is established (theoretically) in the individual's Wiki article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on deletion discussion; actually, recusing myself due to personal ties to a major party in this discussion. However, I strongly object to the proposal to block the category's creator, User:ChardingLLNL, and/or other involved parties. Besides the fact that I see no offensive language, suggesting a block seems not to assume good faith and is not supported by the blocking policy; repetitive disruption does not seem to be occurring. I am not one to wheel war, but if there is a block to the creator of particular category, I will likely unblock. --Ginkgo100 talk 00:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Balloonman's arguments, it is studied and neutral --AW 07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe change to "Notable", but any idea of blocking the user is outrageous, or of blocking the category is POV. As an expert if non-credentialed contributor to this article, the very idea that an editor, whomever it is, can say "such-and-such shouldn't define who I am" is as POV a statement as there is. Who are you to define what should or shouldn't be if the article defends and documents itself? The term is not offensive, it was one of the first things I noted about myself as I was growing up, and even when I created my user page. There is so much fluff and truly offensive stuff not only tolerated on wkipedia but given the golden star that there is room for a serious article to prompt serious thought about a topic that impacts society. A list of prominent persons produced by the subculture is a gateway to further insight, pro or con.--Buckboard 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete U.S. centric, POV and trivial. This discussion has obviously been manipulated by an interest group. People who use this term are the last ones who can judge whether it is suitable for Wikipedia. Chicheley 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't use the term, I opposed the first FAC, but since then Balloonman has defined and referenced the term to Wiki standards of verifiability, using very reliable sources. If "brat" is not suitable, then, there are likely thousands of categories less fitting to Wiki standards, which haven't established verifiability, reliability, and notability to the extent that "Brat" has. There are many categories that are specific to a given country: that's not a reason to delete them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How very dismissive of other peoples' votes, reasonings, and most importantly, life experiences. But it's your opinion, and opinions are like as...well, I think you can fill in the blank. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, systemic bias, non-defining characteristic, redundant with better-written list (List of Famous Military Brats), article masquerading as category, and shouldn't use slang terms in cat names. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain the comment "systemic bias?" I don't see it. It is a defined term used to describe one whose parent(s) were in the military. Thus, a defined term without any connotation of bias. One either is or isn't a military brat. As for non-defining characteristic, again this is not an accurate statement. It is a defining characteristic---thus the research that has gone into the subject to identify the effects of growing up as a military brat. Finally, as far as slang terms, this is more than a slang term today. It is a defined term used by sociologist and researchers to describe a self-identified/aware community. Balloonman 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you know it isn't a defining characteristic? Are you one and feel it doesn't define who you are? I really don't understand why people feel compelled to speak on things they don't know! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a single article and keep. BSVulturis 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand the options. Merging to an article means deleting the category and we already have the article military brat. Chicheley 16:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Vote retracted until I have time to grasp what's appropriate. BSVulturis 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete A term that requires hundreds of words of justification on the category page is too loaded for use as a category name. Olborne 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those words were removed... I put them there because I knew that a non-brat would nominate this for CfD... because non-brats see the word "brat" and instantly think, "This is POV." They are ignorant of the other connotations the term has---and the acceptance of the term. Senator John Cornyn, Phil Gramm, and John McCain III all proudly call themselves brats. The term is so accepted that John Cornyn used it to describe Janice brown during her United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The problem isn't the term, but the fact that people unfamiliar with the term think it's derogatory. Lack of knowledge on the part of some is not justification for removal. The use and acceptance of the term has been established.Balloonman 17:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really see how this would be less defining than what school you went to or what state you're from, and we have categories for those things. It's an obvious keep to me. Demi T/C 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Demi, but the name really needs sorted out. The article isn't U.S centric, but the name implies it is, so get that sorted. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the article is very US centric, thus the qualifier. Studies on non-US brats has not been conducted and other countries have very different military cultures than the US. IT would be impossible to write a truly global article on brats, just as it would be impossible to write a comprehensive article on the Jewish Culture. Too many different experiences and environments.Balloonman 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The word "brat" is pejorative, and people see that regardless of whether they are familiar with the term "military brat" and its supposedly non-pejorative meaning. Nathanian 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. It's a subjective term, applied by an individual upon themselves based on their own experiences. There's no adequate, objective criteria for labeling someone else a military brat, and in this context could be libellous. Alcarillo 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is "Your parents were in the military while you were a child" a subjective term? And I am frankly concerned that people think it's libel to have Wikipedia mention a person's heritage. You'd have to be totally ignorant of what the word means, and in such a case, well, that would be the ignorant person's problem, not Wikipedias. FrozenPurpleCube 21:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's the text from Encarta.com, an on-line dictionary for this definition of brat: "2. child from military family: the son or daughter of a serving member of one of the armed forces (informal) an army brat," please notice that it does not give any indication that it is pejorative or libellous. So, please provide your references that show that in this usage the term is pejorative. KP Botany 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were libel would newspapers and magazines use the term in describing people? Would Senators use it to describe themselves and their spouses? Would a senator use it to describe a Judicial nominee that he supports? I challenge you to find a SINGLE source that says that military brat is libel.Balloonman 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. First of all, Balloonman, I think you're far too close to this issue to talk about it dispassionately. And frankly, I've little interest in arguing with you since I'm not going to change my previously stated opinion on this category. The unanswered question is whether anyone can call someone else a "military brat". You've already cited examples of people calling that themselves -- I've no problem with that. But by what standard can you categorize someone as such even if they don't identify with the term? How do you know whether or not "military brat" is universally accepted by everyone who had parents in the military? The article on military brats talks more about it being a personal point of pride -- again, unless someone actually says "I'm a military brat" who are you or anyone else to label them as such? Alcarillo 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well, who are you to label someone a truck driver? Can anyone call someone else "trudk driver?" "Cowboy?" "Soldier?" "Husband?" Is it universally accepted by everyone who drives a truck? Is it universally accepted by every cowboy, every soldier? If that's the criterion, I hope we don't have a category for Japanese people or occupations by nationality or hundreds to thousands of other categories that we already have. If someone is born in Japan, the child of 40 generations of ancestors born in Japan, we better ask them first if they identify as Japanese before we categorize them as Japanese? That can't and isn't a criterion. Or if it is, heck I've been wrong before, give me a link to that particular policy, because there are many categories that need deleted for failure to offer 100% total universal acceptance of the label applied. I've never actually said, "I'm a resident of the Central Valley" out loud. That doesn't mean I'm not one. KP Botany 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Think of it this way: You've made a statement that military brat is equally offensive as Spoiled brat, and I'm challenging you to defend your statement, otherwise it is original research. I've provided numerous sources to the contrary (including the Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Command[7], a US Congressman/member of the Armed Forces Service Committee[8], numerous sociologist/researcher[9], etc.) Unless you can show us that military brat is libelous, then your statement is Wp:or and thus wp:POV.Balloonman 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are some newspapers/magazines/websites using the term. If it were libelous, do you think they'd use it? Also do you think that the people here, who are brats, would say so? Congressmen on Judicial nominee[10], American Forces Press (If it was libelous they would know)[11], Saint Petersburg Times[12], "In the Spirit of the Smokies" magazine[13], CBS[14], New York Times[15][16] [17], Rocky Mountain News[18][19], Denver Post[20], Westword Magazine[21], MudvilleGazette[22], Brightwell Publishing[23], Hinesville Coastal Courier[24], MyrtleBeachOnline.Com/Sun News[25], Yahoo Movies[26], Honolulu Advisor[27], Vh1[28], US News and World Reports[29], CBC[30], National Public Radio[31], Bloody-disgusting.com[32], Beaufort Gazette[33], Indianapolis Star[34], The Guardian[35], NBC[36], Random House[37], Blackmilitaryworld[38], Daily Utah Chronicle[39], PBS[40], Austin Chronicle[41], WashingtonPost[42]. There are literally over 160,000 hits on google. If this was an offensive term these respected news agencies would not use the term. Military Brat does not mean Spoiled Brat. Media sources use it all the time, so claiming it is libelous, is simply wrong---it is a statement made out of preconceived notions of te term brat. Not realizing that it is accepted in the military community.Balloonman 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Balloonman, I don't know whom you're addressing. You said: "You've made a statement that military brat is equally offensive as Spoiled brat." Can you show me where I made that statement? Thanks. KP Botany: for the occupations you cited, I think you'll find a lot of objective criteria here [43]. Alcarillo 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that it is used a fair bit isn't important as the same applies to thousands of unsuitable terms. It just isn't neutral enough, and the characteristic referenced is unencyclopedic in any case. Greg Grahame 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to something appropriate (at the very least Merge the two categories). Being a so-called "Military Brat" would be a defining influence in the person's childhood, forcing them to relocate every couple of years. (For what it's worth, I'm a CFD lurker / occasional voter, and don't have any military bias.) Bluap 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a Military Brat, and wear the label with pride. All of the kids I knew at the bases where my dad was stationed were also proud of being called the same as that set us apart from the "townies" and we considered ourselves lucky because we were not "stuck" in the same place - we got to travel, see interesting places and meet interesting people. Ballonman has done a great job on the article itself, and when I saw that articles on other people were categorized according to some distinguishing characteristic, such as guitarists from Georgia, or Senators from Maine, I thought that in the keeping with that logic that it was warranted to create the category. Also, I do not understand why some are calling for blocking me for creating the category - it was done in good faith that such a catagory would help locate members of this well documented and researched sub-culture.     ChardingLLNL 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is nothing to do with why people have articles. Annandale 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category is too broad covering anyone who was a child of someone in the military. It is also not a defining point for most people. If kept, rename to Category:Military children. Vegaswikian 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and please don't take it personally. No denigration of life experiences is proposed here, any more it is for the hundreds of thousands of other people who are not categorized by parental occupation. Wilchett 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from anything else, I don't think that the names of categories should be local slang (would it be limited to U.S. or North American people?), but also I agree that it's not a significant characteristic for most people whose parents were in the military — and deciding who were significantly affected by their parents' occupation would probably be PoV in many cases. I certainly think that describing it as a subculture is odd. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt non-defining characteristic. — coelacan talk — 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to be rude, but people who are saying that this isn't a defining characteristic, slang, or describing one's parent's occupation are not familiar with the research that has gone into this subject. Military brat is a well cited/referenced term, which has been shown to have a profound effect on who one is as an adult. Scientific research, not opinion, supports that statement. But here is a Compromise proposal. The article on Third Culture Kids (TCKs) needs to be improved, but TCKs is a broader term used to describe anyone "who follows their parents into another culture." Just as adult Children of Alcoholics are studied because of the definable long term effects of growing up with an acoholic, children of highly mobile families are studied because of the definable long term effects. ALL of the research into TCKs discusses "Military brats," by name, as the largest component of TCKs. My proposal is thus, create a new category "Third Culture Kids." And then within that category create a subcategory "Military brats." This should assuage people who are unfamiliar with the term that we are using it in a scientifically studied academic enyclopedic sense that transends the boundaries of a slang term.Balloonman 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let's look at some of the criteria listed in the article itself, most of which are referenced, accurately I presume:

      Military brats are typically highly educated, outgoing, loyal, patriotic, idealistic, and honest... Life on military bases instills patriotism within the brat... Their strict adherence to military values is what separates military brats most from their civilian peers... [Military brats] "aren't just non-racist, but anti-racist."

      Do all the persons listed under the military brat category fit these criteria? If someone exhibited none of these (and I've met a few children of military families who want nothing to do with "military values"), does that automaticaly make them not a military brat? Look at the category list. There are several names there that I would say calling them military brats -- based on the articles' criteria -- would be a huge stretch: Jim Morrison (!!), John Philips, Bob Marley (military values?? LOL), John Denver, Michael Stipe, Andy Dick. What possible justification is there to list these people as military brats, if not just for parentage? Remember, I'm not saying to delete the article, which aside from a few niggling problems is not bad. Just the category. Alcarillo 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the scientific studies on cultures. With ANY culture there are exceptions---often notable exceptions---who break the mold. Sociologist study populations for population norms, which may or may not fit individuals. The term Military Brat is objective because, despite "Bob Marley" not fitting the mold, he is still a military brat and part of the subculture. The movie Rain Man is based on a real life autistic person, Kim Peek who has broken many of the norms of autistic people. His success doesn't invalidate the norms associated with autism. Likewise, your 'exceptions' does not disprove the sociologist and researchers who study the subject.Balloonman 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about famous or notable in the name. These are not required since you can not have an article unless you are notable, so anyone included is by definition notable. Adding notable to the category goes against previous renames and still leaves the problem of establishing the category as one for those who are notable because they were a military brat. Vegaswikian 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept or no consensus, Merge Category:Military brat to Category:Military brats. Vegaswikian 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the category. We do not classify by parental occupation and the fact that someone has come up with a colorful term for this particular intersection is not a reason to start to do so, but if anything the opposite. Sumahoy 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — why is everyone that is in favor of deleting the category basing that on a misinterpretation of the term? It does not categorize by parental occupation. It is a sub-culture characteristic. It is not derogatory, libelous, or pejorative. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pejorative "brat", which is argueably libelous in the first place. I have yet to hear of anyone being sued for calling someone a brat or even a spoiled brat. — ChardingLLNL 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you do know it's not just someone, but a very large number of people who use this term, furthermore, is there some evidence that Wikipedia don't classify by parental occupation for any particular reason? Certainly ancestry is important, or are you arguing for the deletion of all the categories that reference where somebody was born? This is no different. FrozenPurpleCube 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The widespread lack of categories such as "Children of lawyers" is evidence. The only exceptions I'm aware of are the subcategories of Category:Children of national leaders, which are not only very specific and 100% clear (there is no doubt as to who belongs in Category:Children of Presidents of the United States), but most of the entries exist only because of that relationship, as being the child of a national leader (in some countries, at least) is sufficient to endow notability. We also don't actually categorize people by birthplace specifically (though if we did, at least that would have objectively clear criteria), but more broadly by where they are "from," which includes adult as well as childhood residence; regardless, the city and other subnational people categories are typically a mess with unclear inclusion criteria (are you "from" somewhere if you were just born there but never lived there, only went to school there for a year, etc.), and so are hardly a model of good categorization.
    Another problem with this category is that it has no logical parent—Category:People by subculture? Category:People by childhood experience? There's simply no precedent for it, it doesn't fit into anything, and I haven't seen a good reason for making this sui generis. The keep votes seem largely driven by personal attachment to the subject ("I was a military brat, so I know how important it is"), or misplaced arguments that are really justifications for having an article on the topic ("the concept is well documented"), without any explanation as to why this is a sensible category based on how we use and handle categories generally. Hopefully the closing admin will take note of the lack of relevant rationale for keeping (as well as the fact that these were recreated without anyone ever challenging the previous CFD on DRV), rather than just writing this off as "no consensus." Postdlf 15:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block a very useless and large category and to some extent derogatory --- Skapur 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please provide a pointer to any articles/writings/sources to support your assertion that it is derogatory. — ChardingLLNL 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's at the very least a colloquialism, for which there does not appear to be a non-colloquial descriptive term (which says something). While I will not dispute that the term deserves an article, whether it's appropriate for a category is a completely separate question (see, e.g., polymath). Furthermore, we don't have a practice of categorizing people by "subculture" (as you said above this was an example of), and I have not yet seen a good reason for starting. Postdlf 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the professional research on growing up in military families has contributed to the perpetuation of the 'brat' label... It is no wonder that the label endures and is as polular as ever," Morton Ender in "Growing up in the Military" (p128.) While it may have started out as a slang/colloguial descriptive term, it is now used and accepted in academic/research circles as an accurate descriptor of a distinct definable community.Balloonman 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that Andy Dick and Bob Marley were in a "community"; you make it sound like they lived in an Amish town together. Can you point to another category on Wikipedia for a similar "community"? Postdlf 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The defenders of this category seem to have trouble deciding what its status is. When defending its objectivity, they calim that anyone born of military parents qualifies; when defending its significance, they claim that it's a subculture. Now, if it's the latter, then the former is false (as a number of people have pointed out), and conversely, if the former is true, then it's not the latter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Your argument makes no sense. You make two points that are not contradictory and try to present them as such. "Military Brat" is an objective term; anybody whose parents are active duty is while growing up is, by definition, a military brat. This is a well established definition, thus objective. This definition defines a subculture that is studied and researched, thus its significance. You then point to some original research where somebody points to military brats who don't fit the mold. They have provided Original Research to argue that it disproves the model, but that's their opinion, not fact. Within any cultural description, there are exceptions to the rules. Pointing out perceived exceptions does not invalidate the scientific researched on the culture as a whole. There are African Americans who do not like the term, but we still have scores of categories that are "African American XXXX." We have no fear of categorizing somebody as an African American, eventhough they may not like/accept the term. There are African Americans who do not like "black culture" or fit the mold, but that doesn't invalidate the culture. Nor do those exceptions invalidate research into those communities. The term is objectively describes the subculture specifically because it is not subjective and not one that can be renounced. For example, Bill Cosby has caught a lot of flack for his criticism of the African American community, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still black. Likewise, even if one of the people described above as not fitting the mold were to say, "I'm not a military brat" or "that doesn't describe me." That would not change the fact that they objectively part of this studied subculture! Belonging to the subculture is NOT something that people chose/reject, they either are or are not part of that culture. That's what makes it objective, you have NO FEAR of somebody saying "I'm not a military brat," because even if they did, it doesn't change the objective fact (as defined by the community and researchers who study the culture) that they are!Balloonman 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem not to have followed my point (and also seem to have a very odd notion of the nature of culture/subculture). However, this discussion is ludicrously long, and I doubt that it's worth pursuing the point further. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories seem to employ an extraordinary amount of POV and personal bias into their inclusion; in actual fact, I fail to see how these could warrant as valid categories at all, because of their bias. Secondly, as has been indicated upteen times in this CfD, familial background does not warrant the inclusion of a category. --JB Adder | Talk 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the category is too large & unwieldy, and too specific to 20th century US context to be generally useful. It is not "offensive". And it is a significant part of individual identities and not just parental occupation. So a "list of famous military brats" or "list of x-generation military brats" etc. are fine. Oppose the knee jerk suggestions to block the user which are at best poorly thought out.--lquilter 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we generally don't categorize people based on occupation or status of parents, or based on subculture (and it still isn't clear which this category is for, which also makes it less useful), and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to make an exception in this case (unlike the children of US presidents, where that is often why they're notable, few people are notable soley for being military brats). Mairi 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt The validity of this specific cultural meme is not being questioned, it is obviously of some notability in US culture. However as others have stated it is not proper to classify people by their parents' employ. And while it is clear that this is a badge of honor to some, a person not familiar with the term (as the majority of Americans, and the vast majority of non-Americans would be) who simply sees Bob Marley being called a "military brat" at the bottom of his page would not understand the term and get a wrong impression. Thethinredline 21:51, 7 January 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:Fictional swordfighters[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. Timrollpickering 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional swordfighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, non-defining characteristic. I can name at least 2 bajillion fictional swordfighters off the top of my head. Also, I'm about 417% certain this category has been deleted before, but I don't feel like finding the old discussion. Axem Titanium 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wielding a sword (or something vaguely sword-like) is not a defining characteristic for a fictional character. Dr. Submillimeter 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the ability is not defining and is too common to make an interesting or useful cat. Incidentally, I looked and could not find a real-life counterpart to this (other than Category:Fencers, which is certainly ok). Axem, you may have been thinking of Category:People who carry swords, deleted after this October 1 discussion. ×Meegs 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People who carry swords was a fictional character category. Not in name, but in content. --tjstrf talk 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overly broad and useless. --tjstrf talk 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The great majority of fictional characters who engage in combat in stories set in periods prior to the age of handguns fight with swords. This would potentially be a very large category. Dugwiki 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is fanboy nonsense. Alcarillo 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are LOT of fictional swordfighters whose swordfighting is not notable --- Skapur 03:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the reasons given above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 5 January 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:Referendum[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 Relist. Vegaswikian 08:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Moved from Speedy[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:Fictional bisexuals[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/merge; no consensus to rename. Timrollpickering 00:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bisexuals to Category:fictional bisexual people
  • The point is that it's not nominated for deletion because bisexual people are unworthy of categories, simply hard to differentiate from gay in a lot of cases. No points for keep in the last CfD should have even counted, they failed to make any objective point. Anyway, this is about renaming for the most part, so I urge an administrator to still rename this category to Category:Fictional bisexual people despite the lack of consensus on the merge/keep debate. Or better yet, merge it, hah. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename as it is necessary to describe things accurately. Piccadilly 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBT defines bisexual people accurately, in fact moreso in cases where homo/bisexuality can be hard to distinguish.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (that is: Keep under existing name). On its existence: I tend to the view that this is overcategorisation, though it's on the margin. On the renaming: the notion that "fictional people" is somehow contradictory is peculiar (it must make reading novels or watching plays and films a bit of an odd experience), but unless anyone other than a person can be bisexual (OK, plants I suppose, but on how many fictional plants are there likely to be articles?), I don't see the point of a change. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge back into LGBT characters, since there's quite a bit of ambiguity in who is actually bisexual and who's gay, and LGBT already covers bisexuals (hence the B). There was a similar debate about "Fictional lesbians" and that category was deleted because of too much ambiguity. Katsuhagi 21:11, 5 January 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:Fictional skateboarders[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. Timrollpickering 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional skateboarders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is an ad-hoc category for any character who rides a skateboard. Unless you believe that Marty McFly, Bart Simpson, and Spyke have other things in common besides riding skateboards, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too many characters have driven skateboards. Doczilla 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too broad, doesn't contribute any meaning to the article. ST47Talk 18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter, although that sounds like the greatest cross-over ever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless all the Fictional Sportspeople categories are deleted, this one should stay. Why delete one and not the rest? However, if all of them are to be deleted then so should this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillValleyTelegraph (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 January 2007
  • Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In some cases being a skateboarder is part of the character. For example, many Simpsons episodes are built around Bart and his skateboard, for instance Bart the Daredevil. If Marty McFly were not an expert skateboarder, he would not have been able to escape from Biff in the first film or use the hoverboard in the second film. And Max Goof's skateboarding abilities actually make up the plot of An Extremely Goofy Movie. What should be done is to restrict this category to those such as the above characters whose skateboarding is fairly important to the plot, rather than a character who merely says in one line in one scene in one episode, "I like stateboards". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.193.208 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 January 2007
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:Education in Kuala Lumpur[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. Timrollpickering 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Education in Kuala Lumpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category is redundant. It can be expressed more neatly in the categories Schools in Malaysia and Universities and Colleges in Malaysia, both subcategories of Education in Malaysia. Geographical location can be further subcategoried. Skoban 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not redundant, and one of at least 135 education by city categories. Osomec 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-unique per osomec and because we don't want to reorganize an entire country unless we need to ;) ST47Talk 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other cities have this category as well such as Paris (Category:Education in Paris).Wai Hong 07:34, 4 January 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:Argentine racing drivers[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 merge. Timrollpickering 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Argentine racecar drivers, convention of Category:Racecar drivers by nationality. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ST47Talk 18:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Sumahoy 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom (though I find "racecar driver" a clumsy, nursery-English sort of phrase. I suppose it's U.S. English?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --lquilter 20:41, 5 January 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.

Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion[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. Timrollpickering 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Lutherans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Former Mennonites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Former Anglicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I accept that Former Religion categories have support, but these three are quite recent and seem way too specific. We can't have a former category for every denomination. Also they originally were only of those who became some form of Methodism, which strikes me as strange.--T. Anthony 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [44] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category could be subjectively interpreted. Does it include people who simply stopped going to church, or people who have officially declared themselves to have left the religion, or do the people in these categories need to be baptised as belonging to another faith? Given the open-endedness of the category, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should perhaps mention that I'm not, this is not, a CfD for Category:People by former religion or even Category:Former Protestants. I just felt the three I listed were getting into newer more specific territory than those so needed to be discussed. I'm not wild about any of the Former Religion cats, but the main ones survived delete before.--T. Anthony 15:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- I'm not opposed to "Former religion" categories in general, but these three specifically don't seem to add much beyond "Category:Former Protestants". There are lots of people who switch Protestant church affiliations for reasons of practicality or convenience (e.g. stopping going to an Episcopalian church and starting going to a Presbyterian church because they've moved), but who do not particularly consider themseleves to have "converted" -- and it would be faintly ridiculous to put such people in a category of "Former Anglicans" or whatever... AnonMoos 15:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, these categories are for further specificity for those who are Former Christians, indicating not transfer from one Protestant denominaton to another, but from the Christian faith to another religion entirely (or possibly from Protestantism to Catholicism). As such, though the specificity of former Anglicans or Methodists may not be needful, for parent cats of Former Christians or Former Hindus, etc., most definately are! Thanks. Pastorwayne 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If so, they have already failed. Category:Former Anglicans includes two members who became Methodists (and if so, we should include the entire second generation of Methodists); and one who became a Lutheran (or perhaps held Anglican and Lutheran orders concurrently.) Delete Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Former Protestants, the individual religions are similar enough that they do not mean much in someone's life. ST47Talk 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I vote merge or upmerge myself. Maybe it's assumed I voted delete, but I put this up to discuss more than to delete.--T. Anthony 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these as descriptions that should not define people and are not as clearcut as one might think -- e.g., one can be both a self-defined Christian and an atheist. Doczilla 09:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cat people by what they are, not what they are not. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for balance. We had a very similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination) recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there:
    If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. — coelacan talk — 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I'm non-voting on the others, if I slipped up and voted on the others I'll cross out the vote, but I'd like to give a response specific to the ones I nominated. I feel the categories I nominated are different than say Category:Former Muslims. The Muslim category has the positive Category:Converts to Islam. We do not have Category:Converts to Anglicanism, Category:Converts to Mennonitism, or Category:Converts to Lutheranism. The neutrality concern that we are having "only the positive convert to X" categories and not the "negative former X religion" categories doesn't apply in these cases. If anything it's the opposite. We only have the "ex-members" categories for these. I guess we could start convert categories for these, but I think I'd prefer not to.(What I'm saying here also applies to the Christian Science category I created and nominated for cfd) In other words I'm trying to go on a case by case basis. Others here are making statements on all "former" categories, but I'm not.--T. Anthony 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, I've withdrawn the nomination of Category:Former Christian Scientists, but on reflection I think these three have a slight difference from it. Christian Science is something a bit more like the Mormons, in that it's kind of a separate issue from Protestantism whereas these aren't.--T. Anthony 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people. I accept the fact that for some it is. However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions. Vegaswikian 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all the "former religion X" classification should be deleted as a rule. It is not a primary characteristic, it is hard to verify and corner cases could became battlefields. The current individual voting is mistake, the whole tree should be treated at once. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a vote would probably fail or reach no concensus. I also nominated these for different reasons that don't relate to the whole category.--T. Anthony 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Kittybrewster 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. Pointless overcategorisation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all per Vegaswikian. Plenty of people switch between different protestant denominations, and don't regard it as a hard-and-fast-choice; there are plenty of people who switch between (for example) Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist churches simply on grounds of convenience (which church is closer etc). This is very rarely a defining characteristic, and it is often not a permanent choice. By extenfing these categories to more specific than former protestnats, we also risk ending up with a categorisation schme to fit the prejudices described in this joke.
    I'm afraid that this is another example of the chaos caused by PW's approach to categorisation, which appears to be look at an article on a methodist individual, select labels which could be attached to that person, and then create both the category and any subcats necessary to tie it in place. --01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all. Some of them seem to be people (eg Jacob Albright) who left one religious order and founded another, which is surely a defining feature. ('Former Lutherans' don't upmerge to 'Former Christians' (some remained Christians) or 'Former Protestants' (some remained Protestants).) (I expect we could concede that Henry VIII would sit happily in a 'former Catholic' category.) I don't think PW has defended these categories very well, neither do I think the case against has been established - if people are put incorrectly into a cat they can be removed. Eg I don't think the article on Isabelle Eberhardt establishes that she was ever a Lutheran. (The joke above is most welcome.) roundhouse 19:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but this could start really filling things up if acceptable. Going by Category:Christian people and Category:Christians by denomination: this would open the door for: Category:Former Assemblies of God people, Category:Former Baptists, Category:Former Calvinists, Category:Former Congregationalists, Category:Former Foursquare Gospel Members, Category:Former Huguenots, Category:Former Methodists, Category:Former Covenanters, Category:Former Presbyterians, Category:Former Messianic Jews, and Category:Former Uniting Church in Australia people. (Also, by extension, Category:Former Shi'a Muslims, Category:Former Sunni Muslims, and Category:Former Orthodox Jews) Possibly this isn't a bad idea, but I'm still a bit skeptical.--T. Anthony 18:28, 7 January 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:Former Scientologists[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. Timrollpickering 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Scientologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same reason as CfD on all other "former religion" cats nominated by me today. Opprobrious and magnets for trolls who are against a particular religion or religious belief.Rumpelstiltskin223 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [45] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arent they a cult rather than a religion? Bakaman 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People should not be defined by churches they used to attend. It's not who they are now. (And Scientology is legally a religion.) Doczilla 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States and a few other countries. I think there are English speaking nations where it's status is more uncertain.--T. Anthony 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rumpelstiltskin223 gives no reasons for this particular category to be deleted, only a blanket statement that trolls might abuse categories like it with no examples. AndroidCat 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, my reason for deletign the above does not apply here ST47Talk 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a category used in the media, Wikipedia users might as well have access to it. KP Botany 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable and encyclopedic and should be kept. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pink moon 1287(email•talk•user) 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for balance. We had a very similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination) recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there:
    If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. — coelacan talk — 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people. I accept the fact that for some it is. However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions. Vegaswikian 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Kittybrewster 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reservations But there has to be verification in the person's article that they were a former CoS member. Olivia d'Abo is a great example -- nowhere in the article is her erstwhile Scientology membership even mentioned. And including Quentin Hubbard in the category is a little misleading in the article doesn't make it at all clear whether he left the church prior to his death. Alcarillo 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Quentin until there's a cite that he left Scientology before his death. (Confusion over the word "former") AndroidCat 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As we don't divide between past and present, living and dead, this is a necessary companion to the Scientologists category, since it could otherwise be used in a misleading way to suggest that Scientology has more adherents than is really the case. Piccadilly 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless (and to those who say that it's used in the media, I'd say that's evidence for not against my view). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all pointless. Anyone doing research on the trends in religious "migration" needs "converts from" as well as "converts to" information. A category is a fine way to catalogue that information. — coelacan talk — 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Scientology is only 53 years old, and was limited in following in its first years, a "converts to" category would be almost all of them.--T. Anthony 20:58, 7 January 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:Former Jehovah's Witnesses[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. Timrollpickering 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same reason as CfD on all other "former religion" cats nominated by me today. Opprobrious and magnets for trolls who are against a particular religion or religious belief. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [46] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Arent they a cult rather than a religion? Bakaman 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People should not be defined by churches they used to attend. It's not who they are now. And they are not a cult. Every church began as a cult. After a century and a half with millions of members, they are a church. Doczilla 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per directly above, no explanation by nominator for these. ST47Talk 19:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cat people by what they are, not what they are not. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for balance. We had a very similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination) recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there:
    If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. — coelacan talk — 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have that category yet, but there's no good reason why someone shouldn't make it. It would indeed be a NPOV balance if this one remains. — coelacan talk — 05:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you want this as balance for a future category that may be created someday? Or you think both should exist so they can balance each other? Wouldn't it just be easier to not have either one in the first place if we don't have to?--T. Anthony 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people. I accept the fact that for some it is. However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions. Vegaswikian 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Kittybrewster 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on the Scientology category. Piccadilly 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the Scientology category. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 5 January 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:Former Muslims[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. Timrollpickering 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same reason as CFD on Category:Former Hindus and Category:Former Christians. Inherently opprobrious. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [47] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there was a recent deletion attempt which failed back in October. Also, "former" is not particularly insulting (I imagine Bertrand Russell would have been proud to be known as a "Former Christian"), and if there are objections to it, then a more satisfactory terminological substitute for it should be found (instead of deleting the category). AnonMoos 15:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is an article Apostasy_in_Islam. Unlike Hindus, Muslims seem to actually care when someone decided to leave their belief system.Bakaman 17:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists ST47Talk 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cat people by what they are, not what they are not. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for balance. We had a very similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination) recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. — coelacan talk — 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people. I accept the fact that for some it is. However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions. Vegaswikian 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Kittybrewster 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on the Scientology category. Piccadilly 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the Scientology category. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per my comments on the Former Christians category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 6 January 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:Former Christians[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. Timrollpickering 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Such controversial cats are a magnet for trolls.Partisan editors are putting up Category:Former Hindus and,Category:Former Muslims. Such cats are inherently opprobrious. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created it, but I think it was a mistake. I put subcats in it that aren't necessarily of former Christians & I think this is unnecessary.--T. Anthony 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm switching to not voting on consideration. However I think if this survives it should be limited to people who left Christianity in general and not include people who went from Catholicism to Protestantism or Anglicanism to Eastern Orthodoxy or whatever.--T. Anthony 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [48] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Christian is a broad range. The point is there are also big pages like Excommunication#Christianity and Great Apostasy but those are better serves for individual groups.Bakaman 17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary and quite arguable category. Should a Catholic turned atheist be listed? They might argue that they're still Catholic and that it's not up to you to say whether they are or aren't Christian. Doczilla 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists ST47Talk 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bakaman is right. The term "Christian" is way too broad. If it were "former Roman Catholics" or "Former Mormons", then I would vote keep. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cat people by what they are, not what they are not. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for balance. We had a very similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination) recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. — coelacan talk — 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but Category:Former Anglicans is incorrectly given as a subcat - this just requires a simple edit. (Someone who is a Former Anglican may remain a Christian; I looked at articles for 2 of them, both of whom became Catholics.) Neither cat includes the other. So eg Cat Stevens would be correctly placed (if he was Anglican - I've no idea) both in Category:Former Anglicans and Category:Former Christians. Eg Shlomo Ben Avraham "Ole" Brunell could be correctly placed in Category:Former Lutherans, Category:Former Protestants and Category:Former Christians (as he converted to Judaism). roundhouse 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people. I accept the fact that for some it is. However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions. Vegaswikian 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a useful category --- Skapur 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Kittybrewster 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on the Scientology category. Piccadilly 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the Scientology category. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as impossibly vague. What exactly is a "former christian"? Does it include someone who has "committed adultery in my heart"? Someone who breaks all of the commandments? Someone who was baptised but doesn't go to church very often? Or is it simply someone who has renounced christianity definitely and in its entirety? This category is a POV nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Someone who has renounced christianity definitely and in its entirety" will do just fine. We can specify this on the Category page and ensure that it is rigorously applied. Not every category is completely obvious in its application, but we make do with explanations on the category pages. — coelacan talk — 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep On what logic can we delete this category but not delete the ones above? DGG 06:24, 7 January 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:Former Hindus[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. Timrollpickering 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Hindus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

POV and inherently opprobrious.No such category exists for any other religion correction cats do esist for other religions but that does not change that it is inherently opprobrious so why Hindus? I listed all the cats of former religions for deletion Rumpelstiltskin223 13:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [49] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the point is that there are religions notorious for terrorizing apostates. Hinduism isnt one of them. See Apostasy#Hinduism and Buddhism.Bakaman 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that's the point of these categories. To me they're for people whose apostasy is notable. If a person leaves Buddhism, and becomes notable for writing about his/her time as Buddhism in a negative way, I don't think it'd matter how Buddhists feel on it. The person has made themselves known as an ex-Buddhist. Still I don't know enough about Hinduism to say whether apostasy is even possible or means anything to anyone.--T. Anthony 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay on reading that section it states "There is no concept of an apostate in Hinduism or Buddhism as there is no concept of conversion." If this is accurate does this mean we should delete Category:Converts to Hinduism? Why or why not? (I hope you don't snap at this question as I'm actually curious. I've not voted or formed an opinion)--T. Anthony 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concerns. The "converts to" cat is filled with members of Hindu organizations & people like ISKCON, Prem Rawat, Parisada Hindu Dharma and Arya Samaj which do proselytize. Hindu texts have no views on either apostasy or conversion. Hinduism the world oldest religion, had no need to define apostasy and conversion because everyone in the area around them followed similar beliefs. OTOH Abrahamic religions were born in eras where their religious concepts were revolutionary ideal (Judaism vs Babylon/Egypt/Assyria, Christianity vs Jews/Romans, Islam vs Jews/Pagans/Zoroastrians).Bakaman 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then does this mean "former Hindus" could be valid if limited to the newer Hindu movements which have more defined senses of entering and leaving?--T. Anthony 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more efficient to merely make a cat with a title like Category:Former members of ISKCON, Category:Former followers of Sathya Sai Baba, etc.Bakaman 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Freedom skies| talk  18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other noms. Doczilla 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists ST47Talk 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry but I did not understand your reason in the Scientologists debat above. Could you please explain? --- Skapur 07:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other noms.--D-Boy 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cat people by what they are, not what they are not. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We had a very similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination) recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. — coelacan talk — 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And exactly how do two wrongs make a right? In any case it is the article's content that has to be neutral first. The purpose of categorization is to help people locate other similar articles. Therefore categories should not carry any POV in themselves. --- Skapur 07:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people. I accept the fact that for some it is. However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions. Vegaswikian 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are currently only two persons in this category. not a viable category. --- Skapur 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? It is twice the minimum size. Piccadilly 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Kittybrewster 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on the Scientology category. Piccadilly 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlike Scientologists, there are about a billion Hindus in this world. The argument that you made in that category is not really relevant here. --- Skapur 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a much smaller number of notable Hindus though, who will end up on Wikipedia. And Piccadilly's argument applies to this subset. — coelacan talk — 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can recategorising the small number of notable Hindus on Wikipedia give any one any impression that there are fewer Hindus in the World than there really are? Notable people in general are not categorized by their religion in Wikipedia so how will some one get an impression how many there are to begin with so that they can start subtracting?--- Skapur 06:54, 6 January 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:Companies listed on the JASDAQ Securities Exchange[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. Timrollpickering 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies listed on the JASDAQ Securities Exchange to Category:JASDAQ Securities Exchange listed companies
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:Occitan personalities[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; rename. Timrollpickering 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Occitan personalities to Category:Occitan people
  • Rename. Originally nominated for speedy, then for renaming as per the current proposal Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 25#Category:Occitan personnalities here, but it was badly handled. Firstly as no-one supported the existing name the debate should have been kept open for another 7 days, secondly despite the "no consensus" closure the original speedy proposal was implemented regardless of a lack of support. Thirdly no-one opposed my amended proposal, including the original nominator, who certainly saw it (though he misunderstood removal from speedy as meaning that it was being nominated for deletion when very clearly it was not). This is a simple matter of applying standard terminology. Osomec 11:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for Mel Etitis. Once again, THIS IS NOT A DELETION PROPOSAL. Osomec 12:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to shout, but it heavy emphasis seems necessary as he is having extraordinary difficulty grasping the difference between deletion and renaming. Osomec 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no such difficulty; my clearly-expressed comment was misunderstood. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- although I'd support delete for a category that has only one member. Doczilla 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The category was depopulated by User:Grcampbell; I'm repopulating it for the purposes of this discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When it was tagged as a speedy. --Bob 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom.Bakaman 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due the disputed scope of the Occitan languages and region. If not deleted then rename. Chicheley 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per Chicheley. The domain of occitania is POV at best. This category has been applied to many biographies of both living and dead persons regardless of the actual fact of whether or not the person in question was occitan. Has also been discussed here, here and most pointedly, here --Bob 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As one of the previous editors of the article on the 19th-century mathematician Olinde Rodrigues I was amazed to find this category applied to him. I had gone to a lot of trouble to verify the facts behind his previous assignment to categories, including his ancestry, and it was a shock to find this one landing on him 'out of the sky', as it were. So everyone who ever resided in Bordeaux is now an Occitanian? I don't know if there could be other logic behind this proposal besides what's been added in the comments above, but it would be a relief if this category, if kept, never comes near the Olinde Rodrigues article again. If kept, it would help if someone could find the word 'Occitan' applied to him anywhere in the literature, by anyone. EdJohnston 14:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have misunderstood the nature of this discussion. The question isn't whether the category should be applied to a particular article, but whether the category itself should be renamed, or even exist. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the term 'Occitan' is puzzling when applied to Olinde Rodrigues it may be puzzling elsewhere. It's like labelling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a 'Colonial American Personality' because he once lived in Vermont, and Vermont was once part of Colonial America. For additional background, go to the Occitania article and note that Albert Camus is listed under 'Famous People from Occitania', a man with a pied-noir Algerian father, a mother of Spanish descent, and an Algerian childhood. A person's actual ethnic origins as given in their article, or their personally-stated cultural identifications, should be used (in my opinion) when assigning categories. Camus would not be Occitanian if that rule were followed. If there are famous modern people who assert an Occitanian cultural identification, then conceivably such people might be put in a category, but it would be kind of quirky, like 'Catalan nationalists', which might possibly make sense, but would be a small category. Since Category:Occitan personalities is nothing like this, I believe it should be deleted (as I stated above), rather than renamed. EdJohnston 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he hasn't misunderstood the nature of the discussion, merely giving an example of how preposterous this category is. To paraphrase (basically copy) JMLofficier from here: labelling people from all over France as "Occitan personalities" or "Occitan people" is akin to mixing up a Sioux (Lakota) and a Cheyenne because they're both Plains Indians. In modern-day terms, the label "Occitan" should be reserved only to those born in the Languedoc-Roussillon area (excluding Catalans) and parts of the Midi-Pyrenees, period, making sure that they are, indeed, Occitan, and that they have identified with the Occitania movement, as the labelling is a cultural statement, not an accident of birth. (We already have categories for place of birth. They are Category:Natives of Languedoc-Roussillon and Category:Natives of Midi-Pyrénées. Using the wider geographic area covered by this category is at best misleading, at worst preposterous.) To give an example, there are a number of famous writers and artists in America who have Native American ancestry and Wiki does not refer to them as a "Cheyenne writer" -- unless of course they have written about or produced works pertinent to the Cheyenne Nation. For example: Comic artist Philippe Druillet (born in Toulouse) is no more an "Occitan" artist than Tom Wolfe is a Mattaponi writer because he was born in Richmond, Virginia. I think the attempt to label all kinds of French writers, politicians, sportsmen and artists etc as "Occitan" solely because of their birthplaces is akin to vandalism and should be reversed and the category deleted because it is so heavily disputed. Furthermore, there is already a Category:Occitan-language writers which could be populated by those writing in that language. --Bob 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Giving an example of a misapplication of a category doesn't count as an argument against the existence of that category. Moreover, this resort to terms like "vandalism", as well as "preposterous" , does little to help your case.
      Note, incidentally, that I have no position in this debate — only a concern that the heated comments suggest that it's not being carried out with regard to what's right for Wikipedia, but with regard to some extra-encyclopædia political battle. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and strong keep. Occitania is as well defined as any other historic linguistic classification. That it may be misapplied, especially to people who speak standard Modern French, makes it no different than any other category. I will note that it had, and should have, more members than it does now; one of the more emotional editors above has been depopulating it during this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proposal is that the category should only include Wikipedia articles about people who are documented as speaking Occitan? EdJohnston 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or who self-identify as Occitanian. But the way I would phrase it is that it should be obvious from the article why the category is justified; so I would not, say, include the Girondins.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defined nationality and we don't categorize by language spoken. Sumahoy 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current list implementation seems to promote a political POV. Would keep a renamed list that includes people that have created literary works in the Occitan language (As opposed to French) --JuanPDP 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only the Occitan-language writers should be in a category. Piccadilly 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename one can belong to a socio-linguistic group without being a published author in the language. Eluchil404 17:18, 4 January 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:Cities and towns in Taymyr Autonomous Okrug[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 merge. Timrollpickering 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Taymyr Autonomous Okrug into Category:Cities and towns in Krasnoyarsk Krai
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:Frayser Boy albums[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. Timrollpickering 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC. frummer 05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:ALBUM. --musicpvm 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ALBUM#Categories. ×Meegs 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ~ BigrTex 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All these categories are pointless overcategorisation; there are usually lists of releases by the various artists in the relevant articles, often in separate discography articles. (Note also that WP:OC is a Wikipedia guideline, while WP:ALBUM is merely a WikiProject; the latter is guided by the former — or, in this case, has failed to be guided.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:42, 5 January 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:Palestine[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. Timrollpickering 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom frummer 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Beit Or 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: First of all, the different categories are of different character, and there shouldn't be a group CfD. I could very well go along with Category:Elections in the Palestinian National Authority, but I strictly oppose Category:Political parties in the Palestinian National Authority (as most parties predated the PNA). --Soman 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to do this properly one should put {{subst:cfr|ProposedName}} notices on all relevant category pages, this has not been done. For the moment this is a stealth rename attempt and as such it is out-of-process. --64.230.123.128 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, I notice that there are CfR templates on some of the categories. --64.230.123.128 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming of main Category:Palestine, as this is required (but I'm not sure if that is actually being proposed here, anyway?); Oppose block renaming as per User:Soman, what's right for some will not necessarily be right for others; Oppose suggested renaming of Category:Political parties in Palestine, which would be no better than the current title (but would support renaming to Category:Palestinian political parties, which is the only really accurate and useful version); Support other proposed renamings listed here. Palmiro | Talk 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per soman & palmiro, & note this change also nn as brings names into line with israeli rhetoric on the 'issue'  ⇒ bsnowball  09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per bsnowball & palmiro, Huldra 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per bsnowball & palmiro, Chicheley 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Chesdovi 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Non-neutral nomination. Greg Grahame 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, very bad idea. POV, essentially claiming that Palestine does not exist. — coelacan talk — 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. It's long overdue. It's a must to avoid confusion and maintain NPOV. Amoruso 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the 'confusion' argument is as absurd as saying we should distinguish between the country currently called 'italy' and the peninsular which has historically been called 'italy' every time the name is used. it's utter nonsense, there is no such confusion.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am surprised to see so few specific arguments *FOR* making the change. Is this part of a longer debate, which is documented somewhere else? If so, I'd appreciate a pointer. In the absence of clear arguments, I vote to keep the status quo. Noting by analogy that Macedonia is a controversial term, and there is a careful disambiguation page for it, there are plenty of plain 'Macedonian' categories that seem to be used without embarrassment (take a look at [50]). My intensive 5 minutes of research also shows a deletion debate for the Category:Palestine from last March, which had an 'unresolved' outcome. Has anything changed to make all this renaming more desirable now? I also like bsnowball's argument about Italy. EdJohnston 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per bsnowball. --Alynna 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just like to point out that Palmiro only opposes the "Elections" renaming (if I understood the comments correctly), thus all of these seeming "Oppose per Palmiro" actually support most of the renamings. TewfikTalk 10:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Let's not confuse a political entity and a geographic region. ←Humus sapiens ну? 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as POV, and as per Bsnowball and per EdJohnston DuncanHill 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. I realize this is tricky political territory (so to speak), but it seems to me that a dispute about the meaning of a term should be resolved in the articles about the term (e.g., Palestine and Palestine (disambiguation)) rather than by imposing categories. ----Leifern 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, Humus and Leifern. 6SJ7 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. "Palestine" is, at least now, a geographical placename, not a sovereign entity. Isarig 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although there could also be an article called palestine, the currect article only refers to the political entity which would be more accuratley referred to by most of Tewfik's suggestions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Support Only for Political parties and Elections. Leave other categories alone as they refer to a geographical area and not a political entity. As far as I know, Palestinian Territories and Palestine represent the same geographic area. Precedent: The category for "Geography of Massachusets" is not called "Geography of the Commonwealth of Massachusets". There are many other examples like that all over Wikipedia. --- Skapur 01:05, 7 January 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.

American physicans by ethnicity[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 merge. Timrollpickering 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:American physicians, does anyone really think ethnicity is relevent here? -- ProveIt (talk) 05:26, 1 January 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:American religious executives[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. Timrollpickering 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just kill it now, before it spreads. Yet another in a long and useless series of Bishop categories. The only current member is of course a yet another Bishop. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in any event it only has one substituent, TewfikTalk 05:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current member is a member of this category not because he was a Bishop. He was a "Religious Executive" before elected a Bishop. It refers to another part of his notable life, before becoming a Bishop. Categories apply not just to one achievement of someone's life. Persons do different things during different times in their lives, for which they may also be categorized. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The title is overly vague. What is a "religious executive", anyway? Dr. Submillimeter 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - underpopulated, vague ST47Talk 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless it can be adequately populated it is useless. I have no reason to believe it can be. TonyTheTiger 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete underpopulated, vague category. Doczilla 13:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for such a subcat. roundhouse 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of above. Hopelessly incoherent. Postdlf 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is just another of Pastorwayne's useless categories, apparently crreated simply to place one of his articles in more categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kittybrewster 14:00, 4 January 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:Religious executives[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 merge. Timrollpickering 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge into Category:Religious leaders. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is at some level a useful categorisation without falling prey to religioncruft, TewfikTalk 05:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see above. Pastorwayne 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - See above comments. Dr. Submillimeter 15:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see cat for updated inclusion language. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, distinction isn't clear. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - distinction not apparent. roundhouse 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The inclusion language only makes clear that these are religious leaders, not why they should not simply be called that. Postdlf 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. So tedious now, Pastorwayne. — coelacan talk — 02:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --- Kittybrewster 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ill-defined category, incapable of more precise definition (the word "executive" is too fuzzy). Either it will be used for non-notable religious bureaucrats, or it will be used to add an unecessary extra category to biographical articles on people notable for other reasons. This category is a very good example of why PW's antics are being discussed at WP:ANI. --81.156.255.136 10:56, 6 January 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:Female Sikh warriors[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. Timrollpickering 02:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Sikh warriors, why is gender relevent? -- ProveIt (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sexual revolution, TewfikTalk 05:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The era in which they lived (16th-18th century) may lend some notability to the characteristic, especially since their femaleness seems to be their (almost solitary) defining trait. --tjstrf talk 07:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tefwik. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, Tefwik. — coelacan talk — 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In most cases, this is the claim to notability. If a male Sikh warrior had the same battles and family, we would not have an article on him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Category:Women in warBakaman 03:46, 6 January 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:Catholic theologians[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 merge/redirect. Timrollpickering 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Roman Catholic theologians, convention of Category:Roman Catholics by occupation. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:17, 1 January 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:Macaulay Institute[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 merge. Timrollpickering 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macaulay Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Found in cleaning out November cat. This was nominated on 11-14 but I did not find a discussion. Vegaswikian 03:44, 1 January 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:Number-one singles on the Canadian airplay chart[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. Timrollpickering 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Number-one singles in Canada, or Delete. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — these do not belong in Category:Number-one singles in Canada and topped a major Canadian chart. There's no reason this should be deleted. There are a million U.S. Billboard component charts (Category:Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks number-one singles, Category:Billboard Hot Dance Club Play number-one singles); why delete this one? Velten 02:40, 7 January 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:National Guard[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 merge. Timrollpickering 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:United States National Guard. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:28, 1 January 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:Disney Nonsense Word Songs[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 upmerge. Timrollpickering 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Disney nonsense-word songs, or Delete as categorization by trivial attribute. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcat and pointless subdivision of Category:Disney songs. Otto4711 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and/or delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last section of Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo could be spun-off for this purpose, though it's not much of a list. Unless there's more to say about the set of songs, I'm not sure it can stand alone. ×Meegs 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I have some problems with that section, especially considering that it (like the category) listed both Passamaquoddy (song) and Hakuna Matata (song) as examples of nonsense words Disney made up so it could trademark them. Otto4711 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – obviously, if there's no consensus to keep this, it should be merged back up to Category:Disney songs. At least Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah needs it. ×Meegs 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep else upmerge. These songs are actually a distinct group of songs. TonyTheTiger 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is over-categorization. I assume that the author of the category meant "songs containing nonsense words", especially given the six songs there listed. When TonyTheTiger said that these were a "distinct group", I cringed. Heigh-Ho may not even belong in this category. The only words in that song that could be considered nonsense are heigh-ho which are derivative of old teamster words for directing horses. Is giddy-up nonsense? Also the newer songs are quite different from the older ones. This is not a meaningful category, even if it were not a case of over-categorization. --Bejnar 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, overcat. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & merge (not in that order); overcategorisation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & merge, completely worthless and ill-defined category. Postdlf 22:51, 4 January 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:Companies based in Eugene, Oregon[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 merge. Timrollpickering 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companies based in Oregon, parent is still a bit small. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Overcategorization. Postdlf 22:32, 4 January 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:National parks of Ireland[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 deleted per below. David Kernow (talk) 10:55, 1 January 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:Artists/Bands With Long Song Titles[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. Timrollpickering 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristic. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proveit. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ProveIt. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and as completely arbitrary—no reason that "long" would mean "50 characters" as the description currently states, so it just invites subjective judgment. Would "Long, Long, Long" qualify?  ; ) Postdlf 19:31, 5 January 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.

United Methodist bishops[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 merge. Timrollpickering 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church, overcategorization. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:21, 1 January 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:Captain Jack Sparrow[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. Timrollpickering 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all current members covered by Category:Pirates of the Caribbean or Category:Pirates of the Caribbean characters.
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 08:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The bar to entry for a fictional character to have his own unique category needs to be somewhat high, to avoid categories like "Category:Aunt May" and "Category:Norm (Cheers)". Dugwiki 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 19:41, 2 January 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:Arab fashion designers[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 merge. Timrollpickering 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fashion designers, is ethnicity relevent here? -- ProveIt (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we already have Category:Fashion designers by nationality into which they can be grouped. Congrats on the first CfD nom of the new year! --tjstrf talk 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arab isn't a nationality, and putting them in Category:Fashion designers by nationality would require the creation of 3 new subcategories for these 4 designers, leading, probably, to 3 more CfD discussions. It's a large region, with not many internationally known fashion designers. KP Botany 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tjstrf. Nationality is a well-established and sensible subcategorization scheme for occupations; broad ethnic groups less so, unless the particular intersection of ethnicity and occupation has a recognized significance...which this does not. Postdlf 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIt might, as most Arab nations are dominated by Muslim culture with stricter dress codes enforced than most non-Arab Muslim nations, which would apply to fashions worn by Arabs in Arab nations, specifically joining Arab fashion designers in a way non-Arab fashion designers and Muslim fashion designers are not necessarily joined. And Western fashion is international in scope, stores sell designs by Italian, by Spanish, by French, by American, by Brittish designers based on factors not associated with nationality (couture, ready-to-wear, sportswear, evening, bridal). So, while nationality may be a "well-established and sensible subcategorization scheme for occupations" in general, it is not necessarily the senible one for subcategorizing fashion designers. Two designers of haute couture in French houses might be distinguished artificially in Wikipedia by their nationality, when it would make more sense to distinguish them into high fashion designers as opposed to French fashion designers and Brittish fashion designers--where the occupation and the market intersect. KP Botany 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That you're of Arab ethnic heritage doesn't guarantee that you're also of a Muslim cultural background. I'm also not convinced that a fashion designer can be as provincial as you suggest and yet be notable enough to merit an article. Unless you can establish that the fashion world does in fact recognize such divisions, and can demonstrate that these are substantial enough that an article could be written on their distinctions, subdividing by nationality is the presumptive and only way to go. Postdlf 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Greg Grahame 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Merging is usually done to reduce the number of categories. In this case, it will create 3 more, because each Fashion designer by nationality gets their own nationality. So, instead of Arab fashion designers, you will have Lebanese, Saudi, and one other additional nationality category. If it's more appropriate this way, go for it, but it seems to unnecessarily create additional categories that will have only one or two people in them. KP Botany 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and subdivide by nationality The small size of the resulting categories is not a problem. Sumahoy 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These categories won't be subsequently put up for deletion for having only one member? That's often a criterion for deletion, here, that the category is too small. I'm fine and agree with merging and subdividing by nationality, if it won't increase the number of CfD discussions, although no one has addressed my comment that these designers do have something in common due to their being Arabs that unites them.KP Botany 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories that function as part of a system should not be deleted, even if some members have very few entries, because omitting the smaller groupings just leaves them with no place to go and hinders navigation. Feel free to let me know if someone ever does challenge Category:Lebanese fashion designers, etc., and I'll be happy to vote "keep." Postdlf 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I think the whole CfD is out of control, with rampant deletionists on one side, and rampant keepers on the other. Someone else is arguing that Prisoners of Leavenworth should be deleted because it's too small of a category--and it has a handful of prisoners. Still, do you disagree that being Arab unites this group of designers, as it does because of dress codes in Arab countries? KP Botany 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about this category says that the included members design within certain countries and/or cultures? It just requires them to be "Arab." Postdlf 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that's the point of an category, that the things in it are related in some way. I already argued against the categories of fashion designers by nationality above, because it's not real in the world of fashion. While an haute couture Spanish designer will have his clothes more prominantly displayed in Spanish stores and his shows more prominent in Spanish shows than a French designer, in fact, when it comes to boutique clothing sales their nationalities will not be the deciding factor, but rather their prominence and reputation in the world of fashion outside of their nationality. In fact, these categories, in terms of many of the designers who could be put in them, are meaningless. However, unlike these international high level designers, Arab fashion designers in the Arab world have a binding tie, cultural clothing restrictions, that can dictate the type of clothes they designe, particularly in ready-to-wear lines, that doesn't exist in the rest of the West. KP Botany 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You missed my point: being Arab doesn't mean you live in, work in, or design for "the Arab world" or an Islamic culture. Postdlf 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, yes, I did. However, being Spanish doesn't mean you live in, work in, or design for "the Spanish world." Not all Arabs are Muslims, so that doesn't matter. KP Botany 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's not why we'd subcategorize fashion designers by nationality. We'd do it the same as why we do it for all occupations—it's the easiest and most logical subcategory for people because it's one of the most defining facts about an individual, and typically one of the first descriptive words in a biography article. Subcategorizing occupations by nationality is the norm. Postdlf 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, so it's done by nationality because it's the norm, there's no reason for it. Or there are reasons, yet the apply equally well in this case to being Arab, and could tie the designers together more than country ties two of the biggest (the English McQueen for example and the stir when he replaced the Spanish born Galliano at the French fashion House of Dior) French fashion designers together, being Arab could be one of the defining facts about an individual, and, in dealing with Arab fasion designers it could be one of the first descriptive words in their biography article, just like Middle Eastern or South Asian might be a logical grouping of peoples when talking about certain things. The foods of South Asia have a lot more in common with each other than with the foods of the Middle East, for example, so making a category, Foods of South Asia, might seem as reasonable as the Food of Afghanistan. I think that a categorization scheme that rigidly bypasses the reality of what it is categorizing can be difficult and seems without purpose. When McQueen was at Dior he was a French Fashion Designer, in spite of being a Brittish Fashion Designer, and Galliano at Dior was also a Brittish-born-of-Spanish-parents-French fashion desingers. The world of fashion does not tuck neatly into the categorization scheme. KP Botany 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Grouping certain scientist categories together by nationality has sometimes been criticized as meaningless, because there's no such thing as "American physics" or because the work of a "British biologist" has no actual relationship to Britain. But I think these categories are easily understood as "American who is a physicist" or "Spaniard who is a fashion designer" rather than "a practitioner of American physics" or "a designer of Spanish fashion," and the benefits of subcategorizing nationality by occupation and vice versa are substantial. BTW, I personally have no problem with supercategories such as Category:European fashion designers or Category:Middle Eastern fashion designers to group regionally related nationality subcategories (not articles directly, mind you), but others may differ on that. Postdlf 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KP Botany. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate by the 3 nationalities I had to think about this for a while. Although there is no meaning to Spanish Fashion designer in certain levels, it is fine to divide by this, as these nations will claim each designer as their own. Middle Eastern and Arab are both problematic, because all that unites the Arab nations in fashion consensus also applies to all Middle Eastern countries, not just the Arab ones, but Middle Eastern removes some major North African countries that would be covered under Arab, but not Middle Eastern. So, please just delete this one and add Saudi fashion designers, Lebanese, and whatever the other one is as categories instead. I point out that American physicists and British physicists do serve a greater purpose that isn't shown in fashion designers by nationality. If I'm speaking to two physiscists, both 35 years old, professors at major universities, both with extensive prestigious publication lists, I can readily guess by nationality that the American physicist is a tenured professor and the European not, and the American physicist is working on projects of her design and choosing as are her graduate students, while the European physicist may not be, and this won't tell me that this is because the American is doing better work, but simply that the American is American and the European is European. So, with scientists it can be informative. For a Nigerian scientist I will know he can pay less for journal subscriptions, and probably has significantly lower access to the latest equipment. Thanks, Postdlf for actually discussing the issue, which appears not too common in the cfd.KP Botany 20:49, 5 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_1&oldid=1223923676"