< July 15	July 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term 'Sol system' is rare and almost entirely restricted to science fiction. Worldtraveller 23:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Although "Sol" may have meaning, abbrvs should be used very sparingly, if at all, in titles. ∞Who?¿? 06:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically, the 'Sol' system is not an abbreviation but is our solar system. There are plenty of other solar systems. Radiant_>|< 08:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be tempted to suggest that The Solar System (capitals and definite article) is ours, but a solar system or solar systems generally (lower case etc) are the others. A bit like the difference between an internet and the Internet. -Splash 15:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as is. solar system also means planetary system and thus you turn an unambiguous name into an ambiguous name. Plus Solar System not solar system would be the correct capitalization. Also note this is a category of hypothetical bodies (surely fictive, since they are not real) 67.71.168.74 12:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree about capitalisation, but 'sol system' is sci-fi usage, not generally recognised by astronomers or the general public. In scientific usage, 'solar system' refers to our system, 'planetary system' is a more generic term so solar system is not ambiguous. Hypothetical does not mean fictional, these are bodies that were at one time believed to exist for various reasons, not simply made up. Worldtraveller 12:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If something doesn't exist, it is fictional, whether it is also hypothetical or not is a different question. 132.205.3.20 18:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Our article titled solar system is about our planetary system, after all, so obviously the proposed category name isn't all that ambiguous. Postdlf 21:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and to avoid obfuscating things. -Splash 15:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Maybe I've lead a sheltered life, but I've never heard anyone use the phrase "Sol system". JW 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but the definite article is required to highlight which particular solar system is being referenced; "Hypothetical bodies of the Solar System"? It's neater, anyway. James F. (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: IMHO "Hypothetical bodies of our Solar System" would be better if rename is the consensus. --Sherool 12:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Sol system is the correct usage (isn't the point of the wikipedia to spread knowledge? not promote "popular" usage of terms.) and "official" name (as far as these things can be official) of our solar system, see this NASA article (brief quote: "Uranus was later found to be a world tipped on its side compared to the rest of the known planets in the Sol system (...)" emphasis mine). It is little used outside sience fiction simply because we have only identified a handfull of other planets orbeting distant stars (and untill fairly recently there where no known solar systems beyond our own (only the stars themselves where known)), so there have not been a lot of call for disabmiguation. However more "extra-solar" planets are discovered all the time, so it's only prudent to use the correct term sooner rather later once people start adding articles about other solar systems (IMHO the Solar System article coud be moved and replaced by a "generic" article about solar systems in general, but that's another debate). --Sherool 12:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I'm afraid that's quite wrong - 'Sol System' is absolutely not the 'correct' usage. 'Solar system' is not ambiguous, as systems around other stars (of which over 100 are known, many with articles here already) are not known as 'solar systems' but as things like 'the 51 Pegasi system' or 'the Tau Ceti system'. We already have a generic article at planetary system. One NASA usage does not an 'official' term make, and see these google results for a broader picture: [1], [2]. The International Astronomical Union is the source of official astronomical nomenclature, and they use the term solar system exclusively [3], [4]. The whole reason I want to rename it is because 'sol system' is a non-standard, unscientific designation, which it is quite wrong to use instead of Solar System. Worldtraveller 13:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ok I stand corrected on the official part. Bad asumption on my part, most scientific names seems to be in Latin so I asumed the Latin name for the sun would be the official one. A bit of searching revealed that there is NO official proper name for our sun and it's system. A bit strange though, most of the planets are named after Roman (and Greek) gods, Sol was the roman god of the sun, and the roman name for the sun, so how come names like Mars and Jupiter are official while Sol is not? All I can think of is simple "oversight", there where many planets but only one sun, so everyone have always used the generic term. These days we know of hundreds of thousands of stars and hundreds of solar systems, so IMHO using a proper name for our sun makes sence, and Sol is the best candidate (IMHO), official or not (Solar System is no more official or "scientific" it's merely more used). I must confess though that my attraction to "Sol" might be partialy due to cultural bias, seeng as "sol" also happens to mean "sun" in my native language. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I've made my "case" such as it is, and I seem to be in the minority. Oh well life goes on :) --Sherool 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. It's an abbreviation. Or laziness. --Kbdank71 14:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's not an abbreviation, it's the sun's name in Latin after the sun god Sol Invictus, it's just not used very often (in English) unlike the names of the planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto etc. where also all Roman gods, so the name have some merit IMHO), see also Sol.

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarialist isn't even a word. Delete or move to Wikipedian actuaries, if such a category is really needed. Joke137 18:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yep, its a word :) Although the category is empty, I haven't had much desire to delete any of the Wikipedian categories so far. This is a specialized field under Category:Wikipedian mathematicians. As it is, I'm listed under Category:Wikipedian military, which isn't very full either. This category should be a grandchild of Category:Wikipedia culture. And suggest we encourage more Wikipedians to be more involved with the other aspects of being a Wikipedian. IMHO ∞Who?¿? 07:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it's not a word. The word is actuary not actuarialist. Don't take my word for it, take the OED's, or Google's. —Joke137 23:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, thanks for the correction. I found the word on several mathematics related websites, but it seems it must have been a neologism, Google: ists ~ 44; ies ~ 64,000. Rename to Category:Wikipedian actuaries. ∞Who?¿? 05:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think that it is useless to have this category. Actuarialist? What is that? --Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 03:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's empty. If we get a rush of Wikipedian actualialists/actuaries/whatever, it can easily be recreated. --Kbdank71 14:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Good point. I'll be sure to move out of the way of the crowd :) . ∞Who?¿? 07:01, 21 July 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary subcategorization. We previously had overwhelming consensus to delete similar occupation subcategories of Jewish Americans and Italian Americans; these should likewise go. Postdlf 18:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. -Splash 23:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Although, at some point, I feel this may be come a seperate issue, not category based, that might need further discussion. Anyone have a link to the previous Cfd, so i can read them? ∞Who?¿? 06:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's: a bunch of ethnicity CfDs here, which was rather alarmingly declared a no consensus. Going to drop a message to Kbdank71 about that. There's also the various women-based categories, which is a similar question. -Splash 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I left a note under your comment to Kbdank71, since he hadn't had a chance to respond yet. The reasoning I believe, is similar to my comment above. I think these all need to goto RFC, as it has been a delicate subject. ∞Who?¿? 08:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind this isn't to delete Category:Chinese Americans, just its occupation-specific subcats. I don't think the "lack of consensus" in the other CfD applies here because it's a narrower issue that does not touch on whether people should be classified by ethnicity generally. Postdlf 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to category:overseas Chinese fooians (e.g. category:overseas Chinese politicians). — Instantnood 07:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, that looks like a deletion candidate as well. What does that even mean? Politicians of the Chinese government who are stationed in other countries? And I guess Chinese politicians who are in Russia would not be included because they are not "overseas." Postdlf 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't object their deletion if the articles are linked to, and are included under the appropriate sections on the list of overseas Chinese. — Instantnood 04:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and I agree that this issue should be taken to RFC (and then possibly turned into a speedy-renaming criterion either way around to prevent repetitive discussion). Radiant_>|< 09:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sure what "overseas" means, anyway. To me, that's Europe, Africa, or Asia. --Kbdank71 14:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It refers to the diaspora. See also overseas Chinese. — Instantnood 09:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Inappropriate focus on an attribute of doubtful significance. CalJW 22:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These are useful categories for readers to look for significant people of the Chinese diaspora. — Instantnood 08:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is only one article in this category, which I have nominated for deletion. Even if the article survives VFD, it can be put directly into Category:Christian theology rather than in this otherwise empty category. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• (note, this is nominated for renaming a bit down this page). delete. Radiant_>|< 08:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category was misnamed (as its "catmore" indicates, leading as it does to a redirect); I've created a new category Category:Veganism, to which I've migrated all the relevant articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, a vegan is a person... so this is a person category. IT should be a subcat of veganism, and something in the people heirarchy, with the appropriate people articles in it. 132.205.45.148 15:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if kept (as a category for vegans), it should be renamed (minimally "vegans", or perhaps "people who are vegans"). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also overlaps with category Vegetarians. Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how many notable vegans there are, but all vegetarians are not vegans. -Seth Mahoney 23:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 08:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is already a list of vegans. Besides, most of the articles were not about people. --Kbdank71 14:45, 19 July 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category was previously deleted as POV. There does not appear to be a Category:American liberals. - choster 00:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the discussion archived? Do you have a link to it? siafu 01:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page I linked has the entry, but not a date or discussion:

Category:American conservatives was deleted as POV

Category:Neoconservatives was deleted as POV

Category:Conservatives was deleted as POV

Category:British conservatives was deleted as POV

• • • • I only ask because it's not obvious to me why the word "conservative" is POV; it's commonly used here (US) self-referentially, though per your nom, the word "liberal" doesn't seem to work the same way. siafu 02:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some analogous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Liberal leaders in the United States and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Liberal leaders. - choster 02:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per previous consensus/arguments. Though conservative is much more easily defined and recognized than liberal, without one, the other seems rather meaningless, and discussions linked above do demonstrate how defining "liberal" is a can of worms... in America. siafu 02:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As we do with articles that have been Vfd'd, there should be no need to re-discuss this. Simply list recreated categories at the bottom of this page for speedy emptying and deletion. Postdlf 18:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreation of previously deleted material can be speedily deleted. Radiant_>|< 08:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.