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 13:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category is useless because sorting articles that are "in use" is never required. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Maybe it's useful for finding articles where editors forgot to remove the template? But I can't think of anything "what links here" couldn't do. — Sebastian (talk) 06:51, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Exactly, delete ··gracefool |☺ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 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 13:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category overlaps Category:Middle Ages. I already took the liberty of moving the contents to the latter. --Brunnock 19:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously a redundant category. But I bet it gets recreated within a month... ----Isaac R 04:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  I bet against it. Whoever loses has to pay $10 to Wikimedia foundation. — Sebastian (talk) 06:57, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete ··gracefool |☺ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, use redirect to give clue of proper category. Pavel Vozenilek 18:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (it's wrong spelt, anyway ;-)). James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Rename. Should this maybe be renamed to follow the new 'History of Foo' convention? Like Category:History of the Middle Ages? Either that or just merge into Category:Middle Ages. Firestorm 17:24, Jun 23, 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 13:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contains two stubs that are being merged with Peanuts or with one of the relevant characters. - UtherSRG 11:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• lol, delete ··gracefool |☺ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously :P --Tothebarricades 03:15, Jun 23, 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 rename --Kbdank71 13:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Film is the name of the topic article, and film is the word overwhelmingly used in the titles and text of articles. Once the category is renamed, most of the articles will not need any changes. Several of the titles with "Movie" in them should be renamed to film if possible. -- Samuel Wantman 08:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename -- Samuel Wantman 08:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename -- --sparkit (talk) 15:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unless you want to rename it to "Movies". Insisting that everybody say "film" is pretentious nonsense. WP is popular encyclopedia -- we should use words that ordinary people use, where possible ----Isaac R 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Movies are a subset of film. By this logic we would be calling paintings, pictures. --sparkit (talk) 04:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe in some obscure academese, "movies are a subset of film" makes sense. In ordinary English, "film" is just a pretentious way to say "movie". ----Isaac R 05:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So are you voting to change "Cinema" to "Movie"? "Movie" is an Americanism. In Britain it is only use by people pretending to be American. I believe that "Film" works in all English speaking countries. -- Samuel Wantman 06:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename for consistency. Radiant_>|< 09:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename ··gracefool |☺ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for both consistency and the avoidance of "Americanism." Shem^(talk) 18:39, 22 Jun 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 rename --Kbdank71 13:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same reasons as above. See WP:SFD

• Keep for same reasons I cited above. ----Isaac R 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for consistency. Radiant_>|< 09:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename ··gracefool |☺ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename --sparkit (talk) 13:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested (also voted on SFD). James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 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 13:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This category was created 16 June '05 [1]. In its name it is a DUPLICATE of Category:Jewish philosophers which already exists. This is a complex field, and following an agreement on 30 Oct '04 (see Category talk:Philosophers of Judaism) it was decided to create Category:Philosophers of Judaism for philosophers of Judaism (since they are mostly rabbis), and Category:Secular Jewish philosophers for those born as Jews but who should not be seen as representing the Jewish religion. Finally if this new category merely wishes to lump philosphers by their Jewish ethnicity then it should be removed because then we get into the bog of tracing every philosopher's ethnic and religious roots for no really good reasons. Furthermore who really knows if some of the people in the category such as Hilary Putnam, Carol Gilligan, and Robert Nozick were really Jewish in the first place? None of the articles mention it or think it's of any importance. IZAK 06:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (if only listed as an ethnicity) or Redirect (the known Jewish ones) to Category:Secular Jewish philosophers, as explained above. IZAK 06:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Category redirects are unfeasible in present implementation. Radiant_>|< 12:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but with less than 20 entries in the category, it's easy to recat those who are known to be Jewish as either Category:Secular Jewish philosophers or Category:Philosophers of Judaism, and delete the category tag as to the rest. -- BD2412 ^talk 12:48, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing to be gained by case-differentiated categories. Perhaps in a more-lenient-view than that of IZAK's even, should further argumentation develop regarding who can/could/should be included in such a category, I see no problem with including such antiJews as Barukh Spinoza and Karl Marx in the already-extant category (as long as relevant discussion of their complete divergence from normative Jewish philosophy is included in the articles themselves). The extant category itself is probably worthy of a VfD, since it amounts to little more than yet another irrelevant list of Jews, which is fodder more for anti-semites than for anything remotely approaching encyclopedicity. In any case, let's just make sure that Ayn Rand is included in the extant category before Karl Marx, since she was Jewish according to halakha, and he was not. Tomer ^TALK 07:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure I follow the antisemitism argument, but I agree with Izak's summary. Mikeage 07:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the "anti-semites" thing wasn't meant to be viewed as an argument about the subject at hand (i.e., the value of the category in question), just an off-topic comment about the compilation of lists of Jews. Sorry if this caused any confusion. :-p Tomer ^TALK 17:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate of Category:Jewish philosophers. No opinion at this time on the rest of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The category is redundant, and articles now in this category should be placed in the appropriate related categories. HKT 23:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. Someone has been causing chaos. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 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, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Mac-stub was originally intended for stubs related to Mac OS X, but expanded to include all Macintosh related stubs. Other editors re-wrote the template to reflect this, but didn't update the category. I've updated the cats, so this cat is no longer needed. AlistairMcMillan 03:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was one of the ones who modified the stub template. Not changing the category as well, was an oversight, thankfully now fixed by AlistairMcMillan. --TheParanoidOne 05:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Good idea but please discuss on WP:SFD. Radiant_>|< 12:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  Is it really relevant for SFD, seeing as this category is no longer joined with the stub template? --TheParanoidOne 12:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Here is the related discussion on Template talk:Mac-stub. The stub was not deleted. Just the scope was changed, requiring a different cat name. AlistairMcMillan 22:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, this should be on WP:SFD, but since it's here already and is unlikely to cause much argument, don't bother to move this discussion, just delete the category. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 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 13:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete this category, as it can't feasibly live up to its title. Deletion is the best thing for it. Phoenix-forgotten 00:51, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Delete, unmaintainable. Radiant_>|< 12:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Pavel Vozenilek 19:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:37, 20 Jun 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.