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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete I moved its contents to Category:Turkish spies, in accordance with templates for other countries. Adoniscik(t, c) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adoniscik, please do not empty categories under discussion. It makes it difficult for CfD participants to see how a category is being used, and thus makes it difficult to see whether a delete, merger, etc. is in order. That said, couldn't people be associated with the Millî İstihbarat Teşkilâtı without being a spy (e.g. analysts), or be a spy for the Turkish government without being affiliated with the MIT (e.g. for the military)? Category:American spies is not interchangeable with Category:People of the Central Intelligence Agency. -choster (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. I retract the nomination, and will retag the articles. --Adoniscik(t, c) 05:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to close this out per Adoniscik's retraction, but if this category is to be kept it needs to be renamed. We generally avoid initialisms in Category names -- and in addition, "MIT" is likely to be confused with the University. Cgingold (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you use the English expansion or the native one? --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Turkish" part is redundant; no other country has an NIO. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it might be superfluous, but it's not redundant. However, it's only superfluous to the tiny percentage of readers (mostly Turkish) who happen to know that the "National Intelligence Organization" is a Turkish intelligence agency. Having been rendered into English, it's far more likely to be misperceived as being the intelligence agency of an English-speaking country. In any event, there's no harm and a real benefit to readers when the Category name includes an indication of the country involved. So I'm inclined to support CeeGee's suggestion of Category:People of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization, unless there's a better alternative. Cgingold (talk) 23:58, 27 November 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:Caymanian people of Jamaican descent[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 first one now appears to be empty. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMayumashu. It is unnecesary to distinguish British form English among those not of native descent. Division would only be useful if the category had become too large. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 30 November 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:Christian organizations established in the 1st century[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep organizations, rename "Diocesees" to "Dioceses".the wub"?!" 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete because these categories are inherently unstable and are ripe for abuse of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There is much disagreement among historians on what exactly happened in the very early days of Christianity, and which sects coalesced into official organizations (and thus dioceses) at what times. I've already removed all of the articles that were in the second category, as none of them had any sources, and I've removed a few articles from the Christian organizations category because those articles specifically cited scholars which disagreed that the organization was established in the 1st century (although other scholars were cited as saying that the org was established then). I think these categories are an invitation for edit-warring and POV problems. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note well:Karanacs has emptyed these two categories (contra Wikipedia's category deletion policy) making a fair consideration most difficult at best. --Carlaude(talk) 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the articles listed in those categories that I removed either a) had no sources establishing that the category was appropriate or b) had sources explicitly disputing the category. If sources were to be established, please feel free to add those articles back to the category. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should seek to clean out categoriesORseek to have categories deleted but not both at the same time. Hence the policy.--Carlaude(talk) 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And RCC is certainly sourced - see the current notes 12-14, 24-26. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge the two and perhaps transform it to something like christian organisations established in the first X centuries AD. However, could we know which articles were in this categories??--Michael X the White (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about church history? When the diocesees were founded they were not know as the Roman Catholic Diocese of.
So according to your rules when can diocese be founded? hmmm? --Carlaude(talk) 20:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Roman Catholic" Archdiocese of Pavia is truly the Archdiocese of Pavia as the "Eastern Orthodox" Archdiocese of Athens is the Archdiocese of Athens. No matter what the diocese, (if it was founded before the schism), you could refer to it without "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" simply because together, all Orthodox dioceses and all Catholic dioceses form what was the "mother church" before the schism, and that is accepted by both RC and EO. We simply put RC or EO to clarify where the diocese belongs now, for the sake of clarity. Yet the continuation is unbroken.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we do need to be careful about sources and possible controversies, as we need to do for all categories, I see no reason why these categories cannot be used productively. Nor do I see any reason that not grouping them together will address the controversies associated with the timing. Though I will question if "Diocesees" is the correct plural and not "Dioceses", though I may have learned something new. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Unanimity among historians is not required for a categorization. The dates of dioceses are in fact less questioned than the types of church bodies they belonged to at this period. But Rename using correct spelling - "dioceses". Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename diocese as Johnbod. Delete organisations unless it can be populated with something else (which I doubt). Repopulate -- lack of citations is not a ground for deletion. The papacy should also appear, since St Peter was the first bishop of Rome, so should the patriarchates of Antich and Jerusalem. It is the practice with university alumni categories for the alumni of former colleges that amalgamated to from the present institution to be included. The fact that Pavia was erected from a bishopric to an archbishopric 1000 years ago should not alter the fact that a bishipric existed over 1900 years ago, with a continual succession since. The fact that the Great Schism happened in that time makes no difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 30 November 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no apparent growth potential. Otto4711 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Refusal to eat meat (but willingness to eat fish) is a widespread dietary fad. The category thus has considerable growth potential. The issue in amny cases may be whether this is a notable enough characteristic of a person to merit its use as a category for that person. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think Otto wishes to delete this one and keep the subcat Category:Pescetarians (there is only Pescetarianism otherwise, which is amply categorised). Occuli (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I am looking to delete this cat while leaving the subcat undisturbed. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an appropriate parent category. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category, but keep Category:Pescetarians. The latter is entirely acceptable, but there's no need for a parent category here; it seems difficult to imagine it ever containing any articles other than Pescetarianism, which is linked from Category:Pescetarians anyway. Terraxos (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Category:Pescetarians serves the purpose and the nominated category adds nothing but a container for it and the main article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:51, 2 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge - single-item category with no clear growth potential. The parent is not so large that splitting by nationality is warranted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. Refusal to eat meat is a widespread dietary fad, but until the parent category is more fully populated, we do not need national subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There are a few more potential occupants in what links here (to Pescetarianism). Occuli (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. When there are larger numbers of articles listed we can reconsider splits by country of origin. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - too narrow an intersection. Whatever next, German blonde-haired female pescetarians? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 26 November 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.
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:DeleteStwalkerster [ talk ] 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance/venue overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete for reasons as nom. The main article is presumably Paris By Night, a Vietnamese-language entertainment show. I suspect that the category is currently under-populated, but it is still an improper one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 26 November 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.
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 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - absent the improper actor by series entries, there is insufficient material to warrant the category. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said listify and delete, but I think there is an even fuller list in the article. We do not have performance by performer categories (or vice versa). Therefore, plain Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 26 November 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.
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.
Comment – there will be Hong Kong Americans who are not Chinese (eg of British descent). I have no idea whether any of these are notable. (Eg Joan Lorring, nee Ellis, not a Chinese name, moved by the nom into the target cat is not stated to be Chinese.) Occuli (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly there is a difference between the two categories. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hmains Mayumashu (talk) 22:05, 27 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep current name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was quite sure of this before googling the two terms and seeing the former more common in the U.K. Nonetheless, what do others think? (I m willing to nominate all British and Irish cat pages should discussion here suggests that to be warranted.) Mayumashu (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the entries in the ultimate parent Category:Basketball players by nationality are all in the format "Fooian Basketball players", and there appears no reason to break that consistency here. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I don't think the term basketballer is common in the UK (or baseballer, netballer, volleyballer); no reason to spoil the splendid consistency of Category:Basketball players by nationality. Occuli (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Basketballers (unlike footballers) is not a common British English term. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As an NBA and NCAA BB fan in the US, and for what it's worth, "basketballer" is an unknown term in the states as well. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:28, 26 November 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.
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.
Comment - all other categories for ministers within the Russian government are in the format "Foo ministers of Russia". I would suggest that perhaps this category should follow suit since this also alleviates any possible confusion that the category is for ministers of defence of any country who are Russian or of Russian descent. Otto4711 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Defence ministers of Russia per Otto, to avoid implying anything other than country of employment. Or maybe since government office-holder titles are usually capitalized "Defense Ministers of Russia" would be better? Or are we grouping by function rather than title? Hmm… The parent Category:Defence ministers is rather inconsistent and could use some more work. — CharlotteWebb 18:17, 26 November 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.
