Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12[edit]

Category:Eastern Orthodox churches[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split as suggested by Johnbod. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eastern Orthodox churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Split / rename. Needs to be two spereate cats: Eastern Orthodox church buildings and Eastern Orthodox national churches or some such. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.



Category:Category maintenance templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both into Category:Category namespace templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Category header templates
Category:Category maintenance templates
These are sub-cats of Category:Category namespace templates

These two should be merged or renamed, or "something".

The names are currently just too ambiguous. How do we define maintenance? And what's a "header" in this case? Any template that appears on the "page" of the category?What about navboxes? (And the infamous the alphabet strip.)

I think a place to start would be to create a category of of "category header message boxes". (See: Template:cmbox.) With the rest UpMerged. We can then decide later about whether it's necessary to further split the parent.

Yes I could have boldly done this (and I started to), but I decided to bring it here for more discussion first. (For one thing, I'd like suggestions as to the name of the new messagebox category.)

If there is consensus, once both cats are upmerged to the parent, I'd be happy to help populate the proposed new cmbox/messagebox category. - jc37 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • UpMerge both to the parent, with the intent that (later) a new "cmbox-related" category will be boldly created/split from the parent following the UpMerge. - jc37 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If any new categories are created or any of these categories are renamed then as far as I understand the new naming practice is that categories that lists anything other than articles should be named "Category:Wikipedia something". --David Göthberg (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, to "Wikipedia", or some other word identifiable as non-mainspace-related (such as "WikiProject"). But I'm not requesting that as part of this nom, just merely to have these UpMerged to the parent cat, so that I (or others) can (later) split the parent into (hopefully) more clear subsections. - jc37 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums in the 33⅓ series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Close. No consensus. Clearly neither main position was to keep as is. Consider relisting for new discussion, and make it clear up front what is being proposed. Doczilla STOMP! 08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums in the 33⅓ series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Books are written about famous records; the records aren't famous for having books written about them. Flowerparty☀ 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is being proposed? --Gwguffey (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That we should delete the category. I'd've suggested making it a list but there's already a very good list on the 33⅓ page. Flowerparty☀ 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. --Gwguffey (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (change to rename. see comment below) Being a part of the 33⅓ series is a trait of commonality for this group of albums. WP:CLN supports both in this case as the category seems appropriately well defined and works in concert with the list Flowerparty mentioned. --Gwguffey (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a trait of commonality between the books. These articles aren't about the books, they're about the records. It's a trivial connection between the records. This category is also wrongly named, come to think of it: the albums themselves aren't in any series. It should be Category:Albums that are the subject of books in the 33⅓ series. Flowerparty☀ 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename I think there is enough of a connection between the articles based on being topics of the books (given the definition for their inclusion in the series of being various seminal albums) that I still think deleting the connection outright does not improve the encyclopedia. It is useful to a reader researching an album to be made aware of the connection to the other albums in a way other than through the list. See my comment above about WP:CLN. With that said, I am in full support of renaming the cat per Flowerparty's prior comment to better reflect the specific technical connection. --Gwguffey (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, I'd lean to keep & rename. I believe I see your point, Flowerparty, that this category is not related to the notability of the albums; we wouldn't create a category "People written about by Perez Hilton" at the bottom of a celebrity page (at least, I think we wouldn't). In this case, though, I think the category may be useful, as it may help readers find information useful to them if they are interested in this and other such albums. Otherwise, it would seem that it might be handled by adding a "see also" section to the articles with a pointer to the article 33⅓, which seems more obtrusive to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why removing the cat would force us to add a see also section. If the book is mentioned in the text or listed in the references then it can be linked from there. Flowerparty☀ 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep & rename - suggest the more succinct Category:Albums featured in the 33⅓ series. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's a better title. Flowerparty☀ 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per prior precedent on Criterion Collection DVDs. Encyclopedic information (I own at least one of these books, FYI), and these books would certainly be valuable references for expanding the articles, but it is still inappropriate as a category. Being subsequently documented in a particular book series isn't defining of an album (any more than being repackaged in a Criterion Collection DVD release is defining of a film), and it would ultimately lead to improper overcategorization based on any subsequent "recognition" of the album. Postdlf (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. indopug (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rely on the list in the article. The category shows 88 entries and yet the article lists only 57 items. However if you read the article you can see where the difference likely comes from. I believe that it is for planned future releases. Here is a clear case where the existing list does a much better job. The category adds nothing and may even be somewhat confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Luxembourgian football players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Luxembourgian football players to Category:Luxembourgian footballers
Nominator's rationale: Follow convention, see Category:European football (soccer) players. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Robin Hood figures[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Robin Hood figures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing characters on the basis of their supposed resemblance to another fictional character is overcategorization. It requires POV on the part of editors to decide that a particular character is sufficiently similar to another. It also gives Anglo-centric undue weight to Robin Hood. Why is Robin Hood deemed the archetype and not another character? Otto4711 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Ugh @ the horrible name. It presumes quite a bit about who Robin Hood is, and about those whom the category populater feels would be comparable. Which comes back to the age-old: This would require citations references, something that isn't typically possible in a category. Should normally be a list. (Though I'd suggest deleting such a list if nominated at AFD, per my other concerns, and really, the apparent WP:OR involved.) - jc37 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and jc37. If there was any justice in this world, the category would have been Category:Soapy Smith figures. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Social bandits, as there is already a lead article by that name. I agree with the first three editors above, but the strongest objections to the category can be addressed by renaming it neutrally. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFC: In fact please comment here on my suggested rename even if you disagree, as otherwise I've half a mind to recreate it by the new name if deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Irish (Gaeilge) language speakers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Irish (Gaeilge) language speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Cat doesn't meet WP:CAT norms. Cat attributes should be specific, neutral, inclusive and verifiable. This cat (and it's contents) fail this. Other problems with this cat are:
  1. Relevance - Cats should be relevant to subject's notability. Being an Irish speaker is not a notable attribute.
  2. Verifiability - What standard of Irish would warrant a subject's inclusion in this article? And how do we verify it?
  3. Over-population - Anyone who went to school in Ireland since 1920s was taught Irish. Ostensibly approaching 100% of Irish people could be included - depending on their "proficiency" with the language. (See problem 2 above).
  4. Precedence. We have no category for Spanish speakers or English speakers or similar. For the same reasons. It's just not appropriate. Unsure why Irish is different.
Guliolopez (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy56 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 May 2008
  • Comment Agreed its difficult to verify, but being a minority language, possibly dying language, I think it is a special attribute someone may have. THe Irish language community is just like the cats that are "people of irish decent", well theres 70 million of those, so I dont see why the Irish language category shouldnt stand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sommacgiolla (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 May 2008
  • Delete per nom, particularly the "overpopulation" point. Per WP:CAT, categories are for "defining characteristics", and 85 years of compulsory Irish language teaching in schools means that a basic fluency in Irish is nearly universal in the Republic of Ireland. Insofar as it's not universal, the nominator's verifiability point is very relevant: apart from the verification problems, any chosen threshold for inclusion falls foul of WP:OCAT#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., murriyah.Red Hurley (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until better explanation is received as to why this is different from Category:Welsh-speaking people, Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people, and no doubt other similar categories lurking around in minority language categories. Good arguments might well include: Why are there so few in the category? How good is Gerry Adam's Irish really? How good is Des Bishop's Irish? If it is as bad as Eddie Izzard's French, he certainly does not belong. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply' The difference is that Irish has been a complusory subject throughout the school years for the last 85 years, whereas Scottish Gaelic and Welsh have not been compulsory, so only a minority of Scots and Welsh are fluent in the respective languages. That means that being a Welsh-speaker is a distinguishing characteristic of a Welsh person, but being an Irish speaker is not a distinguishing characteristic of an Irish person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must know more hard-studying Irish people than I do, as most claim virtually-complete ignorance of the language. Welsh is also compulsory in many Welsh schools, often including all in an area. I suspect the same is true in a few parts of Scotland. Most people in developed countries have to study a language other than their mother tongue at school; few end up as "speakers" of it. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An school pupil in England may start learning a language in school, usually for an hour or two per week, though, beginning usually in secondary school. In Irish schools, the Irish language is compulsory from the start of primary school, and it gets a lot of time allocated to it. Sure, lots of people never use the language outside the classroom, and for many (most?) adults, the Irish gets rusty fairly quickly. But even so, all that schooling leaves its mark, and nearly everyone has enough competence to speak at least rudimentary-Irish, even if in practice they don't do so and have no interest in doing so, which is why so many folks claim ignorance. Their exam certificates usually tell a different story. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Tameamseo (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing people by the languages they speak is a particularly bad idea: (a) how fluent must they be? (b) how was (a) chosen objectively and NPOV? (c) what WP:RS tells us that the person speaks the language at that level? Imagine how many people we'd have in categories like English, French, and Spanish speakers. Being the speaker of a language may be defining to an individual, like handedness or blood type or birth order, but not encyclopedically worth categorizing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category clutter. The Scottish and Welsh ones should go too. Flowerparty☀ 11:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but limit to (by means of a headnote on the category page) to those who regularly speak the language. Irish Gaelic is spoken as the native language in a few areas of Ireland, whereas elsewhere the normal language is English. Those who normally speak the language should not be included. (Note I am English). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2008
    • Question Peter, how do you define "regularly" in a verifiable way so that it isn't original research? Is it enough to say "pog mo thóin" to someone every day? Does it have to be used in the course of the person's business? Whatever the threshold is, and even if it us not arbitrary, how can we verify that the individual categorised meets that threshold? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't categorize people on language skills. --Soman (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the minority status of this language and the fact that it's rare to find someone who speaks it regularly and fluently. Of course, entries in this category should be restricted to those for which verifiable sources confirm their ability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Muslim atheists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. At first, knowing the definition of "Muslim" and "Atheist", I figured there was no reason for this category. But reading the keep comments, and the Cultural Muslim article, I've determined that there are in fact people who follow the practices not out of religious beliefs, but for other reasons, and therefore can in fact, be atheists as well. Neither side had particularly strong reasons for keeping or deleting, hence the no consensus. The strongest arguments from what I can see are the ones who wanted to rename it, but those opinions were few. Kbdank71 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muslim atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no concept called "Muslim atheist". If these persons are atheist, then they are not followers of any religion including Islam, hence they are not Muslim. It can be renamed to Category:Atheists with Islamic background. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The category definition refers to the concept of a Cultural Muslim. If a person is a cultural Muslim and also an atheist, aren't they a "Muslim atheist"? At first glance, it seems to me that the concept does exist and that one does not have to be a believing follower of Islam to be a "Muslim". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the definition of Muslim. A Muslim is "an adherent of the religion of Islam". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple or black and white as that, I don't think. Real life is more complex, especially when we're dealing with what people do and believe. There are Cultural Muslims, which is why I brought it up in the first place. One can adhere to many of the religious aspects of Islam but not be a "believer". In fact, one could even be an atheist and yet adhere to many of the religious duties, traditions, and expectations of Islam. I'm going to have to say keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in my memory just Muhammad Ali qualified. Deletion for over-categorization. Categories should for they we both very notable as Muslim and as atheists. But how to define? It only came to lots for violation on NPOV. Matthew_hk tc 09:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly support having a category for these individuals, but I'm not entirely certain about the proper name for the category. It appears to be largely comparable to Category:Jewish atheists -- a category that I fought long and hard to retain last year -- but I am open to the possibility of adjusting the name in some way to clarify the issues raised by Otolemur (though not the name he suggested). Cgingold (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps technically illogical, but I think the construction has become common idiom; we also have Jewish atheists and Christian atheists. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, describes herself as a Muslim Atheist. - Merzbow (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the term is in use and those people exists. There are organisation for them[1] and it's mentioned in reliable sources.[2][3]. It may be WP:OTHERSTUFF, but both Jewish atheists and Christian atheists exists as well. // Liftarn (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have Category:Christian atheists and such a category would be essentially illogical. "Jewish" works because it is also an ethnicity. The only other example I can think of like that are theParsis. So Category:Parsi atheists could be okay, but I don't even think that exists. We do not have Category:Mormon atheists even though we have an article for Cultural Mormons. We also don't have Category:Bahá'í atheists, Category:Sikh atheists, or even a Category:Taoist atheists. (That last being quite plausible)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Muslim is not an ethnicity, it's a religion that requires belief in one God, an therefore cannot be compatible atheism which denies God's existence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muslim is also an ethno-religious term, as in the case of Cultural Muslims. // Liftarn (talk)
      • Why not rename to Category:Culturally Muslim Atheists or some grammatical variant thereof? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we can figure out who is "culturally Muslim" who is also "atheist" perhaps, but that's a lot of stretching of NPOV and BLP going on to fit people into this one - how can someone be defined as "culturally Muslim" anyway? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both are typically self-identifications. In fact, from what I can tell those in this category right now are there because they themselves have said they are "Muslim atheists". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Showing the difficulties with "self identification" categories; it is a personal view with no objective measure. Should we have Category:Fools for anyone who says "I'm a fool" or "I've been a fool"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Bahá'í, agnostic, Taoist, Satanist, Scientologist, Räelian, atheist, or in any subcategories of the previous are all self-identifications. If I say I am Christian, I am, and there's no "Christian police" that come check out my story. There's no reason persons can't combine more than one of these, and if there is enough people who call themselves something, there's no reason not to have a category for it. If there was a huge rush of people calling themselves "Fools", then I it would become a sort of "club name" and I suppose we could create a category for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not all intersection identities are deemed worthy of a category. There isn't even a Category:Christian deists even though several people identified as such. Nor is there a Category:Anglican LGBT people even though people do self-identify as such. Picking this religion for a "Religion/Atheist" intersection seems to only make sense if one erroneously believes Muslims are an ethnicity. (Or if one wishes to make a point, which is discouraged) No other religion gets such a category. We don't have Category:Judaic atheists only Category:Jewish atheists for the ethnicity.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That goes to the larger question as to whether the category is appropriate. We were discussing how a Muslim atheist is identified or if such a means of reliable identification is possible. I'm not sure if your comment was meant to be attached to this stream since it's not really on these points. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Muslim is not an ethnicity. If you are a Muslim, you must believe in Allah and accept the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. A Muslim cannot be an atheist or agnostic. Is Taslima Nasrin a cultural Muslim? Absolutely not! She is a Humanist. It is extremely inappropriate to call her a "Muslim atheist". Some people in the category have insulted Prophet Muhammad. This type of categories gives bad name to Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 'muslim' and 'atheist' are mutually exclusive, I'd prefer not categorizing atheists on background, etc., since such criteria get very dubious --Soman (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Muslims aren't an ethnicity and Christian atheists is an article not a category. Although if you want I'd be okay with this being retooled as a subcategory of Category:Former Muslims. Maybe call it "Category:Former Muslims who became atheist" or as mentioned "Category:Culturally Muslim Atheists." (We do have a Category:Muslim converts to Catholicism after all)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can't possibly be both a Muslim and an atheist. "Muslim" is a religion, not an ethnicity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons summarised above, or perhaps Rename to "Cultural Muslim Atheists". Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep To delete is to deny the existence, history and beliefs of the people in the category. Clearly, an untenable intellectual position and little better than censorship. Hmains (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic? They can still be in Category:Former Muslims and Category:Atheists. As a category this intersection is potentially both contradictory and unnecessary. It's also essentially unique. We don't have Category:Christian atheists, Category:Hindu atheists or Category:Shinto atheists. Further there isn't even a Muslim atheist article, it's just a redirect to Cultural Muslim.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: I believe this is a very notable intersection. The real problem here seems to be with the current name of the category, so I would like to give my endorsement to renaming to Category:Cultural Muslim atheists. If we don't reach agreement on a new name, it should be closed as a "no concensus keep". Cgingold (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely certain this is sufficiently notable, but I'd be fine with the category you propose.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Cgingold. Taslima Nasrin and other people in the category are not cultural Muslims. People like Nasrin are strictly secular. This type of categories is extremely misleading. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might help if you re-read the article on Cultural Muslims -- the whole point is that they are secular, so there's no contradiction. Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fine" was maybe overstating it. I guess I just meant I really wouldn't vote/state/whatever-we-call-it either way on such a category.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Central midfielders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Central midfielders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: How to define Central? A Defensive Midfielder like Yaya, Vieira, or a Attacking playmaker? Or like Gerrard who have both? I think it is over-categorization. Matthew_hk tc 06:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Football (soccer) midfielders which is specific enough. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Wikipedia isn't Championship Manager. Flowerparty☀ 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But how do you define "midfielder"? Is Cristiano Ronaldo a midfielder or a forward? How about van Persie who plays winger for Holland but striker for Arsenal? You can make this argument about any position category except goalkeepers (obviously). ugen64 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian drug lords[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian drug lords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Australian drug traffickers already exists and this category merely duplicates that. Longhair\talk 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (creator). They are not the same and the scheme goes beyond this one nationality. Drug lords are traffickers, but all drug traffickers are not drug lords. "Drug traffickers" are generally low-level operatives that are convicted of trafficking drugs; a "drug lord" is a "kingpin", or head of a drug trafficking organization or cartel. The "drug lords" category is a subcategory of the "drug traffickers" category. This is all part of an overall scheme: see Category:Drug lords by nationality and Category:Drug traffickers by nationality. If deleted, then each of the "drug lords" categories for each nationality needs to be merged into the parent "drug trafficker" category. (I was about to transfer some of the members of "drug traffickers" into the "drug lords" category for these Australian ones, but I won't now due to this nomination. The nom occurred about 90 secs after category creation, which is not enough time for a creator to sort some things out. But in any case, the way it is organized now is not what I had in mind.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment deciding that someone is or isn't a "drug lord" seems awfully subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would assume that it would have to rely on reports in the media or other sources describing them as such or as the head of a drug cartel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drug lord" is sensationalistic? (Pls, don't interpret this as a sarcastic question — I'm sincerely asking ...) I thought "drug lord" (or "drug baron", used sometimes in the UK) was fairly well-accepted shorthand for the position, kind of like "pimp" or "madam" is used instead of "Fooian prostitution ring leaders". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that its unclear what makes someome a "drug lord" as opposed to just a more general "drug criminal". For instance, would a small-time drug pusher qualify? What about a small-time drug pusher in a small town where they are the only person selling drugs? It seems an awfully subjective category, which is why I think that we should Delete it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Al Khalifa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:House of Khalifa. Kbdank71 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Al Khalifa to Category:Al Khalifa family or Category:House of Khalifa
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since this is a family category, we need something that indicates it as such. Since it is a royal family, it could alternatively be renamed after the main article House of Khalifah. I favor the "house of" option but either would be acceptable. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television networks by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: close. There is support for this, as far as three people can be called consensus, which some people will question. Regardless, even though the three people here are ok with the mass rename, I know there are others who prefer "Fooish everything" (as opposed to "everything of foo"), and considering the severe lack of notification (one talk page notification and this cfd, which isn't exactly clear on what is going to happen), we should probably go through a proper CFD for the subcats (tag, nominate, etc). There is at least one bot (not mine) who can do a mass tagging, but I don't remember which one it is. Kbdank71 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest affirming that this Category:Television networks by country should be named as it is. If so, then all its 33 subcategories need to be renamed in the style 'Television networks of (country)'. Currently, the subcats are named as '(Nationality) television networks' which means that this category should be renamed as Category:Television networks by nationality. If there is agreement that the category name is correct, does someone have a tool to easily put a CfD notice on each of the subcats and add them here for their renaming? Hmains (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If such a consensus is clearly established, then the subcategories wouldn't need to come here for a week of full discussion, but could all be speedy-renamed. I'd suggest "Television networks in (country)" rather than of, though. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This sounds right to me. I would also point out that the parent categories, all of which are sub-cats of Category:Television by country, also use the same naming convention, and therefore should also be renamed for consistency. Cgingold (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Television networks in (country)' sound good for the subcat. There are several (8 or so) other parent cats like this with a cumulative 500 or so subcats that will need renaming. Without automated tools, I cannot see how to get all these listed for renaming somewhere/anywhere and get all of them tagged. Manually, one by one is ridiculous. Hmains (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_12&oldid=1138391023"