Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Palmiro (talk | contribs)
5,694 edits
→‎[[:Category:Palestine]]: This one is complicated
Line 244: Line 244:
**'''Nevermind''', I notice that there are CfR templates on some of the categories. --[[User:64.230.123.128|64.230.123.128]] 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Nevermind''', I notice that there are CfR templates on some of the categories. --[[User:64.230.123.128|64.230.123.128]] 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' renaming of main [[:Category:Palestine]], as this is required (but I'm not sure if that is actually being proposed here, anyway?); '''Oppose''' block renaming as per User:Soman, what's right for some will not necessarily be right for others; '''Oppose''' suggested renaming of [[:Category:Political parties in Palestine]], which would be no better than the current title (but would support renaming to ''Category:Palestinian political parties'', which is the only really accurate and useful version); '''Support''' other proposed renamings listed here. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


==== American physicans by ethnicity ====
==== American physicans by ethnicity ====

Revision as of 22:47, 1 January 2007

< December 31 January 2 >

January 1

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Wizards of the Coast novels

Delete, We already decided against Novels by publisher. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rakeshsharma/userboxes

Delete, as user category. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners Confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks

Rename to Category:Prisoners at the United States Disciplinary Barracks. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boys Boarding Schools, Virginia

Merge into Category:Boarding schools in Virginia, or Category:Boarding schools in the United States. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Supreme Court justices

Category:Jewish Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete overly specific, trivial category. It's also ambiguous (which Supreme Court?). It was meant for U.S. Supreme Court justices, but we already have a substantial article on demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Postdlf 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghanistani women

Category:Afghanistani women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Roughly half of all Afghans are women and "Afghanistani" isnt a correct adjective.Bakaman 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sermon writers

Category:Sermon writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There does not seem to be a significant distinction between a minister/pastor/preacher and one who writes his own sermons. Very few preachers give someone else's sermons, and even ministers who are not full-time preachers give their own sermons occasionally. Thus, I think this cat is largely redundant with the existing Category:Christian ministers etc. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redundant and inadequately defined cat. Doczilla 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. Don't they all? ST47Talk 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As indicated, the category is redundant. Dr. Submillimeter 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all ministors/pastor/preachers write their own sermons. However, this category has some older well-known preachers in it who were known for their sermons. This was an 18th and 19th century American oratory tradition, preachers who spoke all over the place, delivering sermons they had written, and had published versions of their sermons that were collected in works sold to their audiences. I believe the tradition was not simply American, although this is all I know about. Possibly the title does not make the distinction, but there are preachers who are known for their sermons, the ones they write and deliver themselves, but known for the written versions of their sermons. KP Botany 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military brat

Category:Military brat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Military brats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete and block This has been deleted at least once before, and I believe more than once. Parental occupation is non-defining and this term is not neutral. Osomec 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide past CfDs, archives, or diffs to support above, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Meegs. [1] The previous category was deleted before Balloonman's work at referencing the term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasons for previous deletion:
    • POV Term---this is not factual. See the article military brats for discussion on linquistic reclamation and acceptance of the term by the described community. Military brat is not the same as spoiled brat.
    • Not a defining characteristic. Again inaccurate as it is a heavily studied characteristic.
    • "[I]t is highly speculative and largely unprovable that it has a major influence on their lives." This is again a false assertation as it has been shown to be a major influence on people's lives.Balloonman 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a few people have mentioned that parental occupation is not a defining characteristic and thus the category should be deleted. The subject of military brats is a highly studied subject not because of the parents occupation, but rather because of the impact on the individual. It is NOT the same as saying, "Children whose parents were accountants," but more along the lines of a racial/religious/cultural identity. A quick read of the article should show that being a brat does have an impact on who/what one is. It is NOT what your parents did, but rather how that affected the child on the long term. The effect of growing up as a brat have been heavily investigated. The effects can also be found in Third Culture Kid research.Balloonman 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block per nom. What my parents did for a living should not define me as a human being. Doczilla 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If what your parents did for a living had a direct impact on who you were and was studied, then it is every bit as legitimate as many of the other categories out there. Being a military brat is a studied subject.Balloonman 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, block creator, non-neutral, irrelevant to the article and its subject. ST47Talk 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Keep It is neutral, I can pretty much guarantee that the people who have voted no, are not brats themselves or they would not question it. Wikipedia naming conventions states "when naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use" and "do not assume that a different term is more inclusive or accurate." As for the relevance of the parents. This is a studied sub-culture. Please see Military brat (U.S. subculture) wherein it discusses the characteristics which are common among military brats. You will also note from the recent FAC that brats supported the use of the term. There are also over 160,000 occurances of the term "military brat" if googled.[2] Also please notice the reference section for the Military brat (U.S. subculture) references [3] numerous books and scientific articles on the subject. This is a bonafide subject and legit category.Balloonman 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Military brats call themselves brats, such as myself, and are proud of it. It is a neutral term in this context. Wiki needs to stop being so *&*(()% politically correct.Rlevse 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlevse and Balloonman. Sumoeagle179 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to every addition to the category being well-referenced to reliable sources in the subject's article. Suggestions to block the creator are unwarranted, spurious, and I question the good faith of suggestions to block the creator, considering that Balloonman (talk · contribs) has been very hard at work on referencing the articles and the category, his efforts are in good faith, and his work has been subjected to several peer reviews and FAC. Balloonman asked me to look at this CfD because I have been following the article since it's WP:FAC and peer reviews - I, too, had objections to the term, but he has referenced its usage according to Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - pick one, and delete the other - is the category brats or brat? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think brat is the appropriate category... when I went online to create it last night, somebody else had beaten me to it... so it looks as if they created the redirect.Balloonman 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment on block I guess others were suggesting a block of ChardingLLNL (talk · contribs); reviewing the history shows that the cat wasn't created by Balloonman. I don't know anything about ChardingLLNL's edit history, but that does change my comments above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, somebody else created it, but I went through and added the category to people who I have been able to document are in fact brats. I would have created it if it wasn't for his beating me to it. Balloonman 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think that "brats" would actually be the better term; pretty much every other category for people is in plural form. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A look at Balloonman's contributions and work at Wikipedia would have been sensible before calling for this user to be blocked--sourced, edited, referenced, peer-reviewed, hard-working, works with others, and a call for this editor to be blocked is issued? I can't know that any more careful look was taken at the term, brat, than at the creator of the category, but I'll assume the comments were done in good faith and that the person actually looked at the category, the term and its creator. I suggest folks read the article Military brat to see why this is a legitimate category and how being the child of military members impacts the life of the child, before saying that elimination of the category is all about "children not being defined by their parents." There is a lot of research referenced in the article, and more can be found all over the web, and in your library and bookstore. There's probably a good article on the nature versus nurture debate on Wikipedia also, for those who consider their parents had no impact on their lives. KP Botany 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other user (User:ChardingLLNL does not appear to be a problematic editor, either, no reason to call for his or Balloonman's blocking appear in either editor's histories or contributions. A simple reading of the article about military brats and looking at their edit histories should have been done first. KP Botany 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the plural one was deleted after this July 26 discussion. ×Meegs 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People who say the term is not neutral obviously weren't military brats themselves. It gets to the point of, "should you speak on something you don't know?" Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt both as recreation of previously deleted category; I also agree that parental occupation is not defining. Postdlf 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do believe the category has a lot of malplaced quality info that should be placed in the article. The fact that the malplaced info was well referenced because it is malplaced. With a proper short category intro this page should be deleted for WP:NN TonyTheTiger 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I the only one unable to follow TonyTheTiger's statement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you are not. Read my comment after my keep vote. It seems to be a case of just that. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tony, could you elaborate, I'm not following your arguments? Are you simply saying it fails notability, and therefore should be deleted? Balloonman covers this issue, if that is the case. KP Botany 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You cite notability. The first sentence in the notability section reads: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." The article for military brat cites over 40 different articles, books, and studies surrounding the subject of military brats. This does not include many of the studies where military brats are lumped in with Third Culture Kids. A google search will pull up over 160,000 hits and there are scores of books and studies on the subject. But to cite a few, from the article:
      • Ender, Morten, "Growing up in the Military" in Strangers at Home: Essays on the effects of living overseas and Coming 'home' to a strange land. Edited Carolyn Smith, Alethia Publications: New York. 1996
      • Morten G. Ender, ed. (2002). Military Brats and Other Global Nomads: Growing Up in Organization Families, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97266-6
      • Musil, Donna, “Brats: Growing Up Military > Project Overview > Integration.” Retrieved December 3, 2006.
      • Quigley, Samantha (25 April 2006). “Author Explains Culture for Fellow Military Brats.” American Forces Press Service.
      • Truscott, Mary R (1989). BRATS: Children of the American Military Speak Out," New York, New York: E. P. Dutton. ISBN 0-525-24815-3Balloonman 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also this list of some pubmed articles on the subject [4]
  • Keep, well-referenced, and apparently a significant characteristic for these individuals. Kirill Lokshin 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coomment BINGO, being one myself, I can vouch it is a DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of my life. That's all that needs to be said here. That is the same reason we have cats for Jewish people, homosexuals, ad infinitum. Those who are not mil brats themselves simply don't know what they're talking about (99% of the time).Rlevse 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe fact that the subject is well chronicled is what makes for such a fine article. It has no bearing on the notability of the category. Individuals in the category must be notable as individuals not for belonging to a notable category. I probably placed the wrong argument. WP:NN is really an argument against articles. What I mean to say is that all of the introductory info in the category is malplaced. A category should not require an essay of introduction. You should not have to cite a category with references (IMO). I am a strong supporter of the article. This does not mean a category needs to be created or that I should support one. All superfluous introductory Category information should be moved to the article page. TonyTheTiger 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I get it Tony's right, it should be famous military brats or notable military brats, not just military brats. I say, replace with Famous military brats. KP Botany 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added the information on the category page in an effort to avert a CfD... I knew that people who are unfamiliar with the term or it's acceptance would nominate it for deletion. So, I tried to avert it by discussing it there. I have absolutely no problem deleting the stuff on the category page as it comes straight from the main article.Balloonman 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict)Keep, per Balloonman, Kirill and others. There does not seem to be any intent to put all offspring of military personnel in this category, which would be problematic. As it stands, it seems useful (and certainly doesn't fall under the description offered in the nominations). Carom 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • after another edit conflict - Tony, I'm still not following your reasoning for a deletion of the category? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the plural version. This category is a cultural identity. The category inclusion criteria are objective with only very narrow grey areas. The term itself is neutral; it doesn't really have the negative meaning the word "brat" alone might carry. Most people categories are plural, so keep cat:Military brats and delete/redirect the other one. (edit conflict) Gimmetrow 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename to "Famous Military Brats." Being a military brat does indeed affect the person you become, as vividly explained in the article it's linked to. As has been argued to death for the benefit of those who apparently don't care to listen, this is not the same as being the child of an engineer, but rather this is a culture in and of itself, like being Jewish or being Cuban or whathaveyou--it directly affects who the individual will be when they mature. The fact that those who oppose the category are the same as those who didn't read the article on the subject really says something--if you're not knowledgeable about the topic, why on earth would you feel qualified to speak on its notability or NPOV? --ScreaminEagle 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and/or Rename per Balloonman and Kirill. However, it should be renamed to "Famous Military Brats" or "Notable". S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional swordfighters

Category:Fictional swordfighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, non-defining characteristic. I can name at least 2 bajillion fictional swordfighters off the top of my head. Also, I'm about 417% certain this category has been deleted before, but I don't feel like finding the old discussion. Axem Titanium 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wielding a sword (or something vaguely sword-like) is not a defining characteristic for a fictional character. Dr. Submillimeter 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the ability is not defining and is too common to make an interesting or useful cat. Incidentally, I looked and could not find a real-life counterpart to this (other than Category:Fencers, which is certainly ok). Axem, you may have been thinking of Category:People who carry swords, deleted after this October 1 discussion. ×Meegs 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Referendum

Moved from Speedy

Category:Fictional bisexuals

Category:Fictional bisexuals to Category:fictional bisexual people

Category:Fictional skateboarders

Category:Fictional skateboarders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is an ad-hoc category for any character who rides a skateboard. Unless you believe that Marty McFly, Bart Simpson, and Spyke have other things in common besides riding skateboards, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too many characters have driven skateboards. Doczilla 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too broad, doesn't contribute any meaning to the article. ST47Talk 18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Education in Kuala Lumpur

Category:Education in Kuala Lumpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category is redundant. It can be expressed more neatly in the categories Schools in Malaysia and Universities and Colleges in Malaysia, both subcategories of Education in Malaysia. Geographical location can be further subcategoried. Skoban 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not redundant, and one of at least 135 education by city categories. Osomec 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-unique per osomec and because we don't want to reorganize an entire country unless we need to ;) ST47Talk 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Argentine racing drivers

Merge into Category:Argentine racecar drivers, convention of Category:Racecar drivers by nationality. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion

Category:Former Lutherans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Former Mennonites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Former Anglicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I accept that Former Religion categories have support, but these three are quite recent and seem way too specific. We can't have a former category for every denomination. Also they originally were only of those who became some form of Methodism, which strikes me as strange.--T. Anthony 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [5] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category could be subjectively interpreted. Does it include people who simply stopped going to church, or people who have officially declared themselves to have left the religion, or do the people in these categories need to be baptised as belonging to another faith? Given the open-endedness of the category, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should perhaps mention that I'm not, this is not, a CfD for Category:People by former religion or even Category:Former Protestants. I just felt the three I listed were getting into newer more specific territory than those so needed to be discussed. I'm not wild about any of the Former Religion cats, but the main ones survived delete before.--T. Anthony 15:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- I'm not opposed to "Former religion" categories in general, but these three specifically don't seem to add much beyond "Category:Former Protestants". There are lots of people who switch Protestant church affiliations for reasons of practicality or convenience (e.g. stopping going to an Episcopalian church and starting going to a Presbyterian church because they've moved), but who do not particularly consider themseleves to have "converted" -- and it would be faintly ridiculous to put such people in a category of "Former Anglicans" or whatever... AnonMoos 15:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, these categories are for further specificity for those who are Former Christians, indicating not transfer from one Protestant denominaton to another, but from the Christian faith to another religion entirely (or possibly from Protestantism to Catholicism). As such, though the specificity of former Anglicans or Methodists may not be needful, for parent cats of Former Christians or Former Hindus, etc., most definately are! Thanks. Pastorwayne 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Former Protestants, the individual religions are similar enough that they do not mean much in someone's life. ST47Talk 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Scientologists

Category:Former Scientologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same reason as CfD on all other "former religion" cats nominated by me today. Opprobrious and magnets for trolls who are against a particular religion or religious belief.Rumpelstiltskin223 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [6] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arent they a cult rather than a religion? Bakaman 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People should not be defined by churches they used to attend. It's not who they are now. (And Scientology is legally a religion.) Doczilla 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rumpelstiltskin223 gives no reasons for this particular category to be deleted, only a blanket statement that trolls might abuse categories like it with no examples. AndroidCat 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, my reason for deletign the above does not apply here ST47Talk 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a category used in the media, Wikipedia users might as well have access to it. KP Botany 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses

Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same reason as CfD on all other "former religion" cats nominated by me today. Opprobrious and magnets for trolls who are against a particular religion or religious belief. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [7] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Arent they a cult rather than a religion? Bakaman 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People should not be defined by churches they used to attend. It's not who they are now. And they are not a cult. Every church began as a cult. After a century and a half with millions of members, they are a church. Doczilla 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per directly above, no explanation by nominator for these. ST47Talk 19:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Muslims

Category:Former Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same reason as CFD on Category:Former Hindus and Category:Former Christians. Inherently opprobrious. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [8] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there was a recent deletion attempt which failed back in October. Also, "former" is not particularly insulting (I imagine Bertrand Russell would have been proud to be known as a "Former Christian"), and if there are objections to it, then a more satisfactory terminological substitute for it should be found (instead of deleting the category). AnonMoos 15:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is an article Apostasy_in_Islam. Unlike Hindus, Muslims seem to actually care when someone decided to leave their belief system.Bakaman 17:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists ST47Talk 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Christians

Category:Former Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Such controversial cats are a magnet for trolls.Partisan editors are putting up Category:Former Hindus and,Category:Former Muslims. Such cats are inherently opprobrious. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created it, but I think it was a mistake. I put subcats in it that aren't necessarily of former Christians & I think this is unnecessary.--T. Anthony 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [9] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Christian is a broad range. The point is there are also big pages like Excommunication#Christianity and Great Apostasy but those are better serves for individual groups.Bakaman 17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary and quite arguable category. Should a Catholic turned atheist be listed? They might argue that they're still Catholic and that it's not up to you to say whether they are or aren't Christian. Doczilla 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists ST47Talk 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Hindus

Category:Former Hindus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

POV and inherently opprobrious.No such category exists for any other religion correction cats do esist for other religions but that does not change that it is inherently opprobrious so why Hindus? I listed all the cats of former religions for deletion Rumpelstiltskin223 13:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ok, I learned a new word today. But this work opprobious [10] is way too strong! It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions. It should not be an offense to anyone. It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way. It is knowledge and fact. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the point is that there are religions notorious for terrorizing apostates. Hinduism isnt one of them. See Apostasy#Hinduism and Buddhism.Bakaman 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Freedom skies| talk  18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other noms. Doczilla 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists ST47Talk 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other noms.--D-Boy 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies listed on the JASDAQ Securities Exchange

Category:Companies listed on the JASDAQ Securities Exchange to Category:JASDAQ Securities Exchange listed companies

Category:Occitan personalities

Category:Occitan personalities to Category:Occitan people
  • Rename. Originally nominated for speedy, then for renaming as per the current proposal Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 25#Category:Occitan personnalities here, but it was badly handled. Firstly as no-one supported the existing name the debate should have been kept open for another 7 days, secondly despite the "no consensus" closure the original speedy proposal was implemented regardless of a lack of support. Thirdly no-one opposed my amended proposal, including the original nominator, who certainly saw it (though he misunderstood removal from speedy as meaning that it was being nominated for deletion when very clearly it was not). This is a simple matter of applying standard terminology. Osomec 11:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for Mel Etitis. Once again, THIS IS NOT A DELETION PROPOSAL. Osomec 12:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to shout, but it heavy emphasis seems necessary as he is having extraordinary difficulty grasping the difference between deletion and renaming. Osomec 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- although I'd support delete for a category that has only one member. Doczilla 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom.Bakaman 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Taymyr Autonomous Okrug

Category:Cities and towns in Taymyr Autonomous Okrug into Category:Cities and towns in Krasnoyarsk Krai
  • Quite simple: Taymyr Autonomous Okrug was merged into Krasnoyarsk Krai, effective today. Conscious 10:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - nom ST47Talk 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom.Bakaman 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frayser Boy albums

Delete per WP:OC. frummer 05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestine

Support, per nom frummer 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Beit Or 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: First of all, the different categories are of different character, and there shouldn't be a group CfD. I could very well go along with Category:Elections in the Palestinian National Authority, but I strictly oppose Category:Political parties in the Palestinian National Authority (as most parties predated the PNA). --Soman 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to do this properly one should put {{subst:cfr|ProposedName}} notices on all relevant category pages, this has not been done. For the moment this is a stealth rename attempt and as such it is out-of-process. --64.230.123.128 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, I notice that there are CfR templates on some of the categories. --64.230.123.128 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming of main Category:Palestine, as this is required (but I'm not sure if that is actually being proposed here, anyway?); Oppose block renaming as per User:Soman, what's right for some will not necessarily be right for others; Oppose suggested renaming of Category:Political parties in Palestine, which would be no better than the current title (but would support renaming to Category:Palestinian political parties, which is the only really accurate and useful version); Support other proposed renamings listed here. Palmiro | Talk 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American physicans by ethnicity

Merge both into Category:American physicians, does anyone really think ethnicity is relevent here? -- ProveIt (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom; the current situation is overcategorization. --Metropolitan90 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both, oversegregation, irrelevant information ST47Talk 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. However, at some point we will need a position on how to deal with Category:African Americans. Maybe this needs to deleted if the problems it is causing out way the advantages of the category. Vegaswikian 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American religious executives

Delete, just kill it now, before it spreads. Yet another in a long and useless series of Bishop categories. The only current member is of course a yet another Bishop. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in any event it only has one substituent, TewfikTalk 05:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current member is a member of this category not because he was a Bishop. He was a "Religious Executive" before elected a Bishop. It refers to another part of his notable life, before becoming a Bishop. Categories apply not just to one achievement of someone's life. Persons do different things during different times in their lives, for which they may also be categorized. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The title is overly vague. What is a "religious executive", anyway? Dr. Submillimeter 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - underpopulated, vague ST47Talk 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless it can be adequately populated it is useless. I have no reason to believe it can be. TonyTheTiger 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious executives

Delete, or Merge into Category:Religious leaders. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is at some level a useful categorisation without falling prey to religioncruft, TewfikTalk 05:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see above. Pastorwayne 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - See above comments. Dr. Submillimeter 15:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female Sikh warriors

Merge into Category:Sikh warriors, why is gender relevent? -- ProveIt (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sexual revolution, TewfikTalk 05:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The era in which they lived (16th-18th century) may lend some notability to the characteristic, especially since their femaleness seems to be their (almost solitary) defining trait. --tjstrf talk 07:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic theologians

Merge / Redirect into Category:Roman Catholic theologians, convention of Category:Roman Catholics by occupation. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macaulay Institute

Category:Macaulay Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Found in cleaning out November cat. This was nominated on 11-14 but I did not find a discussion. Vegaswikian 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Number-one singles on the Canadian airplay chart

Merge into Category:Number-one singles in Canada, or Delete. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Guard

Merge into Category:United States National Guard. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney Nonsense Word Songs

Rename to Category:Disney nonsense-word songs, or Delete as categorization by trivial attribute. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in Eugene, Oregon

Merge into Category:Companies based in Oregon, parent is still a bit small. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National parks of Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per below. David Kernow (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artists/Bands With Long Song Titles

Delete, as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristic. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Methodist bishops

Merge all into Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church, overcategorization. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Captain Jack Sparrow

Delete, all current members covered by Category:Pirates of the Caribbean or Category:Pirates of the Caribbean characters.

Category:Arab fashion designers

Merge into Category:Fashion designers, is ethnicity relevent here? -- ProveIt (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_1&oldid=97811075"