< April 17	April 19 >

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category does not contain articles on explorers per se. Caesar's invasions of Britain is a biographical article about Julius Caesar, who is generally regarded as a general/statesman/emperor. Gaius Aelius Gallus was a praefect who did lead an expedition that partly had the purpose of exploring Yemen but which also had multiple other purposes (such as diplomacy). Since the category does not really contain any articles on explorers, I suggest deletion. (If kept, then it should probably be renamed Category:Ancient Roman explorers to match many of the other categories in Category:Ancient Romans by occupation.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ancient Roman explorers per nom. Most explorers have had multiple motives. Johnbod 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adding "ancient" doesn't add anything. Johnbod, did you read the entire nomination? The "per nom." doesn't fit the main part of what Dr. S. said. Doczilla 02:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - see the last sentence. Johnbod 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mangoe 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:08, 20 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 rename Category:Fechtbücher to Category:Combat treatises. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fechtbücher to Category:Combat treatises

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Fechtbücher is the plural of Fechtbuch, which is the German (literally "fight-book") for combat treatise - or medieval/renaissance books on how to fight. The current members are I think all in German, but combat treatise, with 3,180 ghits, is the commonest established term in English, and is not likely to be used of modern "martial-arts manuals" etc. We should use English, especially avoiding German plural forms and diacriticals. Johnbod 03:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support, arguable rename. dab (𒁳) 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/~~oppose for now~~. All of the articles in the category relate to Fechtbucher except I am not sure about Manuscript 3227a. If the category were to contain non-Fechtbucher combat treatises, I would support the rename, but it appears as if there isn't a reason to change the name. Just as we have Category:Ukiyo-e instead of Category:pictures of the floating world, I think there is no need to translate a culture specific word. However, if the category were to contain different types of combat manuals (non-german for instance) then the name change would make sense, because the cultural specific term would no longer apply.-Andrew c 20:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The combat treatise is by no means only a German (or Swiss) phenomenon, although they did more than most. The French, Italians (rapiers especially), Portuguese etc all wrote them, with George Silver's Paradoxes of Defence holding up the English end, among others. Like me, he had to follow this up with his Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence to explain what he meant the first time. It's just all the articles we have so far are I think by DaB, who is Swiss, & very knowledgeable about that tradition. The main article, Fechtbuch, makes this clear, and lists several examples from many counties. Johnbod 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to the generic English term; Fechtbuch (which may also need renaming) indicates that such books were written all over Europe. I'm not sure that combat treatise is the right term, though. These are books about one-on-one sword combat, and "combat" is too general a word for that, while the modern translation of Fechten, "fencing", is not appropriate. The cat should probably go into Category:Military books or some subcat of it, too. Sandstein 11:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All sorts of weapons, and none, are covered - see for example MS 862 for a wide range. Combat is ok I think, and the most widely used term apart from "martial arts" which of course will lead to much confusion with the Asian unarmed techniques. Johnbod 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still oppose~~Support after reading the replies and giving it thought, I have decided to go with the previous consensus decided at Talk:Fechtbuch. One editor, on an alleged "anti-German prowl", proposed moving the article to an English title, but the article's creator (who seems knowledgeable enough on the topic), and another editor disagreed with the move. Because the main article is at Fetchbuch, I do not believe we should rename the category. Both should be changed together, if changed at all (and the article should take precedence over the category IMO).-Andrew c 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) I just noticed that the creator of this category, and the majority of the Fechtbuch content here on wikipedia voted support. Sorry I didn't notice that earlier.-Andrew c 13:31, 26 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 no consensus. Frankly, I can't see why a merge wouldn't suffice, but if renominated then Category:Illuminated combat treatises would be the standard capitalisation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Illustrated manuscripts to Category:Illuminated Combat treatises

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All the items in this category are illuminated (or illustrated if you prefer) manuscript combat treatises. The Fechtbuch/combat treatise parent category (see nom above) includes printed examples also. This category also is a sub-cat of illuminated manuscripts. Johnbod 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose rename, the category has nothing to do with combat treatises. arguably, just merge with "illuminated manuscripts". dab (𒁳) 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All the articles in the category are manuscript combat treatises. Johnbod 10:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the other categorized illuminated manuscripts now live in Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. This would appear to be its supercategory. Mangoe 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that is Category:Illuminated manuscripts, of which this is a sub-cat, in fact only containing combat treatises. Johnbod 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are incorrect. The Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry is currently categorized under Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts, which is being moved toCategory:Christian illuminated manuscripts. Far and away most of the items tagged as some sort of illuminated manuscript are religious.

Per note above, however, the main article describes illumination as decorative, not illustrative. It is questionable whether any of the works in the category belong there. But if they are illustrated, it seems reasonable to leave them where they are and establish it as a aprent category. Mangoe 19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! You are getting mixed up, I'm afraid. Another good reason to rename the category, to avoid this confusion. This nomination is about the "illustrated" not "illuminated" category. The first sentence of the main article is (my bold):"An illuminated manuscript is a manuscript in which the text is supplemented by the addition of decoration, such as decorated initials, borders and miniature illustrations." Decoration in this context does not just mean decorative - perhaps the article needs to make that clearer.

Johnbod 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Me bad. Might I suggest, then, a rename to Category:Combat treatises instead? Mangoe 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the nomination above, for the parent category, which includes printed, and manuscript text-only examples. This category only contains manuscript ones with pictures, and unlike the parent is in the Illuminated manuscript tree. Johnbod 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these aren't illuminated, at least not as far as I can tell. They are Illustrated, and therefore don't belong under the former category at all. It's not clear to me that there's enough reason to put these into a group separate from those that lack illustrations. Mangoe 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscripts with pictures in (of a more or less professional standard) are illuminated, and of course illustrated. In English illumination includes illustration in nearly all forms in manuscripts of the pre-modern period. There is discussion of this at Category talk:Illuminated manuscripts from 2005 (short), and Talk:Illustrated_manuscript from 2007 (long, with many references). Clearly the main article needs more emphasis on this point. The current situation & proposal really arise from this debate. Johnbod 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question what is the difference between Combat treatises and Illuminated Combat treatises. I thought we established that all Fechtbucher were illuminated. There seems to be redundancy between these two proposed categories. -Andrew c 20:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some (in the head category) are printed, as explained in the nom. All these are manuscript - the cat could be called "illuminated manuscript combat treatises" but I thought that unwieldy (I wouldn't object to going with this, if people think it clearer). "Illuminated" implies manuscript I think (unlike "illustrated"). Some of the manuscript Fechtbücher/combat treatises are text-only, and are therefore not in this category either. At least I hope we can all agree the present categories are very confusing! Johnbod 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support if the above category (Fechtbuch) gets renamed, we need a place to put articles that fit in the illuminated manuscript tree, and I believe there are enough to warrant a new subcat.-Andrew c 13:36, 26 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. — CharlotteWebb 10:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV category by itself. As a comparison, no such POV category exists for any other religion. The text left on the category page shows why the categorization is deemed POV and prejudiced towards Islam. I request Delete. Ragib 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, this category is POV. Islam cannot victimize anyone. Islamic governments, Islamic devotees, Islamic clerics, etc can, but the religion itself cannot. -Andrew c 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and just plain wrong category. Doczilla 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it cant be NPOV.Baka man 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there no category similar to 'victims of Islamist violence' or something? Clearly the title is odd, and some of the categorisation is disputable, but is this NPOV by definition? Hornplease 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Title is too POV. - Merzbow 23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - victim is very subjective with no clear definition or authority; compare this with say say people who are 'killed' for reason 'x', where 'killed' is fairly obvious condition to end up being and there is a clear authority on 'x' with whom we can cite for the reason. We do have "victim" categories e.g. victims of child abuse, but the definition of what their victimisation consists of is more clearly defined and understood. Ttiotsw 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Clearly POV.QuizzicalBee
Speedy delete Attack category. We don't even have a Category:Victims of Communism and Islam is not equivalent to Communism.--T. Anthony 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly POV. Hey you, there is no such thing "victims of communism" only "victims of attempted communism". --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G10 as an attack category, else strong delete. This is a wholly subjective category, because the word "victim" is so broad as to be useless; depending on the editor's POV, it could include anything from someone such as Nick Berg (beheaded in Iraq by al-Zarqawi's hoodlums) to a woman in Yorkshire who felt pressured into wearing a headscarf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nominator. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- a screaming POV violation. Mangoe 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - obvious case. --Soman 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Abberley2 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would shame even the lowest tabloid newspaper and has no place here. It's a disgrace. Enaidmawr 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - so tagged. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is far too opinion based and biased to be included in an encyclopaedia. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 01:43, 22 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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: convert to list. >Radiant< 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. I think all these people are notable for other things. See also the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 6#Category:People with diabetes, a discussion regarding a similar category which was closed as delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for articles which specifically discuss the person having polio It is quite possible for someone to be notable for multiple things. If someone is written about for having polio as well as for their career, that simply means there are two different defining characteristics of the person. Thus this category is appropriate assuming it is used for articles which specifically contain discussion about the person's disease. Of course, articles which don't significantly verifiably discuss polio should be removed. Dugwiki 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ignoring Dugwiki's proposal, as there is no reliable means of implementing it. AshbyJnr 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But my proposal is standard operating procedure for all categories. Namely that unless an article talks about the category criteria it should not be placed within the category. That applies to all categories, not just this one, and is straightforward to implement (is it in the article? Yes/No) Dugwiki 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I had it I would like to be able to see who else had it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People are not notable just for having diseases. They are instead notable for either their work and accomplishments or for being activists for people who suffer from these diseases. Dr. Submillimeter 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Three reasons: One, I have just created a category Category:Poliomyelitis and the "People with" category was quite useful to distinguish people who had polio, from people who study polio. Two, there are entire categories devoted to things that don't make people notable in themselves (related examples Category:People with disabilities, essentially the entire Category:People by medical or psychological condition) and clearly "People with polio" have done other notable things, or they wouldn't meet notability guidelines. Three, polio is not diabetes, if polio is recorded in a biography it generally means that the disease affected their lives in some profound way (usually by causing permanent paralysis or disfigurement); inasmuch a category devoted to "People with polio" makes just as much sense as categories devoted to "People with disabilities" or "HIV-positive people".--DO11.10 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to point two, many such categories should be deleted, beginning with this one. Jamie Mercer 14:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I would disagree with you that this is one of those categories that should be deleted. In fact, this is an area where I feel some editors are leaning too much in favor of deletion over keeping with appropriate pruning per standard categorization conventions. Dugwiki 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The people actually so categorized are people who had polio, and from what I can see maybe it was important for only one or two (e.g. Wilma Rudolph). For the rest, it's just a trivia point (what do Bill Cullen and Neil Young have in common?). Mangoe 23:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki and D011.10. Franklin D. Roosevelt's "paralytic illness" — thought to be polio prior to a study in 2003 — is notable enough for a separate article. FDR is of course remembered more for having been U.S. President, but, as Dugwiki said, it is possible for a person to be notable for multiple reasons. Polio can leave a person permanently paralysed, which can have a strong impact on their life, and could be a "defining characteristic" in some cases. -Severa (!!!) 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "People with Polio" category more or less duplicates the "Famous Polio Survivors" section in the polio article. But the "Famous Polio Survivors" section is much better, because it can add comments about the person with polio. The comments are helpful. The best example is that FDR was previously thought to have polio. But the best current evidence is that he probably had Guillain-Barré syndrome. That distinction can be made in the free-form "Famous Polio Survivors" section, in which FDR is included with brief discussion and reference to separate article. But the "People with Polio" category does not allow any free-form text (correct me if I'm wrong about that). It's just "black/white" - "yes/no". Maybe there are other "people with" categories, but two wrongs do not make a right. And consider all the hassles determining "Did this person have serious impairment from polio?". How do you define "serious"? Many millions of people suffered from polio. Where do you draw the line? If the category is kept, which I could certainly live with, consider that FDR will have to be excluded. Dagoldman 05:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think that in some cases polio may be a defining characteristic, but that per Dagoldman, a list is probably more useful because hey can be annotated. However, categories can also be very useful because they are likely to be more complete, so I wouldn't mind seeing this one stay. This is a much more useful and informative category than, for example, the fraternity categories which are being eliminated or the category of people diagnosed with clinical depression. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 14:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Usually non-notable. Abberley2 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Entries needn't be defined by categories. (Quite the reverse, in fact.) Entries need only qualify for a category, and this is a particularly good one. There's no compelling reason to delete this category. --TheEditrix2 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entries do need to be "defined" by categories if there is to be any hope of keeping the number of them on articles to a manageable number. Nathanian 12:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It would be worth keeping if there were enough editors willing to sort biographies into categories like this, which I am slightly dubious about, but if there are, why not. As long as the fact that the person has the disease is verified, it can't hurt. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify. Zeibura's point about verified data and the problems are valid. With a list the facts can be cited. I'm seeing many people categories populated with articles that don't even hint why the person is included in a particular category. Vegaswikian 20:27, 23 April 2007 (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 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 merge into Category:Australian people of African descent (which comes out the same as delete). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Afro Australian is a term that is not in common use. Category:Australian people of African descent is adequate for this purpose. Ezeu 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Category:Australian people of African descent. Doczilla 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Afro-Australian has only one entry which is the article of the same name - Afro Australian. This article is already also in Category:Australian people of African descent. --Bduke 06:22, 19 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Keep. --Xdamr^talk 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mal 01:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Shouldn't it match the Anglo-American relations article? -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Anglo-American relations is by far the more widely used term. Not eligible for speedy renaming. Haddiscoe 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Haddiscoe Johnbod 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. By the way, I oppose this change.--Mike Selinker 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename, continue matching Anglo-American relations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. David Kernow (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current name is the standard UK usage. (And I severely doubt if the US has a standard terminology for this.) Bluap 03:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: "Anglo" refers to England, not to the United Kingdom (eg. Anglo-Scottish border; Anglo-Catholicism; Anglo-Norman). England, which has not had its own government since 1707, does not have foreign relations with any state whatsoever - only the UK does (and to a very limited extent the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland Executive). The usage of "Anglo" (sic) to designate "United Kingdom" is grossly offensive to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people, and frankly laughable in a supposèd encyclopaedia. --Mais oui! 07:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - "Anglo-American relations" is a very old-fashioned term, and rarely used except by the ignorant. Deb 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only used by the ignorant? Calm down now.--Ezeu 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anglo is by far the conventional term to denote the UK in such phrases. See Anglo Irish Agreement - usual media usage. Whilst at one time the expression did mean England, it now doesn't. (And it originally denoted the Angles anyway - an ethnic group that is one constituent of modern England and lowland Scotland.) Bottom line is we use conventional media terms and don't use revisionist corrections to appease nationalist sentiment. Technically British != UK anyway. --Doc^g 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (and a proud Scot)[reply]

Doc, I totally agree that "British" does not equal "United Kingdom" (used as an adjective), and I find it truly bizarre that Wikipedia treats the two as synonymous. Would you support a change to the more accurate Category:United Kingdom-United States relations (or vice-versa)? After all, the relationship is between two states. --Mais oui! 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Wikipedia should reflect conventional usage, as idiosyncratic as it may be. When when we hear the term 'Anglo-American' we know that it actually refers to the UK, as much as we might know that its origins lie in an English-centric view of reality. There is no confusion here - thus no need to rename. Use most commonly used terms. Context is everything 'Anglo-American relations' obvious refers to the two states, whereas 'Anglo-American world' is probably interchangeable with 'English-speaking' - which is another thing. --Doc^g 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" When when we hear the term 'Anglo-American' we know that it actually refers to the UK, as much as we might know that its origins lie in an English-centric view of reality. There is no confusion here - thus no need to rename". Yes, we know that because we happen to live in the political entity called the UK. However we also know that many people from other countries are under the impression that UK/Britain/England are synonymous. Keeping terms such as 'Anglo-American' only confirms that impression. "There is no confusion here" - are you sure? Clarity is what's needed, and that's not POV or political correctness. Hope this doesn't sour Welsh-Scottish relations! Enaidmawr 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "Lapp" and "Eskimo" are also the most conventional terms for two circumpolar peoples, but we call them "Sami" and "Inuit/Yupik" on wikipedia, because these terms are offensive. I am not an "Anglo" or an "Anglo-Saxon". I probably have some Anglo-Saxon ancestry, but then again so do many Germans, French, Dutch and Danish. To use "Anglo" is simply anglocentric. --MacRusgail 15:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, confusing name. Anglo-American mainly refers to US and English-speaking Canadians (as opposed to Latin American). --Soman 08:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term seems to be by far the most commonly used and I have no problem with it. Marky-Son 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the term is indeed technically incorrect and the use of "Anglo" rather than "British" is rooted in the usual ignorance which confuses the UK and England but regardless the use of "Anglo-X" is far more widespread. siarach 10:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Linguistic reform is not Wikipedia's business, even where it seems appropriate. Abberley2 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - we are not "Anglo", we are "Celtic" here anyway. --MacRusgail 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and by the same ethnicity argument you are probably not 'British/Bretish' either. At some point we have to us some term, and this is one generally in usage.--Doc^g 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Abberley2; it's the established term. Mangoe 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United Kingdom-United States relations, or (as a second choice) rename to the more widely-used Category:British-American relations. Per Mais Oui, "Anglo-American" is both inaccurate and antiquated, and given the unacceptability to many Scots and Irish people of the term "British", "United Kingdom-United States relations" is a better choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United Kingdom-United States relations. Those are the two states involved. Only the English are happy to use "Anglo-" in this way. Arguing for popular usage over encyclopedic correctness does wikipedia - not to mention the Welsh, Scots and Irish - a great disservice and degrades its value as a work of reference. It's as outdated and imperialistic as referring to English-speaking countries as Anglo-Saxon. Enaidmawr 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguing for popular usage over encyclopedic correctness": you miss the point - popular usage is encyclopedic correctness. If you want to lobby for ethnic-sensitive political linguistic revisionism, do it elsewhere. "Only the English are happy to use "Anglo-"" ^{[citation needed]} It is "outdated and imperialistic" - well that's simply POV. Campaigns for linguistic reform have no place on wikipedia. And I'm a Scot.--Doc^g 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia should follow real world usage, and not attempt to reform it. Nathanian 12:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mais oui! - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doc Glasgow and An Siarach. Anglo-X relations is the standard usage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:35, 24 April 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.

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.

No consensus on whether to choose 'Works of' or 'Works by'. Renamed Category:Ivan Turgenev's works to Category:Works of Ivan Turgenev for a superficial consistency with the rest.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Ivan Turgenev's works to Category:Works of Ivan Turgenev. --Xdamr^talk 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category:Works by Alois Jirásek to category:Works of Alois Jirásek
category:Works by Heinrich von Kleist to category:Works of Heinrich von Kleist
category:Works by John Updike to category:Works of John Updike
category:Works by Nick Hornby to category:Works of Nick Hornby
category:Works by W. S. Gilbert to category:Works of W. S. Gilbert
category:Ivan Turgenev's works to category:Works of Ivan Turgenev

All per convention of Category:Works by author. Otto4711 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename others to "Works by" - the convention is only one that have not really been established. Most of the related categories are already in the "Subject by artist" format. This one is the anomaly, they should rather go in the direction "Works by authorname". The parent category itself uses this form. (see also Novels, Books, Short stories etc.) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Let's get to one standard. I actually prefer "Works by" in all cases, because "of" doesn't occur anywhere else except some Orations and other classical texts, and "by" occurs everywhere else that doesn't just go "(X) (Y)" (e.g. category:Shakespeare plays). But either will do.--Mike Selinker 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, per nom. I would also slightly prefer the Works by convention, but agree that the Works of phrasing is more natural. Either convention is OK, as long as there is one. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see how "works of" is more natural than "works by", and I agree with Kevinalewis that ""works by" should be (and probably is) the convention. --Ezeu 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my mind after searching for "works by Shakespeare"(25,300 ghits) vs "works of Shakespeare"(426,000 ghits) on google. --Ezeu 23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Works BY is the prevailing form in nearly all of these categories. Except where the "Author works" format is used. The "BY" tells you the action, not just asserting possible ownership. "OF" has an ambiguity about it that although is fairly commonly used, categorization should be about precision. Also "BY" is interestingly used as the title of the parent category, this is the natural choice because of it for the child categories. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these rename others per Kevinalewis. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:04, 25 April 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.

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 delete. Categories for AFD should presumably be created after discussion at WP:AFDC. Compared to the existing very high level categories, this is indeed a narrow one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't part of the original AfD categorisation system (see the talk page of WP:AFDC for details). This appears to be AfD category creep; hyperspecific AfD categories would be a bad idea, as they could attract editors with a particular bias, and although this isn't nearly as bad it's a step along that line. It also doesn't appear in the AfD instructions or the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template that categorises AfDs in the first place; the instructions on categorising a debate into this category that are given on the category itself are wrong (the only way to categorise an AfD into this category at the moment is by typing the category's name out). If this category is kept, I'll add it into the categorisation system templates; however, I would prefer its deletion, as it's a lot more specific than the other categories. --ais523 15:35, 18 April 2007 (U T C)

Keep the perspective of those who have a substantive interest in a topic is essential to these discussions; that perspective can often lead to a useful reorientation and focusing of categories. I would not assume "bias" because someone has interest in a topic. A Musing 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'bias' argument was brought up with respect to extremely narrow categories like Category:Counter strike deletion (which should hopefully never exist); I agree that it probably doesn't apply here. See Wikipedia_talk:AfD_categories#Oppose for the original arguments against the categorisation (especially the comment by Aaron Brenneman, talking about the fear that the categories would proliferate); many of them are based on a worry that the categories would multiply, which is why the creation of new categories under the system is probably a bad idea. --ais523 15:50, 18 April 2007 (U T C)
Delete per nom. Nathanian 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this category, as I did not see the usefulness in having a deletion debate on a language topic classified only under Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic). I did not know exactly how to create a deletion category correctly, and welcome help in fixing that if it gets kept. It was not just intended to be used for theoretical linguistics, but for language-related topics in general. That can hardly be called "hyperspecific" - languages is after all something that is studied by thousands of students at any large university and a major part of any school curriculum. (Something like "Topics relating to Middle Egyptian phonology" would be hyperspecific.) Pharamond 18:29, 21 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 merge Category:Rock songs by artist into Category:Songs by artist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Songs by artist; The entire point of Songs by artist is to function as directory, it should contain every single Songs by artist category, subdividing it defeats this purpose. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As above Songs by artist should not be subdivided by genre. Dugwiki 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We also merged "Hip hop songs by artist."--Mike Selinker 16:34, 18 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. — CharlotteWebb 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by name, see unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The cities that would fall in this category have nothing else in common and should not be grouped together. For example, Washington, Pennsylvania has nothing in common with Colorado City, Arizona. Dr. Submillimeter 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be much of a purpose to this catagory. It also connects places even though they don't have much in common, or histories don't connect. Kansas City, Missouri (which was proposed for addition to the catagory) was connected with Kansas, even though Kansas City, Missouri existed well before Kansas became a state, and before it was known as Kansas. It wasn't named after the state, and people already have a hard time realizing KCMO isn't in Kansas, and that KCMO existed before Kansas did. --KCMODevin 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Abberley2 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Cat ^chi? 12:20, 23 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Merge to Category:NBC network shows. --Xdamr^talk 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:NBC network shows, or at least Rename to Category:NBC sitcoms. I don't think it's a good idea to start making network shows by genre categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Not all shows can easily fit into specific genres. Some genres become subjective. Doczilla 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 132.205.44.134 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this category is deleted, each article will likely be added to Category:NBC network shows, and Category:Sitcoms, both of which are quite large. Would we rather have these in 1 category or 2, and how large do we want these parent categories to be? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's just nine articles so I don't see AM's concern as overly worrying. >Radiant< 12:13, 24 April 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.

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 rename Category:People killed by IRA to Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed by IRA to Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Firstly, "killed by IRA" is gramatically incorrect, and needs "the" adding. Secondly this category is a sub-category of Category:People killed during the Troubles and Category:Provisional IRA actions and therefore needs the "Provisional" qualifier adding as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, though I can't help but wonder whether the abbreviation should also be written out in full. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't speak from a global perspective, but in the UK and Ireland the term Irish Republican Army is very rarely used to refer to the modern incarnations, the term IRA is used almost exclusively. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I should think that more people know what the IRA is than know that it stands for Irish Republican Army. Abberley2 13:13, 20 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 merge (only one member). — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Slovak cross-country skiers, convention of Category:Slovak sportspeople. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:45, 23 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Delete. --Xdamr^talk 22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category simply does not function. As of now, there are 35 pages listed in this category, while the actual number should be over 300. The only purpose this category achieves is to mislead people into thinking they're seeing the list of articles proposed for deletion for over five days, when they're actually seeing a small percentage of them. This has been nominated before, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_15#Category:Proposed_for_deletion_for_over_five_days, and it was kept. At the time, those voting Keep seemed to think that the category served some purpose. It does not. Xyzzyplugh 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This cetegory is redundant to just looking at Category:Proposed deletion and looking for the subcats older than 5 days. This category is populated by the prod template. Because of the way the template is coded, the prod'ed articles can not get updated into this category without an edit to the article in question. Note to closing admin technically, this category can not be deleted without editing the template so that it will no longer attempt to populate the category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per the page instructions, should this be moved to TFD? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below); there are indeed 391 pages in that category :-) Seriously, I changed a bit Template:Dated prod, and now the category seems fine. The problem is with the Template:Dated transwiki, whose reason of existence is still unclear to me. Tizio 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What changes did you make to the template? Has the original problem with the category been fixed? As for Template:Dated transwiki, it is an alternate form of the Prod tag which is currently being used by only one editor, it doesn't actually need to exist at all. --Xyzzyplugh 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added the time of the day to the condition that triggers the presence of an article in the category. Magically, the category gained 300 articles or so. So, I presume that was the original problem. As for the dated transwiki, the problem is that I have seen it used in place of ((Move to Wiktionary)) and similar, for articles that have not indeed been transwikied. Another problem is that it does not implement so far the logic for the category we are discussing. Tizio 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that we will need to check back in a day or two to see if this is still working. I am asserting that your change of the template caused all these articles to be categorized not because you fixed it, but rather just because it was edited which triggered a cascading update through the articles. Can we see if the category continues to populate over time without requiring any other intervention? I do hope I'm wrong, but I think I am not. Remember, the state of the category before you changed the prod was that the only articles being categorized here were ones which had been edited in some fashion after the prod was placed on the article. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Makes sense. If that's true, I'll support deletion. Tizio 11:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Data, I'm going to start recording data here for a few days so we can track results. Request that no admin close until we can reach a conclusion on this. If the template can be made to work I will be changing my "vote" to keep. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As of 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC), Prod>5 contains 241 entries; Prod Apr 13 contains 128, 5 not in >5; Prod Apr 14 contains 168, 69 not in >5; Prod Apr 15 contains 153, 134 not in >5 but day still going.
    - This data seems to support that presence in a category is not changed unless the template is edited. Regardless, if nobody is using this category (as shown by the lack of "keep" !votes so far) what's the point of it? Tizio 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, it's even worse now, there are only 45 articles in "Proposed for deletion for over five days", whereas there should be hundreds. The fix obviously didn't work, the category still isn't functioning. --Xyzzyplugh 10:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - There are now only 27 items in the cat. I think that we can safely say that the data shows this won't work in its current state. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll agree, this category is useless as it is, unless we get such functionality for magic words and parser functionsto self-update in cascading fashion(thus allowing the template to 'self-update'), which won't happen, this cat won't work as is. It'd be nice to see a bot which keeps the dated prod categories as subcats of a category like this one, but the form its currently in isn't good. Kevin_b_er 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This category has now been proposed for deletion for over five days. :) Dr. Submillimeter 18:19, 24 April 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.

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 keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there was a recently closed "keep", with only a single article each and no room to grow, I think these categories should be deleted.

Merge to Category:Religion in Kurdistan -- Cat ^chi? 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Baristarim 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though I am concerned about the lack of population. This is a case where providing notice to those who work in the area, either through wikprojects or a review of the categorized article's contributors, might spur population of the category. A Musing 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But one of the reasons of their underpopulation is the fact that Kurdistan is not a country, which raises WP:V issues every single time. That's all really.. Baristarim 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category can be repopulated if that happens. Following a Christianity by country/Islam by country format is problematic for multiple reasons. -- Cat ^chi? 15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is nothing else nationalistic vandalism. Please stop that finally. --Bohater 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch for WP:CIVIL Baristarim 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename as Category:Religions of Kurdish peoples. To suspected sock user, Bohater; See:WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - people may consider the term "vandal" an attack. Be careful.Must.^T ^C 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are standard categories, and they have a great deal of growth potential. AshbyJnr 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standard? Can you link me to this standard? -- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep specifies a religion in between the regions. Ashkani 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user Artaxiad. -- Cat ^chi? 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the point of categories. -- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. These categories are simply too small and currently clearly are over categorization. Maybe at some future date, there would be a need to split the parent, but clearly, that day is well into the future. Vegaswikian 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since its part of a religion by region system, it should be kept.Baka man 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a "religion by region" system. We do have a "religion by country" system of which Kurdistan miserably disqualifies. -- Cat ^chi? 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that's not quite correct as we do have several "religion in region" categories. See Category:Religion in the Falkland Islands, Category:Religion in Hong Kong, Category:Religion in American Samoa, or Category:Religion in Western Sahara.--T. Anthony 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel sure there must be more articles out there, and even if there aren't, these categories are needed in anticipation of future articles. Jamie Mercer 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, up til now there is no clear confirmation of why there should be separate cats for Kurdistan, as opposed to utilizing categories like Category:Religion in Iraq, Category:Religion in Iran, Category:Religion in Turkey, etc.. --Soman 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kurdistan is a separate entity than Iraq, Turkey or Iran. Thus, in accordance with categories such list religions in different countries/regions, this category must be kept. --Lanternix 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of entity is that? Are you suggesting Kurdistan is a country? -- Cat ^chi? 21:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no NPOV definition that can be applied. There are autonomies/provinces called Kurdistan in Iran and Iraq, but in this case Iraqi Kurds outside of the autonomous region has been included in category. --Soman 08:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which would fail to meet Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines #8, this is unnecessarily controversial. I frankly do not understand the proposed rationale. If the intention is to cover relevant to Kurdish people why not call it "Religion of the Kurdish people"? There is absolutely no political connection with Iraqi Kurdistan and "others" (which do not exist as defacto or dejure). It is original research to suggest otherwise.
    -- Cat ^chi? 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know about your original researches, It is nothing but POV. --Bohater 11:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original research? I haven't created these categories, User:IZAK did - without any discussion might I add. I am merely demanding a verifiable and neutral inclusion criteria. If you can't provide that, categories must go. -- Cat ^chi? 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate. These categories may have been depopulated in the past. Abberley2 13:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have been created without discussion. That is not the case. -- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_April_8#Category:Religion_in_Kurdistan. It's disruptive to bring a category back to CFD only a few days after a clear decision in a previous discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Killaruna | talk 2 me! 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator, User:Cool Cat, appears to be engaged in a broader effort to remove all categories which refer to "Kurdistan", and to remove several others which include the word "Kurdish". This is one of at least recent two nominations by Cool Cat which follow CfDs recently closed with a consensus to "keep": see also the23 April CfD for Category:Kurdish inhabited regions and the Jan 11 CfD for that category. In addition, Cool Cat has been nominating other categories on weak grounds with the apparent purpose of removing any precedent which might impede his arguments for he deletion of Kurdish categories: see for example the 24 April CfD for Category:Films by culture, and the 23 April CFD for Cat:Cities on the Great Lakes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this. The whole Kurdish issue is a controversial one, attracting POV warriors on both sides, both those who insist that all reference to Kurdistan be removed and those who wish WP to reflect their POV that Kurdistan is a current, meaningful, recognised, quasi-nation state entity. Personally speaking, I assume good faith on Cool Cat's part—CfD can decide on the merits of his arguments.

Xdamr^talk 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I fail to see why they should be deleted. --Ezeu 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - consensus seems to have been established repeatedly on this and related categories, and so a Speedy keep should be considered.A Musing 22:02, 25 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically a "performer by performance" category, a form of overcategorization (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization). While the people in this category may not necessarily be professional performers (e.g. they may be politicians, writers, etc.), they may still make many appearances on TV and radio shows. Categories for all TV and show appearances are not feasible in the long term, as the lists of categories usually become too long to be read easily. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Note that these people are already listed at Canada Reads. Dr. Submillimeter 12:21, 18 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be simply a subjective personal selection, not based on any official designation. As the articles are each in several other categories, there is no need to merge anywhere. One of the categories which many of the articles canbe found is Category:National Monuments of Singapore, which is more or less the official version of the same concept. AshbyJnr 12:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:15, 20 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a list of books that have appeared on Canada Reads, a Canadian TV and radio broadcast. The problem with these types of categories is that the books in these categories are usually featured in many broadcasts, the books are listed in many "best books" lists, and the books win many awards and accolades. Categories for all of these types of honors can become quite long and difficult to read in some articles. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Note that these books as well as the authors and other information is already given at Canada Reads. Dr. Submillimeter 12:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Transitory and non-defining. AshbyJnr 12:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a non-defining characteristic of these books. This is every bit as valid as Category:Oprah's Book Club, for more or less the same reason: every book listed here underwent a significant spike in sales when its inclusion in this series was announced, and several of these books are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia precisely because they were included in Canada Reads. Lullabies for Little Criminals, Rockbound and No Crystal Stair, for three examples, certainly wouldn't be on here at all otherwise. I'm not strongly attached to the author or panelist categories, but for the actual titles, having been discussed on Canada Reads most certainly is a sufficiently notable criterion for categorization. Keep. Bearcat 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:Oprah's Book Club is nominated for deletion. Note that similar categories (for the books in Time's 100 Best Novels list, for example) were deleted previously. Dr. Submillimeter 10:01, 22 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is used for authors who have appeared on Canada Reads, a Canadian radio and television broadcast. Like "performer by performance" categories (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization), this type of categorization is infeasible in the long term, as these authors have probably appeared in many other broadcasts as well. The resulting category lists would be difficult to read and navigate. This category also resembles an "awards winner" type of category, another form of categorization that is not feasible because these authors win many awards and accolades anyway, and the list of categories for all of the awards would be too long to read or use effectively in some articles. Therefore, I recommend deleting this category. Note that a series of lists of the authors and works are already given at Canada Reads. Dr. Submillimeter 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Transitory and non-defining. AshbyJnr 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every broadcast that such a writer had appeared on would merit a category, so this does not inherently lead to category profusion. Being chosen for a nationally-broadcast "battle of the books" competition is notable in a way that having been interviewed on Late Night with David Letterman wouldn't be, so this category does not inexorably lead to "Authors interviewed on David Letterman" in the way you imply. That said, I'm not strongly attached to having this category, so no opinion — but the reasoning behind the current nomination doesn't wash with me. Bearcat 16:47, 21 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not encyclopaedic. Minor aspects of one's personal life shouldn't be used for categorizing biographical articles. Being involved in a child visitation dispute is not a defining characteristic; the potential pool for inclusion is too large, as it would be in the case of Category:People currently undergoing a divorce. -Severa (!!!) 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This category is being used for celebrities in respect of whom it is a non-defining characteristic. Haddiscoe 11:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial intersection -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. It is an important characteristic. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it an 'important characteristic'? Vegaswikian 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's important in the lives of the mothers, but not from the point of view of what an encyclopedia article about them should focus on, ie the careers that made them famous. Jamie Mercer 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's important because other people contemplating such disputes may be educated by the category entries. Sorta the whole point of wp, yes? --TheEditrix2 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jamie Mercer. The fact that a custody dispute is a huge issue in the lives of the women concerned doesn't mean that it is a defining factor in their notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per non-defining, subjective (exactly what is a dispute) and possibly WP:BLP. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:35, 23 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this name boils down to "characters that were alive in 1940-1945", it is overly broad. It could include every character from every book, movie, tv show, etc. that was around then or did something related to the war, from Colonel Klink and Tommy and Tuppence to fictional portrayals of real people. These people have really nothing in common, so this is not a meaningful grouping. >Radiant< 08:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even though there are characters for whom WWII is a defining aspect, this category as applied does become excessively broad because the entire world's population was affected by the war. Doczilla 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely. Unless you really think Superman, Wonder Woman ... even Itchy and Scratchy (metafictionally) should be included.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:00, 19 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fundamentally subjective Eyrian 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thoroughly subjective cat. Doczilla 07:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This suffers from severe POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 18 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete, user request. Vegaswikian 06:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled category created by me today. There are no articles that are a member of the category. It in turn is not a member of any categories. -- Yellowdesk 05:48, 18 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at this time, this is a case of overcategorization since the only contents are two years in chess, each of which has but a single article. While sports like baseball Category:Years in baseball have such categories, they also tend to have more articles in each year. I am not, however, opposed to moving all the current articles (and others that are about a particular year in chess ) to this base category though, and waiting to expand later should it become desirable. FrozenPurpleCube 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC) due to fix up.[reply]

Keep. Each category has a valid entry, and I can imagine a number of valid topics which would fit in here. National chess championships are in many cases just as notable as national football championships. There is also the World team chess championship (Chess Olympics) hosted biannually. The solution to the problem is not to delete the categories, but to create articles which will populate them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I have dropped the 37th Chess Olympiad article into the 2006 category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, could you tell us how many articles you reasonably expect to put into each category and sub-category at this time? It's possible that these categories are premature if the numbers are too low. And how many years do you expect to include? It's all nice to want to have years covered, but right now, I think the subcategories are more of a hindrance than a help. FrozenPurpleCube 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In many cases, I would call one article as a sufficient basis for that category, especially when it's part of a series like these articles. At the moment I don't know of any present articles which would fit into these categories, but I cannot say that there aren't any. But populating categories needs to start somewhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And Category:1926 in baseball doesn't look very populated either... Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, if you look at Category:Years in baseball, you'll also see that 1926 is just one year among many, and if it's underpopulated at the moment, are you surprised? Older years in baseball do attract less attention. Perhaps it might be worth merging those years into decade, or even century in the case of the 1800s. There are many sports where this might be a problem, so if you want to bring the issue up, I'll be glad to discuss it. But since Category:1977 in baseball and Category:2007 in baseball are well-populated, I see that there's at least some years that should be kept. So, I don't see that the whole category for baseball should be deprecated. In this case though, there's but three articles. That would fit easily in the base category, and could always be modified afterwards if by some chance it became useful to add subcategories. In that event though, it would be important to make a plan before doing it, since Chess dates so far back. I'd suggest grouping by decades instead, possibly centuries in some cases. FrozenPurpleCube 23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I added a comment below. Relating to that, I agree that it is necessary to make larger groups than individual years for the early part of chess history. Preliminarily I lumped events together by century through the 18th century, and then individual years from 1801 to date. It might be better to take your suggestion and group the 19th century by decades, and only start individual years from 1901 on. Quale 07:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending notice to creators; if they're going to work on this, or at least lay a better groundwork, we should keep, and this process is a good vehicle to prod them into action. There should be plenty of material. I reserve the right to change this to a delete if notice is given and no one responds. A Musing 11:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reviewing the chess categories, I'm tending more toward listify on this one - while there is an entire category for national championships that could fill these year by categories quite well, the information is generally in list form, and there tend not to be articles about the specific championship involved. Same with other bits of chess history. That having been said, I think it's impossible to have a sensible discussion unless there are people actively involved in writing the articles or lists and categorizing them here to discuss it. A Musing 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've got at least one person here from the Chess Wikiproject, but neither of the persons who made these categories seems to be a member, or involved much beyond throwing these categories together. FrozenPurpleCube 23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into either Category:Sports by year or Category:Events by year All articles about events need a category tag of some sort indicating the year they occured. For sporting events, it would be a subcategory of Category:Sports by year, for example. For events you can use Category:Events by year. But either way there should be a category tag on the article which includes the year the event occurred. Therefore either we should keep Category:Years in chess as its own category or merge it into either Category:Sports by year or Category:Events by year (depending on whether Chess competitions are considered "sporting events" or just "events"). I'm ok with any of those three approaches, so long as in the end a "by year" category is included in these articles. Dugwiki 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When this cat was originally created I was skeptical because only two years were represented and they very few articles in them, but I respect Sjakkalle's judgement in matters chess and otherwise, so I decided to try to flesh out Category:Years in chess. I think I have put most of the chess articles that should be tagged by year into an appropriate subcategory. Chess has a long history (over 500 years in the West, and longer in Asia), so the result is very broad in years, but shallow, as most years have only 0 or 1 page. In time they could become more populated. If the subcats "yyyy in chess" are removed, I second Dugwiki's suggestion that the affected articles be put in the corresponding Category:Sports by year] subcat. Quale 07:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, congrats on all your hard work. That's at least indicated to me that there's no need to delete the categories now, though I suggest having further discussion at WP:CHESS to examine what to do otherwise. I do think that some concerted plan is still necessary. FrozenPurpleCube 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having been deeply involved in a "list of years in" project, I can tell you this scheme is going to be a lot of work to maintain and keep useful, but it looks like great work has gone into it, and I hope it will attract some collaborators. Good job!A Musing 15:59, 19 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Rename to Category:Films about sharks. --Xdamr^talk 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization; Category:Fictional sharks already exists to cover the notable sharks that have their own article. This is a new category that appears to be just for films or TV shows that prominently feature sharks, but there are no other categories of this type AFAIK. If there were, I'd expect to see Horses in film and television, Cars in film and television, etc. "Shark films" is not a genre, so no category is needed for it. Crazysuit 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: there is the existing Category:Films about animals, just for films, without also including TV series and even TV episodes as this shark category does. Maybe a better solution would be to rename this to Category:Films about sharks and remove the non-film titles. Crazysuit 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above comment and weed out the non-film articles. Perhaps if an "animals in television" category is created, they can be added to it. For now, consistency is probably the best option. The categories "films about cats", "films about horses" and others already exist. Esn 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films about sharks per above for consistency, and weed out non-film titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 18 April 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.

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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article--even if 5 or so articles a list would probably be sufficient for a TV show no longer in production, but that discussion can be had if that happens, so this nom is without prejudice. 76.22.4.86 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

upmerge into Category:Family Ties 70.51.11.38 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete parent Category:Family Ties This is an unusual situation. Category:Family Ties characters is a legitimate subcategory of Category:Sitcom characters by series which is intended to subdivide Sitcom characters into managable sections by series. However, the parent category Category:Family Ties appears to be an unnecessary eponymous category for the series. Therefore keep Category:Family Ties characters but I recommend nominating Category:Family Ties for deletion (it would have to be a separate nomination. Dugwiki 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per conventions of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that one, ProveIt. I just noticed that Category:Sitcom characters by series should be a subcategory of Category:Television characters by series. Added the subcategory tag. Dugwiki 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a trio that someday I'd like to see elevated to directory status, like Albums by artist. They are: Category:Categories named after television series, Category:Television characters by series, and Category:Episodes by television series -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:08, 21 April 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.

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 delete. — CharlotteWebb 12:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - short answer, I don't see the point. Long answer, being known by one's own name does not strike me as so significant as to warrant a category. I realize that rappers are very commonly known by pseudonyms so one who performs under his or her real name is somewhat unusual, but we do not appear to have categories for other performers in other genres of music or the arts for practitioners who perform under their own names. I see no reason for categorizing rappers in this fashion. Otto4711 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Bizarre title--Sefringle 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Doczilla 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. I can't even see this one surviving as a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. These types of categories have been deleted in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 08:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. S.--Urthogie 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Also, for example, Missy Elliott isn't known by the name Melissa, and Akon isn't known as Aliaune Damala Bouga Time Puru Nacka Locku Lu Lu Lu Badara Akon Thiam. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rap has a lot to do with Africa, America and Europe, and more specifically, it has a lot to do with talking about the history and aftermath of African slave trade on both sides of the Atlantic, up to the current day and on into the future. If you have actually read the book or seen the television series entitled Roots, you will agree that the origin of one's name, in this rap context, is very important, a part of the future encyclopedization of rap music. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:16, 20 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 no consensus. Experience suggests that a continuing failure to resolve BLP/NPOV/V issues is likely to result in eventual deletion. Cleanup is suggested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination relates to this and this and this. Many users are citing these categories for the reason why the Anti-Islam category should exist. Other editors are suggesting that all similar categories be deleted, so here I am now, proposing just that. The main argument is WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue: "...holding an opinion is not a defining characteristic, and should not be a criterion for categorization, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinion." Also, these categories can be abused to slander people or organizations. Personally, I am neutral on the matter, and would like to see consistency. It isn't fair to have categories for some religions, but not others. I say, either we keep them all, or delete them all (including Islam and Judaism, listed elsewhere). Andrew c 01:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is a distinction where the Anti-Islam sentiment seemed intended to focus on the labeling of individuals (similiar to the recently deleted "Anti-semitic people" category) and where these instead focus on organizations, schools of thought, and historic events. I am not convinced that deleting this leads to consistency.A Musing 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These categories imply a false dilemma or either for or against, on top of the implication of good versus evil information, which goes with the "pro-" viewpoint that is sponsoring them. Being "pro-" something usually projects "anti-" onto any criticism, which then serves to propagandize, demonize, and polarlize the issue for the zealot and contribute to censorship. Anon166 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for consistency and per Wikipedia guideline against categorizing based on an attitude. Doczilla 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for consistency.--Sefringle 03:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have quite the extensive and useful Category:Antisemitism and Category:Anti-communists. I decline to abolish those; until someone comes up with an argument that would abolish Category:anti-Christianity and leave Category:Antisemitism, I am opposed. These should be, and are, quite narrow cats; unless the sources agree the subject is anti-Christian, it doesn't belong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentComparing Antisemitism to anti-Christianity is to not understand antisemitism. Antisemitism is against Jews as a race, and not just as a religion, as anti-Christianity is.--Sefringle 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentThere is Category:Anti-Judaism; that would make the comparison direct. I'm on the fence on these, though leaning toward keep - while I ultimately favored deleting anti-semitic people, and would favor mass-deletion of a category focused just on labeling individuals as anti-something, all the same objections don't apply to these categories. A Musing 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about the comparison to Anti-Communism? Communism isn't a race or ethnic group. It's not a religion either, but it is a belief or ideology.--T. Anthony 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ummm.. if this helps, we have Category:Anti-Judaism that we could list for deletion, but keep the antisemitism (or list the for deletion as well and see what happens).-Andrew c 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, that is exactly an "Anti-particular religion" category.--T. Anthony 05:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Category:Anti-Judaism seems to be on its way to being deleted so maybe this should be deleted after all. I'm uncertain.--T. Anthony 09:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with some regrets. This category exemplifies a big problem with the categorisation system as currently used, viz. that there are some categories which are clearly a defining characteristic of some people tend to be abused by overuse. In this case, I suggest that the example of Jack Glass be considered as a perfect fit for Category:Anti-Catholicism; his rabid anti-Catholicism was his single most notable attribute, and while his sort is now rare, there have historically been many others like him.
However, there are many others who may be critical of some aspects of a particular religion, and as Anon166 usefully notes, attaching this tag to them polarises the issues, creating a false for-or-against polarity. I would very much like to see some way of categorising those people for whom religious bigotry is a central attribute, but I can't see any way of creating a clear and NPOV threshold for inclusion.
WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue is, to my mind, too simplistic in its rejection of all such categories, but apart from the fact that it is a current guideline, I can't see any way of replacing it with a better one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per overuse point as above. Haddiscoe 11:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Anti-Catholicism This is a well-studied socio-political phenomenon, similar to Anti-semitism, and the main article on Anti-Catholicism is a reasonably solid piece that demonstrates this. The other two I think can go, again as evidenced by the poor state of the parent articles.
Keep Anti-Catholicism is a form of bigotry as academically well documented as anti-semitism. In the U.S. alone you have examples such as the Know Nothings, the KKK, the Maria Monk matter, etc. The category is useful for anyone researching the issue, and serves one of the purposes that categories should, gathering related information together. It makes no more sense to delete the anti-Catholicism category than it does to delete the anti-semitism category. The fact that anti-semitism relates to race and not just religion is a false distinction, or at least a distinction without differnce. Anti-Catholicism is a form of bigotry which has at some times and places been virulent and the category serves a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. The claims that it can be abused are no less true of the anti-Semitism category, but any abuse can be dealt with in the same fashion that it is in that category. Mamalujo 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider a re-vote including ALL anti-ethnic and anti-religious categories. Let's not cherry-pick specific ones. If we really want consistency, then shouldn't we consider Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Judaism, Anti-Islam and all the rest? Majoreditor 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these categories are useful if they are reserved for extreme cases. Extreme cases are not what is known as criticism, but more rabid in approach and application. Is it abused? Of course, but just because some wil misapply the category means others need to be diligent in monitoring them. There are certainly mountains of evidence to support Anti-Catholicism, anit-Christianity, anti-Mormonism as well as a host of others. Abuse is just not a sufficient reason to delete the category. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to note that in addition to Anti-Islam being up for deletion elsewhere, we have Anti-Mormonism that was proposed yesterday. Anti-Judaism and antisemitism have not been proposed yet. Is there anyway we could consolidate them all for everyone to consider at once? Could we close them early and relist? Or is this the sort of thing that people do not want to consider as a whole (I know deleting antisemitism is going to be much more controversial than deleting any of the other ones).-Andrew c 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating and re-listing is sensible, fair and consistent. The worst possible outcome would be to keep for some major religions and eliminate for others with no consistency between votes. Majoreditor 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep if a category exists so should its anti-category. This is a matter of fairness to different points of view. Hmains 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The idea that the main category on a subject is a "pro" category seems to me to be fundamentally incorrect. Jamie Mercer 14:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment perhaps so, but organizatons of such articles should exist under some name. What is the right name if voters are offended by 'anti-foo' or 'critics of foo'? How about 'religious persection of foo'? Provide positive alternatives, not just 'delete, delete, delete' Hmains 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the cats, but main problem lies in the main articles. There must be a separation here. Anti-semitism is an established historical phenomenon, Islamophobia is a relevant concept in modern media debate, whereas Anti-Christianity, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Hinduism, etc. are all POV OR collections of otherwise unlinked historical facts and opinions. We cannot say that there is any link between stereotyping of upper-middle class white americans and political confrontations in Northern Ireland. --Soman 15:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the logic of this but would point out that Anti-catholicism is also an established historical phenomenon and should also be retained. Mangoe 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I don't fully agree. The linkage between anti-clericalism (which is by no means anti-catholicism), discriminations of Catholics in Northern Ireland (which is actually an issue of oppression of a national minority, not a religion) and politics in the US (Anti-catholicism has been an existing concept in US politics, for example seen through the agitations of KKK) is not clear. The main article ought to be split up to deal with separate issues separately. --Soman 08:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a reasonable crticism of the main article, but nonetheless there are plenty of articles legitimately tagged in this category, e.g. The Two Babylons, which is notable only as an anti-Catholic tract. Mangoe 13:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Doczilla. - Gilliam 04:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all anti-religion cats serious POV issues. Kyaa the Catlord 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Majoreditor, these categories should all be considered together. Note that even the Anti-islam sentiment category voted for Deletion was not used (it could be abused, so could any category) for individuals rather for organisations and specific events...--Caranorn 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A sound policy would be entertain legitimate anti-[racism] categories, but prevent any anti-[POV] categories. The obvious argument for the distinction is that if a POV is lumped into an anti-[POV] category, then it is a contradiction, and discriminates free speech and dissent for being anti-[human rights]. Bigotry should not easily hide behind anti-[POV] tagging. Anon166 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soman. Mixcoatl 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think the way these were proposed is backwards, but I want to note that anti-Islam sentiment and anti-Mormonism have both been deleted. So if anyone was voting keep pending the outcome of those, perhaps its time to revise votes? -Andrew c 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree, the unjustified deletion of those other categories doesn't in turn justify deleting these, rather if these are found to be justified the deletion of the others should be reversed (or rather reconsidered with a larger voter base).--Caranorn 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment so are we going to have a deletion review for the ones already deleted?-Andrew c 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It might be worth considering, but in my case I'm uncertain about these categories. Articles like Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Mormonism should exist, but Category:Religious persecution might be suitable as the supercategory for such things. In fact an upmerger of the stuff in these categories maybe should have been suggested.--T. Anthony 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV magnet, BLP issues. >Radiant< 12:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Caranorn I agree that the other categories were unjustifiably deleted, and that mistaken action does not justify deleting these categories. Anti-Islamic bigotry and anti-Mormon bigotry are real and documented phenomena. Distinguishing between mere criticism of the religion and bigotry might sometimes be difficult but it is not unmanageable. The fact that the categories might be subject to abuse did not justify their deletion. I viewed the articles in the anti-Islamic sentiment category (it could have used a better name) and all of them plainly belonged there; so although it was potentially subject to abuse, those problems were apparently quite reconcileable. It seems many above who are voting for deletion, above, fail to understand that there is a difference between opposing the tenets of a religion and being bigotted against it. To suggest that the same sticky wicket does not arise in racial based bigotry is wrong. For example, sometimes those who simply oppose the policies of the state of Israel are branded antisemitic, but that does not justify the category's deletion. Anti-Christian and anti-Catholic bigotry are just as real as antisemitism (granted they have not reached anywhere near the level of virulence), and they are no more easily distilled into being an opinion about an issue than is antisemitism. Deleting these categories, and all the other categories like them does a disservice to the readers of this encyclopedia who may be researching those subjects. If they are to be deleted, which would be a shame, other categories of racial and religious bigotry should be deleted as well, including antisemitism. Mamalujo 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Replying to the statement: "anti-Mormon bigotry are real and documented phenomena." Mormon bigotry has always been a real and documented phenomenon, from racism to teen polygamy, and when people have opposed it, they have always been called "anti-Mormon." Anon166 02:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Mormons have some odd ideas, but this seems to be an unfair slam on them. Do you think people in the nineteenth century were intolerant of Mormons because of racially offensive statements in the Book of Mormon? Get real, Mormon racial views then were not much different than that of mainstream society, but they faced just as much hostility if not more. And even though they practiced polygamy in the 19th c, while others did not, it was not unusual then for teenage non-Mormon girls to be married to some adult male authority figure.--T. Anthony 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Certainly all groups of people, Mormons included, have been susceptible to certain strains of bigotry (I don't agree w/ polygamy but I wouldn't call it bigotry). Large segments of Jews, Catholics, blacks and Asian have been susceptible to bigotted attitudes, but that doesn't mean they can't be subject to bigotry themselves. And where they have been it should be grouped and organized in useful categories. Where mere criticism of Mormons or any other group is unjustly included in the category, the usual processes of Wikipedia are good at sorting that out. Criticism is one thing. But lying about them, false accusations, wild conspiracy theories and false attribution of nefarious motives constitue bigotry. Mormons, like Muslims, have in fact been subjected to this and Wikipedia does a disservice to its readers by deleting these categories which are a useful reseach tool. Mamalujo 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concept of anti-Catholicism and anti-Christianity are encyclopedic. I'm not as convinced of anti-Protestantism, however. I agree with other editors that there is the potential for abuse but I think that issue should be managed on an article-by-article basis. Just because the category can be abused doesn't mean that the potential for abuse outweighs the value that it might have. In particular, one can imagine wanting to do a review of all articles related to anti-Catholicism. The anti-Catholicism article does a good job of providing an overview with wikilinks to many related articles but the purpose of a category is to provide easy and comprehensive access to all related articles. --Richard 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the anti Catholicism category certainly. There are several academic books on the concept of anti-Catholicism, with regard to American history, English history, Gothic literature etc etc. Also some of us here have spent hours, days, weeks of our time trying to perfect the anti-Catholicism article and link it with others. Is the wikipedia going to strike out a new path and say that such academic works and all our efforts are so much nonsense and a waste of time? Colin4C 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is hyperbole. This discussion is not about the article anti-Catholicism but about the Category:Anti-Catholicism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) category. Your argument would apply if the article anti-Catholicism were nominated for deletion but it isn't, the category is the one which has been nominated. --Richard 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Can't you read? Look at my first sentence. Does it say 'article' or 'category'?

Just out of interest here are some misguided academic works which use the taboo term or CATEGORY 'Anti-Catholic' in the title:

Steve Bruce, No Pope of Rome: Anti-Catholicism in Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1985).
Cogliano; Francis D. No King, No Popery: Anti-Catholicism in Revolutionary New England Greenwood Press, 1995
David Brion Davis, "Some Themes of Counter-subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic and Anti-Mormon Literature", Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 47 (1960), 205-224.
Andrew M. Greeley, An Ugly Little Secret: Anti-Catholicism in North America 1977.
Hinckley, Ted C. "American Anti-catholicism During the Mexican War" Pacific Historical Review 1962 31(2): 121-137. ISSN 0030-8684
Philip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press, New ed. 2004). ISBN 0-19-517604-9
Kenny; Stephen. "Prejudice That Rarely Utters Its Name: A Historiographical and Historical Reflection upon North American Anti-Catholicism." American Review of Canadian Studies. Volume: 32. Issue: 4. 2002. pp : 639+.
J.R. Miller, "Anti-Catholic Thought in Victorian Canada" in Canadian Historical Review 65, no.4. (December 1985), p. 474+
E. R. Norman, Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England (1968).
D. G. Paz, "Popular Anti-Catholicism in England, 1850-1851", Albion 11 (1979), 331-359.
Carol Z. Wiener, "The Beleaguered Isle. A Study of Elizabethan and Early Jacobean Anti-Catholicism", Past and Present, 51 (1971), 27-62. Colin4C 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also why are the three categories of anti-Christianity, anti-Protestantism and Anti-Catholicism lumped together in this vote? How unscientific is that! Wikipedia categories should be evaluated seperately! This whole voting sham is illogical! Colin4C 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous groups and individuals have defined themselves by their opposition to certain religions. In particular, anti-Catholicism was a major political movement in the U.S. a hundred years ago. It is a logical and NPOV category with a clear criteria. -Will Beback · † · 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- I created this category, so obviously I want to keep it. I created it for a number of reasons, but mostly because all of the anti-Christianity categories/articles needed a broad umbrella category to contain them and make for easy browsing/research. Another obvious reason to keep it is the fact that Jews, Muslims, and even Hindus have their own "anti" categories, i.e. antisemitism, ant-Islam sentiment, and anti-Hinduism. The same categories could no doubt be created for other faiths and religions as well. Also, I see no calls to delete Category:Antisemitism, as it is quite obvious that would NEVER occur, so this one must stay too (this cherry picking in regards to categories must cease immediately; either they all stay, or they all go). I also agree with the person above that stated that this whole "voting on categories" thing is a total sham and SOMETHING (ANYTHING!) MUST BE DONE soon to remedy the Wiki-destruction that is happening through irrational, rash, unfair, idiotic, and stacked category deletions. --Wassermann 10:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's just like Category:Antisemitism, must keep this cat.--Domingo Portales 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little different because a persons religion can change. (In principle, I'm aware many to most people in the world stick with the religion they're born with) Having Jewish ancestry can not be changed or repressed. It can be denied, in some cases, but even people who did try to deny or distance from it have suffered from antisemitic prejudices.--T. Anthony 03:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But all entries must be strictly based on a relaible source's conclusion, not that of wikipedians.Bless sins 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anti-Catholicism espectially. Glad to see the vote reopened. BLP doesn't apply; there's nothing seriously wrong with being anti-Catholic. There's also a lot of history to the term, and a main article explaining it's scope. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all articles in this to Category:Religious persecution, now that I've thought on this enough. I considered keep with many of these, but possibly it could lead to too many. I'm open to a rename to "Category:persecution of" Protestantism or Catholicism or whatever. I'm against deletion. I think that's my final word on the matter.--T. Anthony 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Upmerging is a very poor solution for three reasons. First, there are lots of instances of indisputable religious bigotry which do not amount to persecution. So the new category would be underinclusive. For example, the tracts of Jack Chick are clearly anti-Catholic bigotry but they don't amount to persecution, and the drunk rant of Mel Gibson was plainly anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish but it wasn't persecution either. There are a lot of religious based bigotry articles which are now organized but will just drop out of the new category. Second, a religious persecution category would jumble together persecution of Hindus, Christian, Jews, etc. and be overinclusive in this regard. Someone researching bigotry against Hindus would have to sort through a bunch of irrelevant articles. Third the new category is an inferior alternative because the best alternative is to keep all the categories. Despite all the blustering about line drawing, POV, etc. the categories actually worked quite well. I haven't read a single real example of a problem. Sure abuse is going to happen sometimes, but that's also the case with the categories of racisim, anti-Semitism and anti-Arabism. With the former categories, just as with the latter, problems are remedied quickly. The truth of the matter is that these categories don't really violate any guidelines or policies and they haven't been problematic. Mamalujo 10:41, 28 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. — CharlotteWebb 12:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Needs to be a list rather than a category, either as a separate article or incorporated in the article for the city, with mention made in the articles of the sister cities of the fact that they have Louisville as a sister city. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a defining characteristic of the other cities. Haddiscoe 11:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
listify first, then delete; to match other sister city articles Hmains
Delete, already listed in Louisville, Kentucky. Recury 18:41, 19 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 listify (to be exact, turn into an article rather than a list, but tagged with ((listify)) as that's the closest we have). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was previously nominated as part of a mass nomination of the contents of the pro wrestling families category but I inadvertantly omitted it when listing the categories on the day's CFD page. Apparently a new nomination is required, so here it is. All of the same reasons apply to this category as to the other deleted categories, namely that the articles are interlinked and do a far better job of illustrating the family relationships than the category can. Should an article on the family be written it can be housed with other similar articles in Category:Professional wrestling families which is not up for deletion. Otto4711 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous discussions. Vegaswikian 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into article There are a lot of them & no article at present - it would be very confusing trying to work it out from the links. The long description will make a stub as it stands. Johnbod 12:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was tagged, but not listed in the previous nomination. However, the same logic still applies. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into article The other prominent families have articles (not categories), so there is certainly precedent. The Anoa'i or Hart family pages would be the best guides. Zipster 13:13, 21 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 18

Category:Roman explorers

Category:Fechtbücher

Category:Illustrated manuscripts

Category:Victims of Islam

Category:People with polio

Category:Afro-Australian

Category:Anglo-American relations to Category:British-American relations

Works

Category:AfD debates (Linguistic topics)

Category:Rock songs by artist

Category:Cities with State Names

Category:NBC Sitcoms

Category:People killed by IRA

Category:Slovakia cross-country skiers

Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days

Category:Christianity in Kurdistan

Category:Islam in Kurdistan

Category:Canada Reads panelists

Category:Historical sites in Singapore

Category:Books selected for Canada Reads

Category:Authors selected for Canada Reads

Category:Mothers involved in contact disputes

Category:Fictional World War II characters

Category:Philosophical anime

Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversey

Category:Years in chess

Category:Sharks in film and television

Category:Family Ties characters

Category:Rappers known by their birth names

Anti-Christian and related

Category:Sister cities of Louisville

Category:Rougeau wrestling family