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. — ξxplicit 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category concerns very small location with very little usefulness. TM 21:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though how useful the location is is irrelevant ;) Grutness...wha? 01:33, 14 November 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 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. — ξxplicit 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Previous discussion in August came to no consensus, so I wanted to try again. It makes no logical sense for the male players to be listed in the primary category, while female players have a separate subcategory. Both male and female players are footballers, and so they should have separate subcategories under this supercategory. PowersT 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for right or wrong the game played by Pele, Dunga, etc. is "football", not "men's football" and they are "footballers" not "male footballers", while women's football is still very definitley "women's football" and played by female footballers. There's no more justification for Wikipedia to be in the vanguard of sexual equality than there is for it to push any other agenda. Declan Clam (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying that association football and women's association football are different sports? If that's the case, why would the female category be a subcat of the main category? Shouldn't they be in separate category trees, if they're different sports? PowersT 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that linguistically there's a clear divide. As regards football, the game played by women is (as far as I'm aware) almost always qualified by "women's" or somesuch, while the game as it is played by men almost never is (whoever heard of The Men's FA Cup?), and this should be reflected on Wikipedia. I don't think that makes them different sports, it just reflects that in this area women are still seen as "the second sex", even if they shouldn't be. Declan Clam (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there is no point in splitting every footballing category into 2 subcats as the vast majority of notable footballers are male. Occuli (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Time to not only remove sexism from the WP category naming with sports, but to be clear. It doesn t matter that male association football is commonly referred to as simply 'football', not just because of sexism mind you but because male football has been more prevalent. WP category naming however, unlike article pages, are not necessarily given by the most common name for something, but by what is unambiguously meant. Men and women compete separately in football and category pages need to clearly reflect this. Mayumashu (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Brazilian category names are not unique - taking two at random, Category:Scottish footballers and Category:French footballers follow the same structure. All should be included in the CFD proposal to maintain consistency of naming. And surely the implied change across the national categories should be discussed and agreed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football? AllyD (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Football does not own those categories; they have no more say over them than any other editor. And nominating a huge number of categories often results in a confusing mess in CfD discussions. PowersT 14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WikiProject Football don't own the pages; what I'm seeking here is that any change will be robust and not later reversed, which involves not creating anomaly and seeking widest consensus. The current FIFA Women's World Cup holders are Germany and the pages under Category:German footballers are structured with Templates for both the male and female games; so I'm curious about why it is specifically the Brazilian category that is nominated here? AllyD (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Occuli, AllyD et al. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Declan. Also if a renaming like that should take place, it should be discussed at the WPP:Football in the first place. - Darwinek (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notion/point behind the rename, that sportspeople by nationality by sport should be divided by sex, is not an exclusively football or other particular sport issue, so why should discussion at the project for a particular sport be so vital? There is the issue that the rename has taken just one nationality and one sport, but changing pages for all sports and all nationalities in one nomination could not happen, could it? Mayumashu (talk) 03:53, 21 November 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. — ξxplicit 07:26, 21 November 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. — ξxplicit 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic and time-sensitive. Why have a category for this when anyone included will just have to be removed later on? Mbinebritalk ← 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being a student and being from California doesn't seem a useful intersection, especially when the procedure for categorising by alma mater is well-established. Declan Clam (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a useful intersection. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear criteria for inclusion ('student' is inherently vague as to disclipine or level; in California or from California?) and ultimately nondefining. I can't imagine a situation in which it would be helpful to group Carrie Prejean with someone who died before California even became a state. Maralia (talk) 06:28, 16 November 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: The current name is ambiguous. It appears that these blogs are being distinguished from other "illegal" blogs. The proposed name matches Category:Blogs about religion. LeSnail (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that terms like "legal scholar" and "legal system" have established usage that all but precludes ambiguity. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I saw the entry I thought 'legal' as opposed to 'illegal'. Having read the nom I see that it is about 'law'. The name is therefore ambiguous. I talk take the creator's point that categories should be consistent but this seems to be one which needs to be an exception. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or Rename to Category:Law blogs The standard in the parent appears to be "Foo blogs" not "Blogs about Foo". I'm not sure that people really think that there is a counterpart of "Illegal blogs" and a rename to "Law blogs" would solve the issue. Nor do I believe that there is any confusion regarding Category:Political weblogs, Category:Science blogs or Category:Gossip blogs. Alansohn (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Alansohn, I do not find the construction ambiguous as WP does not categorize by legality, and rarely even categorizes by criminality given that laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The analogy to religious blogs is inexact: the great majority of WP articles lack a religious orientation, therefore "Religious X" could be misinterpreted as articles possessing such an orientation, whereas most WP articles are about legal things, so "Legal X" presumes an alternative meaning of "legal," namely relating to law. To flip the argument, "Illegal blogs" would be more ambiguous, because it could refer to blogs about illegal things as opposed to blogs which are in themselves somewhere illegal. I'm not adamantly opposed to Category:Law blogs but believe the extant form is simpler and more natural.- choster 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Law blogs (or Keep). The general rule should be that (1) the category matches the main article (2) categories are consistent and (3) they should be unambiguous. In this case the ambiguity outweighs the other two. It is marginal so I could live with the present name. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:20, 14 November 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: Very odd category. Many diseases are capable of becoming life-threatening, even if only in rare cases and as a result of complications. This is no better than Category:Medical emergencies and nobody is served by this category. JFW | T@lk 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Outside of a core of no-brainers there could be any number of oddities. And then there are diseases that are life-threatening if treated but fairly benign when not. Declan Clam (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no clear criteria for which diseases could be excluded from this category, which would make it a duplicate of Category:Diseases and disorders. Better instead to create an article about this, with referenced numbers showing relative mortality levels for diseases: sometimes an article is better than a category. MuffledThud (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Systemic diseases. Since the main article is changed to Systemic disease, and being "systemic" is a defined trait for a disease, the category could itself just be renamed. Carlaude:Talk 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly any disease can be life-threatening; there is no clear criteria for inclusion here. Category:Systemic diseases would be only one step less subjective: while some diseases are inherently systemic, many diseases progress to systemic involvement at later stages. Maralia (talk) 06:40, 16 November 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.
