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:Rename. To match name of lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to follow common English, match the lead article, match common naming conventions for categories, etc etc. Hmains (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's something in the MoS about not capitalizing articles (a, an, the) in article and category titles but I can't find it. This is one of only two categories that uses "captives". The overall structure is Category:Prisoners and detainees. Otto4711 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a better name for the article and the category. Clearly the current name is not good and needs to be corrected. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nomination modified to match the renamed lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Prisoners and detainees held in the Salt Pit. As I noted above, this is one of only two categories that uses the word "captives". "Captive" has connotations closer to "hostage" than "prisoner" and renaming fits in with the widely established scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let the closer choose. As long of the weird naming is fixed, lets rename to anything that is better. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Prisoners and detainees held in the Salt Pit - Salt Pit is the name of the parent article for the prison, addressing the capitalization and quotes, while maintaining the standard of having the category match the title of the parent article. We should also include the parent Category:Prisoners and detainees, which provides an explanation for why both terms are included, and makes clear that the duo is better than the word "captive". This is one of many examples where there could be dozens or more prisons where an individual has been detained, all of which should be included as categories despite a possible claim that this is some sort of "performer by performance" category. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (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:Behavioral methods of birth control[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Procedural nomination. The category was emptied on 11 July by Lyrl (talk·contribs), who moved all of its subcategories up the tree to Category:Methods of birth control, then waited a few days and tagged this with {{db-catempty}} on 17 July. I am nominating it here for discussion of whether this out-of-process upmerge was appropriate. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believed I was acting within Wikipedia guidelines, especially considering the small size of the category and the lack of any opposition from other editors who watch the category and articles. If I was mistaken in this, however, I apologize. LyrlTalkC 20:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Repopulate and Consider Rename There is a clear and defining difference between technology-based methods of birth control (using various devices, pills, etc.) and methods that don't. Natural family planning might be a logical parent article, and the category could be renamed accordingly, though it might be too Roma-Catholic-specific. I think that it's clear that this is a defining characteristic that groups such methods of birth control, for which the lack of a category disrupts the ability to search through similar articles using the category system. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Methods of birth control is small; having all the sub-cats directly in it does not result in clutter. On the other hand, making several levels of small categories makes navigating to a desired article more difficult. This is especially true when category names are made up by Wikipedians and not drawn from established usage: if someone were looking for articles on fertility awareness, it is not immediately obvious that they need to navigate to a category "behavioral methods". LyrlTalkC 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Repopulate and Consider Rename I am with Alansohn on this. There is a clear distinction between natural and non-natural, and they are both needed. I would see the tree as birth control, and two sub-cats of natural birth control and non-natural birth control, although I have no particular views on the names to be used. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on renaming - A Google search for natural birth control returns 15 of the top 20 hits (excluding Wikipedia) that define natural birth control exclusively as fertility awareness. None of the other four articles and categories that were under "behavioral" are included in the definition. This includes two books titled "natural birth control" [1][2] and one book subtitled "the definitive guide to natural birth control" [3]
Of the remaining five results, three are more expansive in their definition that this Wikipedia category was. One page calls cervical caps "natural birth control" [4], one is about a brand of the pill that is marketing itself as "natural birth control" [5], and one discusses lemon juice, vitamin C, and Queen Anne's lace [6]
Out of twenty results, only two about.com pages ([7][8]} use the same definition of "natural birth control" that is being proposed here. Like the current name "behavioral methods", "natural birth control" is not a term normally used to describe the methods that were in this category. Putting them in an obscurely named category effectively hides them from readers who can't figure out the code. LyrlTalkC 11:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as small category without potential for growth (after all this time we already know all the tricks), and which is adequately covered by the parent category. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Debresser; and "behavioral" is a meaningless concept in this case: abortion, taking the morning after pill, and various "natural" remedies and activities are all behaviors....it's also subjective, particularly if renamed "natural" as suggested above to differentiate from "artificial" methods, which aren't always artificial in any real sense or may or may not be considered natural to some.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CfD game at its circumlocutory best. Is there really no difference between refraining from having sex during certain times of the month on one hand and the alternatives of taking a pill to prevent conception, vaginally inserting an oddly-shaped metallic device or having a fetus surgically removed from the body? These are all equally "natural"? Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three points. First, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We can try to convince each other with logical arguments all day long, but what really matters is if there are third party reliable sources that support one position over another. My search failed to turn up such sources to support the existence of this category. Second, the existence of a verifiable difference is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a category. There are verifiable differences between reversible and non-reversible methods of birth control. And yet, we don't have Category:Reversible methods of birth control. Such a category, like this one, would hinder rather than aid navigation. Third, the three methods Alansohn used as examples are in the separate categories fertility tracking, intrauterine contraception, and abortion. There is no need to have this category to separate them; they are already located in different places in the category tree. LyrlTalkC 13:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category offers no navigational benefit and has a questionable name. LyrlTalkC 13:44, 23 July 2009 (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:Defunct schools in Norfolk County, Ontario[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:Speedy Delete as empty. --Xdamrtalk 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category consists solely of non-notable, defunct, elementary schools. Crusio (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this is because User:Crusio has ignored the afd 'merge' result on articles such as Port Dover Public School. (Merge does not mean 'delete leaving a redirect'. Merge means - incorporate the content into a section of the target, redirect to the specific section, leave the categories on the redirect.) Occuli (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All these articles have gone through AfD and for all the result was merge to the school district article. What's the use of a category that never will have more than 4 redirects in it? --Crusio (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't merged them, as there is no info in the target document other than the name of the defunct school. (There were 8 articles in the category.) The use of the category is the same as it was before - it will lead a reader via the category system to info about a school. See WP:categorizing redirects. Occuli (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2009 (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) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical banking offers at least three different subjective standards as to what constitutes "ethics" and "ethical banking". Shall we accept John Stuart Mill's definition? Kant's? Aristotle's? Someone else's? On what basis? Otto4711 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We accept as usual reliable sources which refer to the particular bank's ethical stance, such as this one which took me about 5 seconds to find. (Perhaps this is unknown in the US.) Occuli (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ethical banking article is quite poor, contains 3 differing standards and omits others just as valid (like Sharia and Islamic finance). Many banks would consider themselves "ethical" by the objective standard of compliance with laws and regulations. Of course, any bank that charges or pays interest is unethical under Islamic finance, so ethics is in the eye of the beholder. Pray tell, is it ethical to turn over the names of depositers who are avoiding income taxes or is it ethical to maintain their confidentiality as the bank had promised to do? Ask UBS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether someone or some organization is ethical or not is a blatant moral judgment. We cannot promote such classification schemes. __meco (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2009 (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) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - appears to be a POV category designed to capture any film that an editor feels contains a negative portrayal of some aspect or another of Catholicism. I have not read every article in the category, but a sampling of them finds no mention of any sort of anti-Catholic motivation on the part of the filmmakers and many make no mention of Catholicism at all. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added the parent cat, as it has the same issues. Otto4711 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is anti-Christian or anti-Catholic is in the eye of the beholder, purely OR & subjective & POV. Note: I didn't see the The Last Temptation of Christ (film) in there, which some consider among the worst offenders. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (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:Rename - maybe it's just me, but the construction "wrongly accused Foos" sounds like the person is a Foo who was accused of something he didn't do. Perhaps "People wrongly accused of fooing" would be better. Or, given the general disfavor for categories based on allegations or accusations, it may be better to nip this structure now while it's small. Otto4711 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Falsely accused foo. Lugnuts (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean something very different than the current categories; "falsely accused" implies a knowingly wrong accusation rather than just an incorrect one. Postdlf (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't usually have allegations or accused categories, and again whose doing the accusing and who tells us it was wrong? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlesss there has been a court case, we do not have "accused" or "acquited" categories per longstanding tradition and good reason. So if this category will survive such criteria it should be renamed Category:Exonerated terrorism suspects (or some other name that shows clearly that there has been a court case and not just accusations). Debresser (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion (if kept) Category:Persons wrongly accused of terrorism etc. The problem is that a person arrested for a crime may have the accusation dropped (which proves nothing except that the prosecution do not think they can get a conviction); they may be acquitted because the evidence is insufficient for a conviction; or they may be entirely innocent. Thisd is a difficult issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Exonerated..." which better captures the content of the category. Both "Wrongly accused" and the alternative of "Falsely accused" imply a level of fraud on the part of the authorities in manufacturing accusations that does not appear to be supported by the articles or the sources. "Exonerated" is a more neutral term. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2009 (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. Categories with the same content. Geregen2 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – but as Dunaújváros FC is a football club, do we not use 'players'? Occuli (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do in general, but Category:Footballers in Hungary by club seems to mostly use 'footballers' for whatever reason specific to Hungary. Maybe that was just a quirk/mistake of the person who created all those categories originally, but now that they're there, might as well keep it consistent for that country. Unless there's a volunteer to rename them all to 'players'. Karaboom (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (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:Channel 73 digital TV stations in the United States[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Channel 73 has not existed in the United States since 1983, and will not exist in the digital era. Created for K08OU-D, which broadcasts on Channel 8, not Channel 73. Nate•(chatter) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (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:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Follow-up proposal to this rename. In summary: officially, all "ambassadors" to the UN are "Permanent Representatives", since ambassadors are sent only to heads of state, and PRs are sent to international organizations. This is complicated a bit by the fact that a few countries actually use "ambassador" in referring to their PR at the UN (b/c UN PRs often have ambassador-level status), even though the UN doesn't use or accept that terminology. (For example, the "official" name for the U.S. PR is Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations. Wouldn't that make a sweet category name!) However, I think standardization in this regard would be helpful, and the parent is now Category:Permanent Representatives to the United Nations. Finally, in past CfDs the preference has been for "Ambassadors of FOO to GOO" (since an ambassador of FOO can actually be of a non-FOOian nationality), so I suggest adopting that same format for PRs and to match the other subcategories of Category:Permanent Representatives to the United Nations. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to the more technically correct name, per previous CfD. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 07:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (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:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand to match parent article, Solange Knowles. — Σxplicit 05:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree The nominator has a strong argument, because usually we follow the rule that a category should be like its main article. But in this case, where her stage name, the name by which she is most widely know, is just "Solange", I disagree. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article and avoid confusion with other similar articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2009 (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:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames' to match title of parent category and article. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2009 (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:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (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.
