Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6[edit]

Category:California celebrities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: {{{3|Delete, too broad of a category, fails WP:OCAT). Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcat + define what exactly is a "celebrity". Lugnuts 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article celebrity opens with a useful definition: "a celebrity is a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention". However, there is no other geographical subcat of Category:Celebrities, and no sign of any reason to make California an exception, hence delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Presbyterian clergy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Presbyterian clergy to Category:Presbyterian ministers
Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate category (the Presbyterian churches have no form of clergy other than ministers). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • preferably Reverse merge to clergy. The main tree is Christian clergy, of which Category:Christian ministers seems an unneeded POV intervening category. There is also a potential ambiguity with politicians. Plus they have Moderators (also ministers but with some categories of their own) and in some churches ordained deacons apparently - are these ministers? At the individal church level I'm ok with ministers. Johnbod 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply it's not POV, it's a use of the terminology which protestant churches themselves use, reflecting a very different conception of the roles of ordained people, arising out out of the protestant notion of the priesthood of all believers. Also, your rationale seems to be self-contradictory: you conclude that "at the individual church level I'm ok with ministers", so why do are you arguing for a reverse merge in this case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Category:Christian ministers certainly is POV, especially as it contains many RC sub-cats - presumably not what it was set up for. The category description contains no mention of "Protestant" etc, thus implying in the usual way that Catholics aren't really "Christian". Apart from being POV, it is also wholly unneccessary. Clergy is a neutral term. I think my objections are less relevant once you get down to church level. "Church of Scotland minister" is not ambiguous in the same way, and the deacon issue only applies to some churches. Johnbod 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Johnbod, but I don't see any RC subcats of Category:Christian ministers; can you list any that you see?
Secondly, though, I really don't see what is POV about this at all. The protestant denominations mostly refer to their ordained people as "ministers", so why do you claim that it is POV for wikipedia to use their term? Catholic Churches, for example, use the term priest, and I would no problem in having a parent category of "christian priests" for those denominations which use that term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe there is only Category:German Roman Catholic priests. The category is defined, like many in the past using "Christian", without any reference to Protestantism or any form of limitation by denomination. It therefore implies pretty clearly that Catholics, not to mention many other churches (Anglicans, Othodox etc), are not "Christian", which is a position actually held by some Protestants, as you ought to know. Clergy is a neutral term, which we should use. Plus, yet again, the category is wholly uneccessary as a duplicated branch of the clergy tree à la Pastor Wayne, though not by him. Johnbod 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The category being discussed here is not Category:Christian ministers, although I would certainly favor renaming that category to Protestant ministers. But here, if "ministers" is the customary term for all Presbyterian churches, then it would seem to be more accurate and appropriate.-choster 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I think ministers as in Category:Christian ministers was intended to be a neutral term ("Christian ministers are Christians who are engaged in any sort of ministry. They may be ordained or licensed, or they may be laity"). However it is (in this sense) perhaps too vague. Category:Christian clergy in contrast states "Christians who are ordained", an admirably clear condition (supplied in a rare moment of clarity by PW). I would support removing the Category:Christian ministers in favour of Category:Christian clergy (per Johnbod). I would have thought Category:Protestant clergy would then be best (not all ordained protestant clergy are called minister, eg C of E). As usual with these categories there is confusion wherever one looks (the category inclusion for Category:Christian ministers and Category:Christian clergy is the wrong way round using the stated inclusion conditions). At the Presbyterian level, we all seem to agree that the terms are synonymous, and minister is the term used in the articles. -- roundhouse0 20:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mayors of Boston[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as proposed. Sam Blacketer 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Boston to Category:Mayors of Boston, Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Boston, Massachusetts, List of mayors of Boston, Massachusetts, and Category:Boston, Massachusetts. LeSnail 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The principle for major U.S. cities is to simplify subcategory names if the subject is the most well-known, and Boston redirects to Boston, Massachusetts. Note that every sibling category save Images also uses the simple "Boston" (a situation mirrored in other major city categories); laterally the category is comparable to Category:Mayors of Providence, Category:Mayors of Honolulu, and everything in between. -choster 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename For consistency and to avoid confusion with Mayors of other Bostons. Number 57 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • {{globalize}}, please. You can't reasonably expect all people to know Boston is in Massachusetts (as opposed to being in the U.S.) to begin with. Circeus 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. Some of those others should probably be nominated as well. Choster's complaint basically seems to be, "I shouldn't have to check what name Wikipedia normally uses", and I'm afraid I have to disagree with that. You should, if for no other reason than to make it look like Wikipedia was created intelligently rather than randomly—though I think there are other valid reasons as well. (But if you really have a problem with this sort of thing, try popups. In the alternative, start by assuming that the more specific name should be used--99 times out of 100, you'll be correct.) Xtifr tälk 09:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, my "complaint" is that a system is in place, and if flawed, our proper course is to fix the system—not progressively add exceptions. How long did we go back and forth and back and forth on eponyms before finally deciding against them?-choster 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above--JForget 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dutch Reformed clergy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Sam Blacketer 13:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch Reformed clergy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, redundant to Category:Dutch Reformed ministers, to which I have moved the three articles which were in this category (i.e. Andrew Murray (minister), Johan Heyns and George Washington Bethune). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go along with reverse merge, but don't like the ambiguous (or multiguous) name(s). There is also Category:Reformed Clergy created by the same shaky hand as Category:Dutch Reformed clergy; there is potential confusion with nationality categories (clerics who are both reformed and Dutch), capitalisation is moot and indeed the description 'reformed' might include a variety of clerics. (These ill-thought-out categories tend to lack an explanatory opening inclusion statement.) -- roundhouse0 08:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it comes down to Category:Ministers of Dutch Reformed churches vs Category:Clergy of Dutch Reformed churches. Are clergy of these various churches all called 'minister' (cf Presbyterians)? -- roundhouse0 20:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those two is fine with me. Johnbod 01:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female lawyers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete. Also, the case that this is a non-trivial intersection is persuasive, as a topic on which specific studies & commentaries are made. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:OCAT - trivial intersection between sex and profession. Carlossuarez46 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is no such thing as female law. LeSnail 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Yes there is! There are plenty of laws in all societies which relate soloely to women or relate differently to women. In western societies these issues now arise mostly wrt to reproduction and sexuality, but many other societies still have differential treatment of women in all sorts of areas, ranging from succession and property tenure to the right to vote and eligibility for various forms of employment. That doesn't mean that all women practising law restrict themselves to those areas of law particularly relating to women, which is why I suggest restricting the category (see below). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And because all cases have 2 sides (at least) how does one NPOV-ly restrict to only this side? And which side it is is usually POV: some say pro-choice is pro-women's rights, whereas others say pro-life is pro-women's rights. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but restrict to those lawyers whose careers are notable because they are female, such as those in Category:Iranian women lawyers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- How do you plan to restrict the category like that? Perhaps a rename is in order--something like Category:Practitioners of women-related laws? Otherwise, I don't see how every female lawyer will not end up in the category. LeSnail 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply wouldn't a note in the category text be enough? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Practice of a particular type of laws makes little sense: those who practice immigration law aren't immigrant lawyers and since all law tends to have practitioners on both sides, those who practice against whoever we would categorize as those who practice "women-related laws" whatever that means, are also included in the category. I.e., those who procecute rapists as well as those who defend them are each practicing the same law - just on different sides - same with abortion, divorce, and anything else one might posit as "women-related laws" Carlossuarez46 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG above. This is a non-trivial intersection. -- roundhouse0 11:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG. Many, many, many books, studies, articles, and professional seminars have come about on the topic of legal careers for women. I would especially point out the book Pinstripes and Pearls about the women of the first co-ed class at Harvard Law. Non-trivial intersection. Wl219 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there is law that affects women more than it does men, there is no restriction that such law may only be practiced by women. While a cracking good article could undoubtedly be written on the topic of women in legal professions, that does not mean that every single woman lawyer should be in a category. There is no way to restrict the category to only those woman lawyers who are notable for being woman lawyers and no way to keep every woman lawyer from ending up in it. Otto4711 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Iranian women lawyers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iranian women lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:OCAT - trivial triple intersection between nationality, sex and profession. Carlossuarez46 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Empire of Moore Clan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Spam. Circeus 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Empire of Moore Clan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category as an ad page. Interesting concept, but certainly a deletion cadidate. --B. Wolterding 15:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severe delete with extreme prejudice possibly even speedy. An amusing concept, but obviously neither of the articles belong in the category, nor is it plausible that Wikipedia will have any articles that belong in the category in the forseeable future. If not a G11 or C1 (since it should be empty), then definitely WP:OC#Small with no potential for growth. Xtifr tälk 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy merge back to original category, please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_5#Category:Wittgenstein. Kbdank71 18:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category created out-of-process in response to this CFD. The same deletion reasons apply to this category as apply to the other, namely that it is unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. I understand that L.W. is a very important philosopher. His importance does not in and of itself warrant the eponymous category and there is no reason why the lead article Ludwig Wittgenstein can't serve as the navigational hub for this material. Otto4711 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy close This should be added to the other debate, since the contents, and arguments for deletion are exactly the same. The original nominated category has been emptied, so this nomination amounts to having two debates on the same category. A large majority, including Otto as nominator, was agreed on this rename if the category was kept. Johnbod 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A speedy procedural merge would be satisfactory, to bring the contents of this category back into the improperly emptied category. Otto4711 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd agree, but is it worth it? Depending on the result, this will either stay as it is or be deleted. But I'm happy with doing it that way. Johnbod 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really didn't read anyone's comment that would indicate a change in position based on whether the cat's name was LW or just W, so merging the debates is only a slight procedural issue (IMHO). My comments at the W debate apply here if someone is reading this later (a closing admin?). Readers digest version: better LW than W, but really delete is best as OCAT. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, so far no "comment that would indicate a change in position based on whether the cat's name was LW or just W" in the other debate. Johnbod 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose that this and the other discussion be closed under the authority of rule WP:SNOW. There is no way that this deletion will be allowed at WP:PHILO. Let's work on changing the contents of that rule appropriately now. Gregbard 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the proposal and I also object to your unsupportable assertion of ownership on behalf of the philosophy project. You've already completely flouted the procedure here and now you want to call SNOW when it clearly doesn't apply. Otto4711 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto is right on this. Please stop being silly. Johnbod 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually the rulemongering going on around these wittgenstein categories goes against WP:Common, this category is clearly a keep and yes it is a philosophy project category, cause it doesn't belong anywhere else. now please stop futzing with rules and get back to writing good articles. --Buridan 04:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please believe it was a sincere expression of the pragmatic reality. It was and is a statement that is totally advisory to the community. I have no illusion about speaking "for" the project. There is no assertation of ownership. That, with respect, is you being silly.

However, the way philosophy is "done" and taught involves closely focusing on the philosophers as well as the concepts. There are plenty of eponymous categories. It would be in the spirit, if not the code of Wikipedia that you leave the decision of what categories shall be eponymous as it regards philosophers to the philosophy department.

In light of the magnitude of work I have done in moving categories under philosophy, I will ask your forgiveness WP:BOLD in moving this particular category. The writing appears very much on the wall to me, frankly. Gregbard 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really do want to undertsand what the reasons against having this category are.
  1. I assume from Otto's comments on the cat:witt discussion, that there is no reason to think that deleting cat:witt is a sign that cat:descartes or cat:Kierkegaard or any other cat of the same type will be deleted. This suggests that we are just discussing cat:LWitt here, not cat policy in general - am I right? In bringing up these other pages, I am trying to sort out policy here, because it is miles easier for me to make decisions about categories if there is some policy - and I know it!
  2. Otto says that all the links can be put on the Witt page rather than in a cat:LWitt. This is undoubtedly true. There would be quite a few of them. But, I imagine they could be ordered nicely. Is it the consensus of the admins that it is better to do this and avoid cats? We could even make up one of those funny box things for Wittgenstein and stick them on all the pages currently in Cat:Witt. Would that be better than having the category? Or, given that Witt is mentioned on all the pages, we could assume that people will go to the main page anyway and get at the Witt material through that?
  3. What do you cat admin people think about the idea of having Cat:Witt studies, etc. - not what philosophers would usually do in my experience, but, if it makes you happier, maybe we should do that?
  4. According to WP:CAT "Categories should be major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article". I would have thought, philosopher that I am, that Wittgenstein was a major topic, and the contents of the category were likely to be useful to anyone reading the Wittgenstien related articles. We definitely have courses that are 50% Wittgenstein at my university.
  5. On the overcategorisation page, it lists as examples of poor categories 'Barbara Streisand' and 'ZZ Top', and says 'Jan Smuts' is okay (Talking about overcategorisation - did you see the bottom of his page! Makes those in Catt:LWitt look positively bare. I know - stick to the point!). Why isn't Wittgenstein like Jan Smuts? I guess this gets back to the main point. Perhaps you can explain exactly why it is bad to have cat:witt...

Sorry for the ramble and bad spelling. And apologies if it sounds like I am not appropriately respectful. I do understand you are acting in good faith, and am sure you know the system better than me. The proposal just makes no sense from my perspective. Anarchia 04:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "magnitude of work I have done in moving categories under philosophy" I was talking about? Well Anarchia has done TEN times that. So Otto is going to have to answer all those questions before Wittgenstein goes anywhere. We would prefer not to have issues in the future so, I think the statement of policy should be amended. Be well, Gregbard 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now do indeed have two debates open on the same category. This one, as the more recent, with many fewer participants, should be closed ASAP, with maybe the last 2-4 comments moved to the other. Whether the LW category is merged back to W for the duration of the debate I leave to the closer. Johnbod 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy close and keep keep one or the other.--Buridan 14:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{category redirect}} to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes. the wub "?!" 14:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish since it is duplicate of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes, see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes#Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes where the user creating this category agrees to merging either way, I have now merged all members of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes. I tried prodding Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish but it looks like you can not prod categories, and it does not look like this is really in speedy criteria, so I put it here but still suggest speedy under WP:IAR or something, sometime I would like to be an admin .... --Stefan talk 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend redirecting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes instead -- it doesn't seem like there's any need to take up the admins' time with this one. As the creator of the unnecessary category I think this would be a fine solution. :-) Tim Pierce 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know you could redirect categories ... checking ... see Wikipedia:Categorization#Redirected_categories. --Stefan talk 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Israeli religious localities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all "Religious towns in Israel" and "Religious villages in Israel" to the newly renamed Category:Religious Israeli communities. Due to comments in the CfD below, I'm going to not merge "Religious Israeli settlements". The term "settlement" is significant and could be examined again an another CfD dealing only with that cat.-Andrew c [talk] 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerge of the following categories to their parent, Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel (whose renaming I propose below).
Nominator's rationale: I believe them to be overcategorised based on a trivial intersection of two unrelated concepts. For example, there would never be individual entries on Religious Israeli towns, Religious Israeli villages, Religious Israeli settlements, Non-religious Israeli settlements, and Mixed Israeli settlements, only perhaps a general entry discussing the concept of a Religious Israeli locality (the last three are even more problematic since Israeli settlements are also towns or villages). TewfikTalk 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One potential problem with this upmerge: the "non" and "mixed" settlements don't really fit within the proposed parent, since "Religious" is an operative word. - J Greb 08:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely correct - those two should just be deleted outright unless someone can make a case for parent "mixed" and "non-religious" categories, and I've nominated them separately below. TewfikTalk 10:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into renamed category (Category:Religious Israeli communities) as below. Number 57 12:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mixed and Non-religious settlements[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relist for more discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_18#Mixed and Non-religious settlements.-Andrew c [talk] 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of the following categories:
Nominator's rationale: Per my reasoning above, they overcategorise based on a trivial intersection of two unrelated concepts. TewfikTalk 10:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems absurd to single out religious localities but not acknowledge the other side of the coin either. Israeli localities are pretty much divided into these three groupings, while there are a minority of religious towns in Israel, most moshavim and kibbutzim pretty much segregate themselves by either relig., mixed, or non-relig. ALL communities in Judea, Samaria, and the former Gaza and Sinai started out like the moshavim and kibbutzim which were specific groups of like-people who decided to endure the hardships of creating a new locality from scratch and enduring this effort together. This goes equally for people who strive(d) to maintain a 'secular' lifestyle as it does for the religious, and certainly not different than the people who live in Ariel or Adora who specifically insist on living in a mixed environment as well. While 'mixed' seems natural and the default, a non-religious entity is nothing less notable than the religious counterpart and perhaps even more so, a settlement ideaology not based on religious reasons be it settlements on the border of Lebanon or in the Jordan Valley. --Shuki 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The word communities seems vague and might would also include communities in general, not only cities, towns, villages, etc. There is an Israeli community in LA, NYC, and other cities in the diaspora. WP usually shuns 'Israeli this and that', 'Bolivian this and that', and the convention is '___ in Hungary', for instance. Granted we have a major conflict with those people wanting to put Ariel (for instance) in the cities in Israel cat, in order to be clearer, could you please suggest the final proposed outcome? Will all settlements go back to the I.set. cat, and also be added to the suggested 'religious' cats? It would mean adding hundreds of Israeli localities to the cats as well. --Shuki 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that localities should have religious status categorised in a manner that is not linked with either the size of the localities or their political status, since the current situation constitutes an arbitrary intersection and overcategorisation. TewfikTalk 09:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Religious Israeli communities.-Andrew c [talk] 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel to a shorter and more inclusive scope, perhaps Category:Religious Israeli localities or Category:Religious Israeli communities, though this nomination is without prejudice to whether the category should exist at all. TewfikTalk 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Forteana[edit]

  • Relisted at CfD 2007 Sep 17 for further discussion. In addition, the CfD tag had not been appended to the category. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crowdfunding[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. nn-neologism, not useful. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crowdfunding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Main article (Crowdfunding) was deleted. Chubbles 04:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Common songs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Common songs to Category:Common (rapper) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match lead article Common (rapper) and to eliminate the ambiguity of the name. Otto4711 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Wl219 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Schools of informatics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep both, and no merge. A valid distinction between the two seems to be established.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Schools of informatics to Category:Computer science departments
Nominator's rationale: Merge, I think people who are looking for computer science departments and/or schools of informatics are not going to be concerned about the subtle difference between "computer science" and "informatics". RichardVeryard 03:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this category really needed? How many of the schools in this category actually mention the existence of the department that merits inclusion here? I could also argue that almost every school these days has one of these. Vegaswikian 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first of all, unfortunately very few universities have such a school. And the more that did, the more the category would be neeeded. Second, informatics is perhaps closer to information science than computers. DGG (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no merge. informatics is not computer science and some are very much concerned with the difference, which is not subtle at all. in the u.s. informatics is named that precisely to not be computer science. --Buridan 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different rename to Category:Schools of computer science, better last part. Circeus 02:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep convinced by DGG & Buridan. Johnbod 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Han People[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Han People to Category:Han Chinese
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the lead article Han Chinese. Talalpa 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • mmm. Is the intention of the category to deal with articles about the Han Chinese as an ethnic group, or about specific people of Han descent? If the former, then I agree with the nomination; if the latter, then I'd keep the current name, but lowercase the P. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Why don't you hit that link, Grutness, & see what the category does, hmm? Johnbod 11:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because if I hit the link - as I indeed did - it'll tell me what the category is currently used for, not what its intended use is for. A flippant response was unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fiction characters with telekinesis[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Sam Blacketer 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics characters with telekinesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Anime and manga characters with telekinesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:DC Comics characters with telekinesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis, deleted by CfD, through sub-cats. Anime was created before the list created as part of the previous CfD was put up for AfD. Marvel and DC were created after the AfD wsa started, but before it was closed. J Greb 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's overcategorization too. Wryspy 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as OCAT and all the reasons that the prev. cat was deleted in the first place? Carlossuarez46 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt, including any variants I thought these categories would have been helpful but as said in a previous cfd, telekinesis has become more than lifting a rock; to the extent of moving planets with the mind (ie, Tactile Telekinesis). Overall, it is sort of confusing so delete and salt them. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and Salt, including any variants per Sesshomaru and per WP:CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). (Note March 7 CfD, closed as delete, but overturned in this deletion review, and deleted again at March 14 CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per deletion review, contra later deletion, which was very much nominally some consensus as keep or listify given that the list will eventually be long, a category is a better solution. --Buridan 16:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the second deletion is that poorly don, then it should have gone back to deletion review. The sequence, as it currently stands, is that this is a recreation in direct defiance of the most recent consensus result. And frankly, if the List do get AfDed, as it looks to be happening, then both the lists and cats should be salted as consensus is that neither are with appropriate, nor work within Wiki proper. - J Greb 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commentthat to me seems to be about the best example of an opinion that would justify a ban. wikipedia is for everyone, not for your tastes, preferences, or anything else. this is pluralist, people like comic books, people like super heroes, and some people like telekinesis. if it is published, if it is verifiable and if it is notable to some significant community, it should stay. It very clearly says that there is no real consensus on the first delete, and the second delete is very questionable. this is the arena we need to be careful not to overight neutrality with our preferences. --Buridan 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - clearly, these categories were attempted, but it turns out that both this way and the lists of abilities were redundant in that both ways get too much WP:OR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_6&oldid=1138389411"