< January 11	January 13 >

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. the wub "?!" 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Religious supremacists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, The category is highly contentious, and created by User:Kathanar who has been abusing it to label organizations that do not fit this label. it is one meant to push a certain extremist POV by those who have an agenda and is unencyclopedic.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Deleteper nominator.Shyamsunder 11:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)))}Reply[reply]

Rumpelstiltskin223 who is not above the abuse of labels he describes, is trying to delete a legitimate category to push another extremeist POV agenda, there is nothing wrong with this category as supremacism can involve religion also, whether it be the christian coalition, al qaeda, or hindutva Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, personal ideology should not be a reason to decide which categories stay and which get deleted. --Kathanar 22:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proving my point about this user's agenda pushing.22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all of these groups are supremacists, though supremacist groups like Bajrang Dal are certainly acceptable as cat, Hindutva is an ideology, and many people dispute it's supremacy allegation. In addition, Christian Fundamentalists aren't necessary supremacists (though sometimes they are). Rumpelstiltskin223 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, User:Kathanar has been spam-canvassing for votes so please inspect this case.[1][2]Rumpelstiltskin223 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - how do we define supremacist? Keep in mind that Kathanar (By his contribs) is seeming to be working in cahoots with Poulton (talk · contribs) who created such cesspools of POV as Hindu extremism and vandalized pages on religion that did not start with "Christ" and end with "ity".Bakaman 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete More trouble than it is worth. Chicheley 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Spam-canvassing"? I've only been asking for guidance and advice, It seems the only one here thats been canvassing for votes is Rumpelstiltskin223 as all his buddies, User:Bakasuprman and the lot are here, who if one checks their history have a tendency of working in unison ganging up on others, even when they're not involved. The only reason this is even being considered for deletion is that the agendas promoted by certain people are threatened by this category, mainly deflecting or diluting criticism of groups they promote. It is perfect legitimate category. As far as defining supremacism, its obvious, same way you define racial supremacism. The only trouble is these users coming together for agendas. This has been a nice group effort by Rumpelstiltskin223 as his group always come together to gang up when needed, kudos guys.--Kathanar 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting Conspiracy Theory. How about telling us about Unicorns , Alien abductions and the great plan of the Lord Xenu and his consort the Flying Spaghetti Monster while you're at it? Rumpelstiltskin223 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I'm here because its a category that can produce only increased POV. Nobody invited me, particularly.DGG 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kanthar your childish accusations hold no water. Honestly if you are going to accuse people of being in a cabal, it wont be long before they actually gangup on you. Your edits show that you are no better than "religious supremacist POV pushers" you are accusing of being in a cabal. BTW stop stalking Rumpelstiltskin. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete--D-Boy 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Delete per nominator as POV category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete for pushing POV. Doczilla 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. So POV it is almost offensive. --MChew 10:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Definitely promotes a point of view, uses the category as a pejorative, and I'm not entirely clear what is meant by a "religious supremacist." Even Al-Qaeda may not belong in such a category. zadignose 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete The broad definition given hardly makes it clear why those entities are singled out. We could just end up adding our own pet peeves here. User:Dimadick

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. the wub "?!" 08:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Space NGO to Category:Non-governmental space organizations

• Rename for clarity. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to eliminate acronyms. ~ BigrTex 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename, as acronyms create uncertainty and confusion. --MChew 10:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to match its parent Category:Non-governmental organizations Tim! 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Joan of Arcadia cast. the wub "?!" 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Joan of Arcadia actors to Category:UNKNOWN

• Rename as nom. The title simply doesn't match the description. "actors" alone is ambiguous and an invitation for misuse. I'm not sure what the new name should be, but I'm hoping for something more specific. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Joan of Arcadia cast. Precedents here and here indicate a consensus for categorizing regular cast members rather than guest actors. See also here and here. Kafziel ^Talk 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete entirely - (a) X actors is too big & should only be cast; but (b) cast is unnecessary because if the show isn't notable & substantially articled enough to have its own subcategory, then it's not necessary to have cast, and (c) if the show has its own category then the small numbers of cast can just be slotted in directly without a subcat just for them. --lquilter 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per lquilter. Chicheley 01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete this and all TV cast categories. -- Samuel Wantman 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Joan of Arcadia cast, per Kafziel -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per lquilter. Xiner (talk, email) 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: These deletes are pretty ridiculous. Does anyone really think we're going to get consensus to delete all the TV cast member categories on Wikipedia? That's absurd. There's no basis for it in precedent, policy, or guidelines. So why doesn't everyone get on board and rename the category to a more reasonable and useful purpose, instead of trying in vain to make a point? It's not going to happen, and we'll end up with a "no consensus" and the category will remain as out of control as it currently is. Kafziel ^Talk 07:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete because these TV cast categories clutter the category box until there are too many categories to pay attention to. The category is redundant to the cast list in the article. (And no, we would not have to end up with "no consensus" -- clearly no one is voting to keep the category in its current form.) Doczilla 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If there's no clear consensus on what should be done, nothing will be done at all. Kafziel ^Talk 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree that it would be nice to have consensus. But having lack of consensus is all the more reason for people who have an opinion on how these articles should be handled to express it. Discussing the debate is the only way consensus will ever be reached one way or another. Dugwiki 18:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Joan of Arcadia cast and oppose deletion. More detailed reasoning here. Tim! 09:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Joan of Arcadia cast. As to keeping it on occasion a show that lasts only a short while becomes notable. This show won the Humanitas Prize and got an Emmy nomination in its first season. For a similar example see Category:China Beach actors.--T. Anthony 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per lquilter or Rename per Kafziel. No preference between the two, but clearly one or the other is appropriate and necessary. Xtifr _tälk 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per T. Anthony. --MChew 11:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Rename to Category:Joan of Arcadia cast, per emerging consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename the category, at the very least. Defer the decision on whether to delete for a future discussion. If possible, purge it of all but the prinicpal cast. I notice that the Joan of Arcadia page lists 7 actors as "starring," but the actors category currenty has 68 entries. If it was named "cast" it would be more clear what entries are appropriate to the category.zadignose 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete All actor by performance categories. They are overused so they are not very useful. Osomec 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete; if kept, rename An unncessary category of actors by tv series; readers can easily find these articles by viewing the cast list in the main article. But assuming it's kept, rename. Dugwiki 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The whole TV show cast issue is as a really bad case of overcategorization. Use lists. Use series boxes. Use something other than a category to capture this type of information. It does not rise to the level of needing to be a category! --Vbd 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Vbd. Nathanian 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Delete, alternately Rename to "cast". The show was cute, but it lasted two seasons, it doesn't define the career of people who would fit into this category. Rename as "actor" may apply to quite unimportant roles. Avt tor 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 relisting. the wub "?!" 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Code generation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's unclear from the name whether this cat is concerned with compiler code generation or with model-driven engineering, which for some reason its adherents like to call "code generation" (e.g., [3]). The articles in the category are a hodgepodge of both, plus things like Compiler-compiler that concern a third kind of "code generation". I suggest we delete the current cat and, if needed, create new cats for Category:Metaprogramming and Category:Model-driven engineering. There aren't enough articles about code generation (compiler) to warrant a subcat of Category:Compiler theory, which is where the current cat is. Quuxplusone 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Charmed cast etc. the wub "?!" 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Charmed actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Lizzie McGuire actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all as nom. All intentionally broad, too broad. Categories should group people by defining achievements, characteristics, etc. How defining would, say, the a one time, two word role as "the mailman" be? And how appropriate is it to group actors/roles like that with fulltimers? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename all to "CSI:Crime Scene Investigation cast", etc. as is currently going on with many other categories. This will reduce the categories to full time cast members, which is much more useful. Kafziel ^Talk 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, I failed to add all the categories I meant to from the get-go. My apologies. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all to '... cast' per precedents. ~ BigrTex 22:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to cast and oppose deletion. More detailed reasoning here. Tim! 09:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to "cast" per BigTex and Tim!. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per Kafziel. --MChew 11:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to cast, per emerging consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete; if kept, rename as above I support deletion of these categories as unnecessary, since the same information is already included in the cast list in the individual main art. icles. Assuming it's kept, though, rename to "cast". Dugwiki 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Nathanian 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per nom. These categories seem particularly valueless, the information should be contained within the relevant article; otherwise, are we to create similar categories for every single tv/radio show?

Xdamr^talk 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep/Rename Charmed has been on for 8 seasons and has cast many name actors, both as long term cast members as well as one arc storylines. ie. Julian McMahon, Kerr Smith, Charisma Carpenter, Jennifer Rhodes, James Read, Debbi Morgan, Kaley Cuoco, Finola Hughes, Melinda Clarke ... The names go on and on. Artemisboy 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to "cast", Keep "Charmed" as it really did last long enough to mark these actors' careers, Delete the other two. Avt tor 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thing is, even if you assume that being in Charmed is a notable part of their career, that still leaves the problem that the cast list is easily accessible from the main article. There is little benefit to having the category since the list does the job quite nicely. And the more such categories exist, the more potential category clutter you get at the end of actor articles. Dugwiki 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list is only relevant if you come to it by way of the show article, as opposed to the actor articles. It's relevant if you happen to come to someone like Shannon Doherty, who has a lot of other stuff in her career. For a long-running show where the actors change over time, there isn't just a single list of actors. (This is an excellent example because it's borderline. :) ) Avt tor 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Categorizing individuals for every single job they had is impractical, like when Cindy Crawford's article had over 70 categories. The categories become useless. Doczilla 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 nomination withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Baptist ministers RENAME to Category:Baptist clergy

I am attempting to add more precision to "ministers" and "clergy." They are not the same. Clergy are ordained, licensed, "set-apart" only. Ministers can be anyone doing ministry, clergy or lay. Ultimately I would like to nominate for renaming all such "minister" categories, creating "clergy" cats as appropriate. This is a trial, for discussion by the community. Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Could "Baptist clergy" be a subcategory of "Baptist ministers"? Would this also convert all of the different titles (e.g. priest, minister, pastor, etc) used for basic clergy (i.e. people who are not in leadership positions such as bishops and cardinals)? Dr. Submillimeter 20:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Anything is possible. However, "ministers" implies occupation/doing, while "Clergy" is more about being (i.e., a status, rather than an occupation). Pastors would be a good subcat of Ministers. Pastor is an occupation. Priest is both an occupation and a "status." In some churches, one is ordained (i.e., made) a priest. In this sense it is a type of status. Though priest also implies an occupation (a priest does this or that, like a Bishop does this or that), which "clergy" does not imply to the same degree. Clergy are ordained or licensed, then they take up occupations (preacher, pastor, teacher, Bishop, etc.). I am striving for precision. Does this make sense? Is it too much?? Pastorwayne 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have problems understanding the differences between minister, preacher, priest, pastor, reverend, and clergyperson (the above comments have helped slightly, but not enough). I would prefer to have a category tree that does not require me to make decisions on how to use all of these various classifications. In this scheme, will other categories for priests, reverends, pastors, etc. be renamed/merged using "clergy", or will categories for all of these separate titles still exist? Also, how many people in Wikipedia could be classified as ministers (or pastors or whatever) but not clergy? Is it a significant number of people? I think the "clergy" rename may work, but I still would like to understand how it will work. Dr. Submillimeter 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thanks for the excellent feedback. I know this is somewhat heavy. I see the cats of priest, pastor, preacher, minister, etc. (those which imply activity/occupation) to be categorized that way. Clergy, Reverend (if that is a cat) would be categorized more like persons by educational degree are categorized (a state of "being" or achievement, rather than an occupation). Obviously, ordained persons would fit in both (since clergy implies ordination, or licensing of some sort). Most ordained persons also have an occupation (pastor, preacher, teacher, Bishop, superintendent, etc.). Priest would go both ways, too, as stated above. Bishop, too, is a level of clergy (an order or office requiring ordination/consecration), but it is also an occupation. Am I trying to make too much of this? Pastorwayne 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I am going to conclude that the new term would just confuse people. I would prefer something simple. Dr. Submillimeter 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep as is Yes, you are trying to make too much of this. If the whole scheme is carried out it will require too much reorganization and I do not see what purpose it would serve.DGG 04:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment would it be worthwhile to expand it to Category:Baptist religious leaders to cover any Baptist leaders, regardless of whether 'minister' or 'clergy' are appropriate terms for them? I'm not sure Category:Baptist clergy is an improvement over Category:Baptist ministers, tho, as in this particular case, I think 'Baptist minister' is the much more common term. Mairi 06:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - The purpose of the proposed rename (and the eventual reorganization of whatever you call those people who lead church congregations) does not make sense. Part of the intent of the proposal appears to be to classify people by their official accreditation or education instead of their occupation. However, this is not done in many other occupation categories (including scientist categories such as for astronomers). Moreover, the current term ("Baptist minister") does seem like an accurate description for the people in the category. However, I am open to additional discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep as is. Per a discussion on my talk page, I think it's possible to get too pedantic here. "Clergy" has several different meanings (see the OED definitions on my talk), but I think it is widely understood as referring to people who are paid (or other "professionalised") officials of a religious denomination with a role which includes leading worship. The precise term varies between denominations ("priests" in catholiscism, "ministers" in presbyterianism), but all are types of clergy, and "minister" seems to me to be a good term for baptists. It would be possible to write a long essay on the various semantic interpretations of these words, but category labels should be clear and concise, and "Baptist ministers" seems to me to be the clearest term here. I thnk it is unfortunate that this was brought to CFD without further prior discussion, and I hope that the nominator will consider withdrawing it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdraw the nomination. Yes, I meant to check your reply, BHG. Thanks for bringing it here. Yes, perhaps only a clergyperson (like me) is bothered by this whole thing -- too much detail, too pedantic (that's the word I was searching for). Thanks for all the good discussion. Pastorwayne 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 Merge. WinHunter ^(talk) 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge, "Statesman" is a non-neutral term. It refers to a politician of whom one has a good opinion, or wishes to flatter for diplomatic reasons, or in return for a pay back of some sort. Category:Statemen does not exist.Honbicot 17:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Inherently POV. Xiner (talk, email) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Chicheley 01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom as POV category. Note that Category:Statemen does not exist, but that Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus has been added to the (also-nonexistent) Category:Statesmen, and needs reclassification. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Stong Keep, People in the "Japanese politician" categories should be people who were elected to public office through an electoral process. People in the "Japanese statesmen" category should be people who were directly appointed to office (primarily in the Meiji period and Taisho period Japanese government), not through the political process. Many of these "statesmen" were strongly opposed to "politicians" and political party activity, so it is of importance to distinguish between the two groups, although of course, there were some "statesmen" who were also "politicians". --MChew 11:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this statesman/politician distinction observed in Japan, and is it observed in these terms??

Xdamr^talk 15:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: If McChew is correct, then:

1. Category:Japanese statesmen should not be a subcat of Category:Japanese politicians
2. Category:Prime Ministers of Japan and Category:Japanese ministers should not be subcats of Category:Japanese statesmen
3. Category:Japanese statesmen should be clearly labelled to explain its limited purpose.

None of those things is currently the case. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete A special category might be created for the problematic periods, but a non-time restricted category that uses a POV term is not acceptable. Osomec 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment If the consensus is that "statesman" is a POV term, then category should either be renamed, or deleted. It should not be merged, as the persons listed in the category are not necessarily "politicians. --MChew 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep if it can be established that this distinction and terminology is observed in Japan as suggested by MChew. If this is the case then, per BrownHairedGirl's observations, the relationship between Category:Japanese statesmen and Category:Japanese politicians will need to be sorted out. Failing this then merge.

Xdamr^talk 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge Since when did a politician have to have been elected? Are the members of the U.S. cabinet not politicians? Nathanian 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge - The distinction between politician and statesman is too gray to allow for accurate differentiation in Wikipedia in general. Dr. Submillimeter
• Merge per Dr. Submillimeter Pinoakcourt 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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. the wub "?!" 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose rename

Category:Mathematicians by religion to Category:Mathematicians by views on religion

Category:Christian mathematicians to Category:Mathematicians who advocated Christianity

Category:Hindu mathematicians to Category:Hindu mathematics people per article Hindu mathematics (in construction)

Category:Buddhist mathematicians to Category:Mathematicians who advocated Buddhism

Category:Atheist mathematicians to Category:Mathematicians who advocated Atheism

Category:Muslim mathematicians to Category:Islamic mathematics people per article Islamic mathematics

Category:Pythagoreans is already like this by implication. It resolves some of the "atheism isn't a religion" issue and implies more than simply being a X, Y, or Z. Jewish mathematicians aren't listed as they're also an ethnicity, Muslims aren't listed because frankly I don't want more vehement Muslims seeing I CfD'd a Muslim category. (I've had an evangelical Muslim complain at my talk page before, but most Muslim Wikipedians are fine people.)--T. Anthony 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all/Keep Actually, renaming these would equate atheism with the religions. Frankly I don't see any value in the categories, but if there's no consensus to delete, then I'd like to see the current categorization, which does NOT imply that atheism is a religion, stay. Xiner (talk, email) 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what I'd intended. If anything I thought this would imply it's more a philosophy about religion. Right now Category:Atheist mathematicians is just in "by religion."--T. Anthony 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Well, if they are all deleted then we wouldn't even have to discuss the issue, but in case we don't, I think it's easier to argue that atheism is the lack of religion than it is a philosophy. Ditto with Catholicism vs. Catholic philosophy. Thus my strong objection to renaming. Xiner (talk, email) 02:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well sure. Also if we eliminate everything in Category:People by religion and occupation, Category:People by occupation and nationality, Category:People by nationality and occupation, Category:LGBT people by occupation, and Category:Women by occupation that'd end some debates. What would really end discussions like this is if we just categorize people by name. Like Category:People (Aa-Ab), etc. No arguments of any kind then.--T. Anthony 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose rename. The rename does not match the original in meaning. Either keep with old names or delete altogether. Who cares what religion a mathematician is or was? Whoever might care can listify. Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per September 12th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per Doczilla. Kafziel ^Talk 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Categorizing mathematicians does not make sense, especially since religion has little to do with mathematics (except for prayers during math tests). Dr. Submillimeter 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's see John Craig "He is mainly known for his book Theologiae Christianae Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Christian Theology)", Pavel Florensky "proclaimed that the geometry of imaginary numbers predicted by the theory of relativity for a body moving faster than light is the geometry of the kingdom of God", Guido Grandi "became a professor of philosophy at the Camaldolese monastery in Florence in 1700 and a professor of mathematics in 1714. He used knowledge in both of these fields to prove that God could create the universe out of nothing", etc.Bakaman can handle Hindu side.--T. Anthony 06:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep or Rename, per nom. Pastorwayne 20:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep/oppose rename Panini's math is a mainstay of Hindu philosophy, and the intersection of Islam and math is notable as well (during the Baghdad golden age and what not).Bakaman 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have my permission to add Muslims to the rename. As for "Panini's math is a mainstay in Hindu philosophy" the rename is specifically for philosophers/those-in-philosophy. Unlike the scientist one this just says "in 'blank' philosophy" not that they have to be philosophers. Panini was a grammarian, but could count as "in philosophy" if important to it.--T. Anthony 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry got a little worked up there.Bakaman 16:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I've tried different variants of rename and none of them sound right. At this point I'm tempted to just say "keep as is." As it is now clearly irritates some people intensely so I hoped for an alternative, but the only alternative they seem to want is delete which I oppose.--T. Anthony 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well many people that vote on Cfd's are hardly aware of the benefits of categorization and are quick to dismiss things they call cruft. Its not like they realize the Sulba Sutras, Islamic mathematics or Christian things (like the really weird use of 666).Bakaman 21:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well let's not get too superior. I think a difference between me to some others here is that I'm interested in the scientific community and its history. From that perspective religion was quite important at various times and funded, or restricted, research. Many Wikipedians who edit articles on scientists or mathematicians are only interested in their research. The things in their life that led them to teach exclusively at Catholic universities, work in Hindu schools, or got them imprisoned by Communists are of lesser interest for them. That might sound snotty too, but I think it's fair. Many articles on scientists at Wikipedia basically just make mathematicians sound like "machines to turn coffee into equations" and ignore very basic biographical stuff that explains their working career even.--T. Anthony 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as a mostly irrelevant intersection. The proposed names are just confusing. Chicheley 01:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Chicheley. -- Samuel Wantman 01:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep--D-Boy 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and Strong Oppose to Rename - Note that philosophy does have an effect on mathematics contrary to the beliefs of some. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep but oppose rename (and prune The articles on the mathematicians included here include some where religion was in various ways significantly related to their work, but it also includes some where it was merely mentioned. In some cases their interests were generally philosophical, but in most it was quite specifically religion--and religion is not necessarily a branch of philosophy.The new names will prove confusing. Pythagoras and his followers may have been the one example where the "philosophy" aspect is primary--it seems to have elements of both. But the others do not. DGG 04:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- While as previously mentioned, religion does have an effect on mathematic thinking, I can't possibly see how it's so important as to merit categorization. --Colage 08:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See articles like Jagadguru Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja the spiritual successor to Adi Shankara and his work in reviving Vedic mathematics in India.Bakaman 15:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Vedic mathematics is one example, true, but seeing as how just about every other example is not particularly religiously motivated, I still can't see how this category is needed. In another context, even though Bil Keane's Family Circus is religiously motivated, that doesn't mean we need to categorize all other cartoonists by faith. --Colage 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't think anyone is considering that all mathematicians should be categorized by religion. This isn't what any of these religion/occupation categories are for. Their for cases where religion did have a significant impact on a persons career or notability. Even Category:Writers by religion isn't meant to be a way to categorize every writer by their religion. To pick an almost random example Hans Christian Andersen isn't in any subcategory of "Writers by religion" because his religion, or lack of or whatever, has not been an issue. (At least so far, mostly they just seem to debate whether he was incidentally bisexual or a person whose bisexuality influenced a great deal of his writing) However C. S. Lewis being in a Category:Anglican writers seems pretty reasonable and explanatory. Likewise John Craig, who wrote Mathematical Principles of Christian Theology, being in a category for Christian mathematicians seems reasonable. The article on Robert Recorde, who was almost certainly a Christian considering the era, is probably not well-served by being categorized by religion at all.--T. Anthony 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Actually, the idea of editors slapping this category on every mathematician is exactly what many of us worry about. Categories are inherently inclusive. I think this is just a biographical detail; it's not appropriate as a category. Associating mathematics with religion has the danger of pushing many non-mathematical interests (like numerology, 666, etc.) intothe category. Even within a "category", the way a certain individual's religion affected their work would not mean the same thing for, say, an 11th-century Muslim scholar, a 15th-century Muslim scholar, or a 21st-century math Ph.D. at the University of Michigan; lumping them together in a category would be misleading. Not to mention the difference between Catholic, various flavors of Protestant, Orthodox, etc. Not to mention that some of us raised as both Christian and from a strongly scientific background may actually be offended by this; I was taught that overtly coloring scientific study with any kind of religious justification (e.g. asserting that a scientific fact is proven by a Biblical passage) in a scientific context was a violation of the (Catholic) second commandment. Using a category washes away all subtlety, individuality, and interpretation, and misleads readers into thinking scholars held a set of beliefs that the actual individuals did not have. A category describes a set; if it's not going to be applied to all members of the set, the category should not be defined. Many Wikipedia editors are quite literal and will not be influenced by nuances of interpretation. Avt tor 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • • Some valid points there. Still I think there's enough historical validity something like it makes sense. Although perhaps Category:Mathematicians by century deals with history of math well enough. Yet I'm not sure as there are cases where religion was so significant to a mathematicians life and career without implying numerology, like Augustin Louis Cauchy. Perhaps lists would be better, but I'm not sure how many of these lists I'll get away with. Lists tend to be deleted just as fast or faster than categories. I wished I, or anyone, had thought of a rename that could've worked.--T. Anthony 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I would not be surprised at all to learn that religion affected some mathematicians, scientists, whatever. But I'm also pretty sure that some Wikipedia editors will not use judgement. That's why I think this is a biographical detail only on pages where it's relevant, not a valid encompassing category. Avt tor 21:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per Colage. The lnks are not strong enough justify a category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• CommentThe rename solution is extremely awkward. If the supercategory Mathematicians by religion is the main problem, why not change that to Mathematicians by worldview, which can comfortably hold Pythagoreans, atheaists, and religionists of all stripes?--ragesoss 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try something like that, but I think it'll just confuse people and tick them off.--T. Anthony 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all fringe intersection; not clear that the proposed names match the existing purpose or have a worthwhile new purpose. Hoylake 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all, and oppose rename in any case. The suggested rename is awkward, and in no sense an improvement. To be addressed is the relevance of such categories. Is there such a branch of mathematics known as "Christian Mathematics?" Christian figure skaters may pray to a different god than Hindu figure skaters before a contest, but they both do pretty much the same thing when they get on the ice. Mathematicians, whatever their inspiration, either succeed or fail to reveal important mathematical principles that advance the world wide, cross cultural science of mathematics. More significant would be to categorize by field of mathematics, or perhaps historical age based on whether they predate an important mathematical development.zadignose 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do explain Vedic mathematics based on a Hindu religious text, the Vedas (root of Hinduism). Also check out the Jagadguru above as well as Sulba Sutras.Bakaman 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay[4] zadignose 22:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ever read WP:RS ? "South Asian Communalism Watch"is partisan and unreliable, with ties to Maoist, Islamist and other groups. Its like asking Osama to define the roots of Western civilization. Your use of this repository of nonsense did serve a purpose. It obviously indicates a predilection against a certain group that is inherently opprobrious.Bakaman 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absurd. You're pretty much calling me a bigot, but the source of my reference is the very article that YOU cited! Furthermore, it is made explicit in the main Vedic Mathematics article that Tirthaji only claimed that the Vedas were the source of his text, for which there exists no evidence. The above mentioned group, whatever their supposed "bias" is not alone in challenging the legitimacy and mathematical significance of so called "Vedic Mathematics." Other links are provided.[5] And this is all entirely irrelevant to whether mathematicians should generally be categorized by religion. If a branch of mathematics exists, its author can be categorized by field of mathematics, rather than religion, regardless of what his inspiration may have been.zadignose 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and Strong Oppose rename -- Avi 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point I'm tempted to vote against the rename and I've tried umpteen variations. None of them sound right. Maybe the simpler name was the best possible.--T. Anthony 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as irrelevant intersection. One could argue that a poet's or writer's work is influenced by xyr religion, but a mathematician's work would not be given the nature of math. >Radiant< 12:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all as largely irrelevant intersection. Osomec 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as is. I accept now that the rename idea has zero interest, but I'm very against delete.--T. Anthony 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Baka, D-Boy and others... Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as is per others. Arjun 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep - Many scholars have been religious people and have been involved with religion. Abdus Salaam was very devout Muslim and Ramanujan a devout Hindu.Their religious affiliations are important enough to be listed and categorized for that reason alone. Wikipedia should not judge religion. The articles on mathematicians are not just about their mathematics but also their lives. In many cases, religion played an important role for them. Thus, if somebody is interested in the religious beliefs of mathematicians then they can use this category to their advantage. As for renaming, I fail to see the point. Why use such roundabout language?Keep things direct. We can discuss what the criteria are for categorizing mathematicians by religion in the category introduction and exclude those mathematicians who were never involved in religion.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had initially hoped that some kind of rename could be decided that would mollify the criticism. However there was no rename idea I could think of that worked or was coherent and no one else had any ideas. So I switched to keep as is. I didn't withdraw the rename proposal because if someone wants a rename, no one did so far or had any ideas, I figure that's their right.--T. Anthony 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Both ancient Egypt and ancient Greece are proud of their mathematicians. Indians are attached to those who have worked on Vedic mathematics. This cat can't hurt and people would like to know more about the contributions of their countries to Mathematics. _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Which is why we have categories for mathematicians by nationality, but these are not the mathematician by country categories. Pinoakcourt 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Umm s/he was making an analogy to Hindu. You are aware that "Hindu" is a term that applies to most people from India before Islam? (Exempting Jains, St. Thomas Christians, some Buddhists, and a few others. The Parsi didn't even really arrive until Islam began)--T. Anthony 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as is - It's a legitimate category (and far moreso than an awful lot of cats). Oppose Rename - the new names are too wordy, let's keep it simple. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Having a professional described by his nationality, ethnicity or religion is a total legitimate thing and I see no harm in it. But please do not rename the categories. Mathematicians who advocated Christianity means that as a mathematician he preached Christianity. It should be kept as Christian Mathematician and so on. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know we might have the odd situation where Category:Mathematicians by religion lives, but Category:Scientists by religion dies. Possibly there's a logic to that as math seems to have a higher rate of theism or religion compared to other non-social sciences.--T. Anthony 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Religion only very rarely relevant. Pinoakcourt 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you check the names in the category to know that? Mathematicians are people, they aren't simply tools to perform mathematics. Religion can effect how people's careers go even if it doesn't effect the math itself. Example if they work mainly in Christian or Islamic schools becauseof their faith. (Although in the case of the Grandi's series I believe he was doing it to prove God or something, so it can even impact the work)--T. Anthony 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Religion rarely affects work. Not enough examples where this would be relevant to justify a category. This is not "harmless", IMO. Also, lumping Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox together as "Christian" significantly fails to clarify any social/political/religious distinctions. Avt tor 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong delete as a marginal intersection which implies a significant connection which in most cases is not there. Sumahoy 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all, perfectly irrelevant overcategorization. Unless there is a "Christian way to do mathematics", or a "Hindu Trigonometry" or "atheist boolean", then this is the very definition of overcategorization. One cannot write an article on these topics. Therefor one cannot advocate for a category. — coelacan talk — 09:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you read on Shiva Sutras? That is Hindu mathematicsBakaman 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it isn't. It's linguistics and numerology. — coelacan talk — 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose rename and delete all per Dr. Submilimeter. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Fooian cast. Vegaswikian 21:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Law & Order actors, Category:Law & Order: Criminal Intent actors, Category:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit actors, Category:Law & Order: Trial by Jury actors, Category:Conviction actors

Rename as Category:Law & Order cast, etc. At present these categories contain any actor who so much as set foot on screen as a cop, a witness, a suspect, a lawyer, or a clerk. Precedent here and here indicates a consensus for categorizing regular cast members rather than guest actors. Kafziel ^Talk 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Concur with renaming. >Radiant< 16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom or Rename per others. Xiner (talk, email) 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Although I prefer to see all these cast categories deleted and listified, in terms of its name, yes, rename because it is impractical to category 80% of all working TV actors for having guest starred in a long-running series like this. Doczilla 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete them all If we allow Jerry Orbach to be categorized by Law & Order and not for his Tony Award winning appearances, like Chicago, we are sending the message that TV is more notable than Film or Theatre. Having other actors in categories in which their performance was not very notable, and ignoring significant contributions in other media is a bad idea. Fully categorizing performers in categories for every production they appeared in is a bad idea. The only workable solution is to remove all categories like these. -- Samuel Wantman 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: No offense, Sammy, but that sounds like bad reasoning and a little biased. I won't argue TV versus other mediums wiith you, but I'd hope you can be more objective, if not open minded, in the future. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • First of all, my name hasn't been Sammy since I was 5. "Sounds like bad reasoning" is not an argument. What is bad about it? Maybe I haven't been explicit enough, maybe you do not understand my reasoning. Discussing my objectivity and open-mindedness is pointless. Address what I said, and I will respond. My point, is that everyone is talking about whether these TV cast categories make good categories. I want to discuss what they do to articles. They lead to overcategorization and category clutter. If only some are removed it categorizes some actors by their non-notable performances while ignoring notable performances elsewhere. What is wrong with my reasoning? -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I, for one, can't make heads or tails of your reasoning, let alone understand how it applies to any guidelines, policies, or precedents. Perhaps you can provide a different example? The Jerry Orbach one doesn't make sense, since he worked on Law & Order longer than any other project in his life. Saying it's inappropriate to categorize him as a cast member because the role was somehow "non-notable" just makes your argument come off like an anti-television rant. Kafziel ^Talk 14:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sorry, I've been having this same conversation in so many different places. Here's the unabridged version: The problem is not the categories, it is the articles. Having any categories that include TV shows is not a workable solution. I'll give you an example of why. Take Jerry Orbach, who is categorized in Law & Order category, or Ned Beatty who is categorized as a cast member of Homicide: Life on the Street, in both cases, these actors were notable main cast members of the shows. Someone looking at Jerry's categories might wonder why he isn't in a category for Chicago, a role that brought him fame and a Tony Award on Broadway, comparable to his fame on TV with Law & Order. Someone look at Ned's categories will also notice that he appeared in M*A*S*H (not one of the main characters), and inevitably will wonder, why he isn't in a category for Deliverance? Deliverance was the role that made him famous, and his role on M*A*S*H was not memorable. The TV categories will make sense -- they will be fully populated, but the category listings on pages for individual actors will never look right if only some notable and non-notable TV shows are listed, but no other performances. The argument that we should allow all performances to be categorized does not work because it will lead to massive overcategorization and clutter. Many actors have over a hundred appearances. Leaving just TV will make it seem that only the TV performances are significant for actors who worked in several media. This is especially the case for actors that had a major career in Film or Theatre and less of a career on TV. For example see the categories for Laurence Fishburne. I cannot think of any way to draw a line -- on which performances belong categorized and which do not -- that make the categories make sense, and also make the categorizations for each article make sense. The only workable solution is removing all these categories from every media. It is also, by far, the easiest system to maintain. Sometimes less is more. This information can be better presented by having filmographies and cast lists. These lists provide more information, while removing all the category clutter. We need to adopt a very simple rule "No artist should ever be in a category for a production in which they participated". -- Samuel Wantman 23:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I'm not sure about these cast things myself, but there are actors that seemed to be associated with one TV role in a way a bit unlike film. For example Cynthia Geary is known pretty much just for Northern Exposure, Patti Yasutake for Star Trek: The Next Generation, etc. There are some actors known for only one film, but generally with films we'd be listing even more things I think. Live theatre, rightly or wrongly, doesn't reach near as many people.--T. Anthony 07:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Samuel, it still comes off as an anti-TV rant, but you're almost valid point. Thing is, you're assuming that there cannot be categories for "Chicago cast" and such. Furthermore, I think the vast majority agrees that actors shouldn't be categorized by less notable roles. That's why we're largely trading "actors" for "cast". People like Khary Payton, who may have only had minor roles in series won't count as "cast". I don't know where you got the idea that we only allow TV categorization, but if you realize that's a misconception, I think you'll see, well...how unnecessary your proposition seems. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ace, If you check out the discussion at Wikipedia:Overcategorization and the history at CfD, you will find that the consensus has been to not categorize actors by their film and theatre performances. That is where I "got the idea" that we only allow TV categorization. Whenever this issue comes up for films and theatre, it is routinely deleted, and whenever it comes up for TV the result is "no consensus (keep)". The historic reason for this is that there is a huge community of editors working on TV articles that get upset whenever these categories are nominated. Now, as you say, "I think the vast majority agrees that actors shouldn't be categorized by less notable roles", and I'll agree with you. But that is the very problem. If an actor was part of the cast of a TV show, his/her article will be categorized as being in the cast. Take Rock Hudson, for example. He is in Category:Dynasty actors. Dynasty is the only category in which he appears for a production in either TV or Film. He was one of the main cast members on Dynasty, but it is easy to argue that his starring role in the film Giant is as notable, or more notable. So we have four choices:

1. Put all actors in categories for all their appearances in productions from any medium.
2. Put all actors, in categories only for their notable film and theatre roles, or for being in the main cast of a TV production.
3. Allow these categories in notable roles in some medium (TV) and not in others (Film, Theatre). This is what we have been doing recently.
4. Get rid of these categories altogether.

The problem with the first two options is that it will result in a huge number of categories for many actors. Consider how many categories people like Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, and Jimmy Stewart would be in. The second and third options have the POV problems that come with deciding what is "notable", which will result in non-ending editing disagreements and CfD nominations. The third option also has the disadvantage of making one medium appear to be more significant than another. All of the first three options will result in editors adding more and more categories to the articles about actors. Even if we choose option three, it is only a matter of time that someone editing Rock Hudson wonders why there isn't a category for the cast of Giant and decides to create it. Allowing some categories and not others will continue the endless debates we have about these categories. The only option that gets this under control is the fourth one.

What people seem to be forgetting is that Categories are a method of browsing. If every actor has a filmography, you can browse through their films and TV performances. If every TV production or Film has a cast list, you can browse through the articles. It seems impractical to turn filmographies and cast lists into categories. There is no advantage to be gained by making all these categories, just disadvantages. On the other hand, banning these categories has many advantages: the information will be presented in a much better fashion (lists instead of categories); the CfD debates will end (all categories created could be speedied); all media and all productions will be dealt with the same way; the POV problems of determining "notability" will be avoided; and the categorization system will be easier to maintain. I think it is a simple and clear choice. Delete all these categories. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would point out it isn't just the POV problem with "notability". There is also a POV issue with "cast". With the TV cats, the hope is that it will be read as "regular" or "recurring" so that one shot guest cast and cameos get weeded out. But the term can be read as "any actor, credited or not, that appeared in the show."
For movies it becomes more of a problem. In most cases you are dealing with individual pieces of work, so "cast" is everyone that appeared in it, "recurring" and "regular" cannot be applied. The hope becomes that the cats would limit to "primary" or "principle cast" but that becomes POV.
Play cats would be worse still. Not only do they have the movie situation, but there is also the fact that the plays can, and ar, staged in multiple venues with different actors participating. Not only would the be the POV of "principle cast" but of "primary troupes."
Personally, I like the idea of listifying the TV cast cats, splitting the cast and appearance lists off of the larger respective show and actor articles, and deleting and salting the cats. That should yield usable information and a workable, NPOV system with 4 to 6 cats (Lists of roles by actor, Lists of cast by film, Lists of cast by television show, Lists of cast by play, etc).
I do have a concern though that this would move Wiki into being something akin to the IMDb. — J Greb 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to comment on the media issue, one of the first times this issue came up in a big way there were a mixture of film and TV series, because at that time the parent, actors by series, contained all the categories. It was only later that the parent was subdivided into film and TV. I have been curious why none of the film series have been nominated since that time. Tim! 09:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated several theatre cast categories that popped up, and they were deleted. If I thought there was any chance of success, I'd be happy to nominate all of the film series actors to be listified. I'd nominate the TV ones as well. Perhaps the way to go about this is to make the replacement list first, and then nominate the category for deletion. -- Samuel Wantman 09:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Comment: Film and theatre may be more artistically significant, but television is more socially and thus broadly culturally important. :) Avt tor 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to cast and oppose deletion. More detailed reasoning here. Tim! 09:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FYI, interesting essay Tim, but I do disagree with you when it comes to actor-by-tv-series categories. I posted my reply for reference to your essay on the its discussion page. Dugwiki 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to cast, remove one-time guests from categories, but keep renamed categories per Tim!'s argument. Of Samuel's list of options, I think #2 is the most reasonable; the distinction between a regular or recurring role and a guest appearance is an easy one to draw, so once the consensus becomes clear editing disagreeements and CfDs should calm down. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename and it seems quite sensible for someone to nominate a deletion of all such categories, so we can discuss that subject further, in one place. Samuel's argument is sensible, and compelling, and so far his proposal has my vote. But it deserves consideration in any case, and shouldn't be mixed in to the rename debates for every such related category.zadignose 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete for reasons offered by Samuel. This is part of a larger, ongoing debate about TV casts in general. I see this as a really bad case of overcategorization. Use lists. Use series boxes. Use something other than a category to capture this type of information. It does not rise to the level of needing to be a category! (And Ace, I am definitely not an anti-TV person, so please don't ascribe that motive to me. I do know something about the effective organization of information, and this does not strike me as a good example of it.) If you keep the category, than rename it. --Vbd 08:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per Samuel Wantman (overcategorisation).

Xdamr^talk 12:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename as cast to eliminate minor roles. Weak keep, I suppose, as I think some of the main actorshave become known for this. Avt tor 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per Wantman. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 merge. the wub "?!" 14:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Modern rock radio stations, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. The Rambling Man 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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. the wub "?!" 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Presbyterian actors into Category:Christian actors

Granted I'm proposing renaming Christian actors, but either way it goes I'm proposing this be merged with its parent. It's not distinctive or large enough to be separated out. The previous, recent, nomination was part of a block nomination concerning Category:Actors by religion, it didn't deal with whether this should be upmerged or not.--T. Anthony 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upmerge per nomination. I'm sorry that Category:Christian actors survived its CFD in December, but if we are going to categorise actors by religion, there is no need to divide Christian actors by denomination. (How would a Presbyterian actor differ from a Methodist actor?). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Upmerge per nomination. I'm also very sorry about the December result, it set a very bad precedent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Upmerge I'd rather see these deleted, but oh well. Xiner (talk, email) 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Upmerge all - Religion generally does not influence people's acting careers. The December decision should be reviewed at some point. Dr. Submillimeter 20:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems a bit sour grapes to me. There was a CfD and the delete side didn't win. Maybe that upsets you, but at some point that side should move on.--T. Anthony 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am just being factual. The discussion on Category:Christian actors reached no consensus. That means that no satsfactory conclusion was reached in the discussion. Further review of the category would be warranted at a later point in time. Dr. Submillimeter 09:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Well, these are all up for renaming one section down. They can just easily be deleted right now if everyone in this discussion is on the same page. Kafziel ^Talk 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Consensus can change. Delete all -- Samuel Wantman 07:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete All (per Submillimeter) but failing that, Upmerge. --Colage 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete The emerging consensus below is to rename/repurpose the parent category to Category:Actors in Christian media whcih this should not ber merged to. Eluchil404 12:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly I don't see much of any kind of concensus on anything below.--T. Anthony 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge/delete as overly specific. >Radiant< 12:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per arguments in the discussion below. Osomec 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as overly specific and minimally relevant to their careers. Pinoakcourt 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per DocZilla's citation, or if consensus is not obvious (though most peoples' first choice appears to be delete), then upmerge as a last resort. — coelacan talk — 09:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete if possible, Merge otherwise. Avt tor 15:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 all. the wub "?!" 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose rename or replacing

Category:Actors by religion with Category:Actors in religious entertainment

Category:Christian actors with Category:Actors in Christian entertainment

Category:Mormon actors with Category:Actors in Mormon entertainment

Category:Hindu actors with Category:Actors in Hindu entertainment

Category:Sikh actors with Category:Actors in Sikh entertainment

I know this basically re-purposes the categories, but I think that might be worth discussing. I also know this was put up for delete recently, but I'm not putting these up for delete as I clearly believe they can be useful if done correctly. (Although as always you're free to vote delete if you choose)--T. Anthony 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all, I think that in general, Occupation by religion categories are a bad idea, except in the few cases where religion is relevent to the occupation. See also the December 27th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides our differences on the matter deletion would probably get no concensus again. This at least is something of a compromise that will likely result in some names being removed as now being irrelevant.--T. Anthony 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify ... I don't think this counts as a rename, it's not something which we would want a bot to do. The proposed new categories ought to have an entirely different and smaller population, with even some new ones. After all, one doesn't have to be Christian to appear in Christian media. My point is, this doesn't work as a rename. That being said, I think the proposed new categories are a good idea, if you want to create them, go right ahead. ... but it's not really a rename. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps, but if we deleted these and I created the "in blank" categories I would get verbally smacked by someone for recreating deleted categories. That they're not identical would likely not change that. It's not a direct rename, but I don't know how to propose "let's repurpose the following."--T. Anthony 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nomination. This is a brilliant idea, which resolves the problem discussed at the CFD in December: that relgion is irrelevenat to most actors, but that we ought to have some way of categorising that minority of actors whose religion is relevant to their work. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per inspired nom. Fully agree with BrownHairedGirl. CiaranG 17:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose and delete It solves nothing, and gives rise to more serious issues as to what may constitute "Christian entertainment" or whatever. Honbicot 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the Christian entertainment industry and Category:Christian media gives some sense on that I'd hope.--T. Anthony 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all or rename. Xiner (talk, email) 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose because the renames are not the same thing and will not have the same members. A Methodist could appear in Mormon entertainment. A Muslim actor might never appear in Muslim entertainment. You might as well recategorize fruits as colors. Delete makes more sense. Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • • What that says is that it must have bearing on their career. That's why the nomination was intended to retool it so religion would be relevant to their career. (Their career in religious entertainment) It also says it's about how categories that are not about an established phenomenon should be deleted. Christian Actors.org and 10,400 hits indicates to me that even "Christian actors" is an established phenomenon. (Muslim and Hindu don't do as well in this test, but many of them are in non-English speaking nations so searching for "Hindu actor" is less useful)--T. Anthony 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See also Occupation by religion categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename IF repurposed (or rather, create the new categories--whichever). X by religious entertainment will probably end up subcatted into X by religious films which is okay I suppose. This is like Singers by style -- a genre category. --lquilter 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all. Sorting any profession by religion isn't useful except in the rare instance that religion is an important aspect of the profession (such as clergy or talk circuit speakers). Kafziel ^Talk 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose rename/Keep - How many times do we need to CFD this? Its not like its ending in consensus.Bakaman 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as a mostly irrelevant intersection. The proposed names are just confusing. Chicheley 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep--D-Boy 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete or keep as is The meanings are different , and the people should not be transferred from one to the other. DGG 04:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete or Keep. The rename just does not seem correct. Vegaswikian 07:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose/Delete - "Christian Actors" (for example) and "Actors in Christian Entertainment" imply two very different meanings. How one's religion makes a meaningful impact on acting is beyond me. --Colage 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Chincheley and others. -- Samuel Wantman 09:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all then create and populate the proposed categories. There is not enough overlap in the repurposing (which is an excellent idea) to have it be done by a bot. Eluchil404 12:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm not a terrible idea. I'll think on it.--T. Anthony 12:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all Why should anyone care about the religious thoughts of actors? Hoylake 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all - Although religion may be important to some actors and actresses, religion is generally not a major factor for the vast majority. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete/Oppose rename for all I understand how religion may influence science (see CFD above) but it is absurd for actors. As an example, most Indian Muslim female actors are not very conservative or anything, so no impact can be observed. They don't wear the burka in films! Also per Hoylake and Dr. Sub. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and Strong Oppose rename -- Avi 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, no opinion on the rename. Seems to me we shouldn't be subcatting professions based on the religion of people. If people are activists or strong advocates of their religion (and it seems most are not), we should have unrelated cats for that. >Radiant< 12:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all 99% irrelevant. Osomec 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all Religion has very little to do with acting. Pinoakcourt 14:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why I'd proposed a rename, so we would limit to the cases where religion is relevant. (Non-Christians do Christian entertainment, but religion is still relevant in those cases)--T. Anthony 10:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep- Precedent with Category:Muslim actors and Category:Jewish actors. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all actors by religion, in fact all occupations by religion. Generally not relevant and sometimes will be contentious for no good reasons. Avt tor 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all as marginal intersections. Sumahoy 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all, overcategorization, meaningless as "intersection". There's nothing religious about these acting careers. The editors arguing on precedent forget that precedent doesn't exist on Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 09:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per Prove It. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. In September 2005, Category:Cycles was deleted after a previous CfD. A user, RayTomes, who was deeply involved with that category has now created a nearly identical category. Also see the relevant AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle studies. The nominator in the 2005 CfD used the term silly to describe the category, and that rationale is still valid today. Also note that there is a List of cycles already. Tim Shuba 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - This category is being used to collect all articles with anything to do with periodicity (sunspot cycle, business cycle, circadian rhythm, etc.). Aside from the fact that these things occur in cycles, they have nothing in common. Hence, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note to administrator - When Category:Cycles was deleted, multiple sockpuppets voted for keeping the category. Please watch for sockpuppets on this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Dr S. The Rambling Man 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete recreated previously deleted category (only thing that changed is "Cycle" instead of "Cycles") Dugwiki 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, speedily would do no harm. As per nom, old CfD and everything else. --Pjacobi 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 all. the wub "?!" 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Actor Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Actress Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Adapted Screenplay Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Animated Feature Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Art Direction Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Animated Short Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Cinematographer Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Director Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Documentary Short Subject Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Documentary Feature Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Original Music Score Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Original Screenplay Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Picture Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Short Film Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Song Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Sound Editing Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Sound Mixing Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Supporting Actor Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Supporting Actress Academy Award nominees
• Category:Best Visual Effects Academy Award nominees
• Category:Costume Design Academy Award nominees
• Category:Films featuring a Best Actor Academy Award nominated performance
• Category:Films featuring a Best Actress Academy Award nominated performance
• Category:Films featuring a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award nominated performance
• Category:Films featuring a Best Supporting Actress Academy Award nominated performance
• Category:Films featuring Best Supporting Actor Academy Award nominated performances
• Category:Films with a Best Director Academy Award nomination
• Category:Films whose director was nominated for the Best Director Academy Award
• Category:Best Screenplay Golden Globe nominees
• Category:Best Original Song Golden Globe nominees

Delete all as nominee categories, see also a related discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Rambling Man 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all. If there's strong support for these cats out of some Academy Award exceptionalism to the anti-nominee rule, then I would suggest to keep only the broadest Category:Academy Award nominees, and have put the winners cat as a subcat of nominees, and have nominees cats be removed from winners as redundant, and have some guideline somewhere that explains that this is an exception to the general rule. --lquilter 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Delete all. Categorise award winners, not nominees; the nominess can be included in lists. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all nominees categories As above, consensus is currently to categorize winners only, not nominees. Dugwiki 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, losers' category. Kafziel ^Talk 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep those for individuals as people are referred to an "Academy Award nominees" all the time, it is a career defining status. Delete those for films as the same does not apply. Chicheley 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per nom.--Supernumerary 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all. Chicheley's suggestion seems unworkable. The remaining half populated categories will just seem unfinished, and editors will quickly fill them up again, and recreate any missing nomination categories. -- Samuel Wantman 01:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment If I understand Chicheley's suggestion, would not all categories be either left alone or completely deleted, not just half-cleared? And all categories can be recreated if they are deleted; that's how the system works.--Miguel Cervantes 05:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep some, per Chicheley. Delete the rest. --Miguel Cervantes 05:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete All per BrownHairedGirl. --Colage 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per BrownHaired Girl. --MChew 11:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep cats for individuals, delete for films, per Chicheley. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete All If I want to know who has been nominated for a best actor academy award, then I'll visit the page for Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor, which already lists all the nominees. None of these need to be handled as categories.zadignose 19:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment If you want to see who has been President of the United States, you can go to the list instead of the category. Should that category be deleted as well?--Miguel Cervantes 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment No, but that doesn't mean we need a category for all Presidential Candidates, or for all people who appeared on a ballot for their individual party's primary election. The existence of categories for Academy Award winners does not necessitate the existence of nominee categories. The point of my initial comment was to say that the information is already out there, and readily available, even in the absence of this overabundance of categories.zadignose 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say this, mind you, but it would appear as I have found the next category for deletion: Democratic Party (United States) presidential nominees.--Miguel Cervantes 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. After we hash this one out, lets look at that one.zadignose 10:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. I can't understand the zeal to delete this category either, as this is basic US history, but that's another debate. Shawn in Montreal 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all "nominees" cats, including "films containing nominees". Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? >Radiant< 12:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, but maybe keep Category:Academy Award nominees, if it is characteristic of a person's career. Lists can do the job perfectly well for all the rest. For the Keep voters, please, think of Category footer readability and usability. Especially where "Films featuring ... nominees" have been applied, the result is an unusable category section. Hoverfish Talk 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all nominee categories per nominee. Avt tor 09:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On second thought, I am ambivalent about the general category "Academy Award nominees". Oscars are a bigger deal than other awards. I am still strongly in favor of deleting all the nominee subcategories. Avt tor 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• KEEP The comment above about "A Nobel prize for attempted chemistry" underscores, to me, that many not in the film business don't undertstand that an Academy Award nomination IS an award unto itself. It can, as mentioned elsewhere above, change a career in a heartbeat. You know the tired old expression, "it's an honour just being nominated?" Well, in the case of the Oscars, it's true. Shawn in Montreal 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In this case it would be best to create a generic category "Academy Award nominee" and state in the article which Award the person or film was nominated for. Hoverfish Talk 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Google returns over a million hits for "Oscar-nominated". I concur with other people above who assert how important this is within the film world. "Oscar-nominated" is often used to promote films regardless of what they were actually nominated for. A generic category will get too full too quickly. Breaking the cats out by what, exactly, they were nominated for is useful for not only us as editors but readers wanting a quick cut through all the bull. Daniel Case 06:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all nominee cats per various comments above. WP:NOT and all that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, DVD boxes often cite the nomination as a reason to watch the film. It is no mean feat to be nominated at all, it is proven that a nomination increases the popularity of a film. Furthermore, nominees are an encyclopaedic topic. Any film guide worth it's salt lists nominees as well as winners. There is nothing indiscriminate about these categories they purport to represent the pinnacle of film making achievement. Whether they do or not is a separate matter, to Joe Public, Oscar nominated = good. Mallanox 21:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 all. the wub "?!" 00:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose rename (I must've accidentally placed mathematicians here for a time, as a voter confusingly indicated this was about math, so I'm fixing it.)

Propose renaming Category:Scientists by religion to Category:Religion and scientists

Propose renaming the following in accordance.

Category:Christians in science to be left as is per Christians in Science (mentioned though for those who want a straight delete/keep vote

Category:Hindu scientists to Category:Vedic science people per Vedic science

Category:Muslim scientists to Category:Islamic science people per Islamic science article

Category:Pythagoreans is already like this by implication. It resolves some of the "atheism isn't a religion" issue and implies more than simply being a X, Y, or Z. Jewish mathematicians aren't listed as they're also an ethnicity, Muslims aren't listed because frankly I don't want more vehement Muslims seeing I CfD'd a Muslim category. (I've had an evangelical Muslim complain at my talk page before, but most Muslim Wikipedians are fine people.)--T. Anthony 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See below for T. Anthony's new suggested renames.

I'm supportive of the idea but a couple of queries. One, alas, there are lots of other "X by religion" categories. Are we going to fix them all? Treat scientists as a special case? Two, between "Scientists by religion", "Scientists by religious belief", "Scientists by religious faith", and "Scientists by belief about religion", is SBRB the clearest formulation of the category structure, to pick up Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Deists, Theists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Polytheists, Muslims, Pantheists (in no particular order) ??? Three, is this still intended to be a cat where the religion must have been notable in the career (or career must have been notable in the religion, I guess), or is it just an intersection category? --lquilter 14:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd prefer notable. Possibly "Scientists by belief about religion" would be clearer on that. I'll do that.--T. Anthony 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought of putting them all up for a rename, but I think it'll be clear the others are also based on their opinion of religions. (Category:Christians in science being the Christian opinion, etc. It says it well enough and anything else seemed horribly contrived)--T. Anthony 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scientists noted for their beliefs about or in religion? Ha. No, seriously, is there a better way to do that? --lquilter 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried one last, I hope, retooling.--T. Anthony 17:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all - Categorizing people by their religious beliefs is inappropriate unless their work is religious in nature. Dr. Submillimeter 14:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gee what a surprise.--T. Anthony 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all I have no objection to categorizing people by religion. However, Occupation by religion categories are just clutter, except in the few cases where religion is relevent to the occupation. However, this is certainly not one of these. Science is (or is at least supposed to be) entirely objective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If it's just a few cases, then why do we need a cat? List would be better. --lquilter 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  List of Christian thinkers in science itself is already pretty large and doesn't contain many Christians in science who wrote on "Religion and science." I understand "I don't like it" or "I don't think this should matter", but it has mattered in like hundreds of cases. In other religions too.--T. Anthony 17:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks for the link to the list -- helpful. So, if the categories are not small, but are in fact going to be fairly well-populated, then that brings me back to my original concern -- which is that limiting them to the set of (people by occupation) for whom their religion is significant in their careers -- is not a natural understanding of "Religious occupation name" categories. --lquilter 17:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Then I think it should be. When I think "Christian musicians" I'm not thinking "oh hey wasn't Paul McCartney baptized as a kid", or whatever, and I think in general "Christian musician" means something specific to people. Likewise if I heard say "Christians in Science" I'd think something like what that link says "those concerned with the relationship between science and Christian faith." Not just my uncle who does botany and goes to Church.--T. Anthony 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Okay, but I think that many of the people adding categories to articles, and creating new categories, are not category cognoscenti. My concern is that the category looks like a simple intersection and that people will treat it as a simple intersection, adding it willy-nilly, and filling out the structures in parallel with other structure (Methodist actors (ha), Southern Baptist mathematicians), and so on. To me, it looks like the current rules don't work, because they're not intuitive to users, and even in the various discussion fora, there doesn't seem to be consensus. Leading to inconsistency. --lquilter 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is not how it's been done in reality in this case. Look in Category:Christians in science right now and most everything fits. Still it's likely going to just be deleted, not even renamed, per "I don't understand it, so there must be no point." Ahh well, the lists will survive. Maybe I'll work on some for Hindus or Jains or whatever.--T. Anthony 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm I'm not proposing a rename to Category:Science by religion. Scientists are people, people with views about what science means to them or how it relates to other issues.--T. Anthony 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per Dr. Submillimeter, ProveIt and overcategorization guideline Trivial intersection. CiaranG 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I'm ok with sorting scientists by religion if it is restricted to scientists whose religion directly affects their scientific work. Religious historians or archaeologists who study historical artifiacts related to their faith, for example, would qualify. Or religious sociologists or anthorpologists who study societal effects of their religion. I don't see the need to include, for example, "Particle physicists who happen to be christian". Dugwiki 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we limit to social sciences I would go for delete all with no qualms whatsoever. Historians are not scientists, I am an aspiring historian, and sociologists of religion would be better dealt with as a subset of Category:Sociology of religion.--T. Anthony 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• comments: Maybe all this brouhaha points to the need for a think tank or project or new discussion on categorizing people about the intersection of identity categories (religion/religion-related, obviously, but also ethnicity/heritage/gender/sexuality). If these discussions keep coming up and ending in irresolution and/or inconsistent outcomes then the current system isn't really functioning. --lquilter 17:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all The categories are a bad idea, and a restriction to "philosophers" doesn't seem the right restriction to have in any case. Honbicot 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all and oppose renaming, which would misrepresent so many things. Xiner (talk, email) 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take out any names that don't fit the new retooling of the category. If having atheism be implied as a "religious philosophy" upsets you I can go with "philosophy of religion" instead. I've just renamed this a million times already.--T. Anthony 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep/oppose rename per things like Vedic science and archaeoastronomy and of course astronomers/astrologers (the difference was blurred in ancient India).Bakaman 23:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Vedic science can be seen as a philosophy/philosophical tradition, it won't be taken out. Admittedly what I'm suggesting is more of a retool-redefine rather than traditional rename. I think that's better than flat out deletion, which seems possible at some point.--T. Anthony 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm vacilating between rename ideas as I'm not getting much help on an appropriate one. Still the Hindu proposal is now "Vedic science people", which might deal with your objection better.--T. Anthony 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all A mostly irrelevant intersection. Chicheley 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per Chicheley. -- Samuel Wantman 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep--D-Boy 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• do not rename Christians who engage in science are not necessarily philosophers. And Scientists whose work is influenced by the Christianity are still not necessarily philosophers. There are some people who have been both, but they do not make up the whole group. The proposed names will cause so much confusion that we would soon be changing them back again.DGG 05:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing something by you elsewhere I guess I can tell you something. If you want to vote "delete all" you can, you don't have to vote on the rename idea if you prefer just deletion.--T. Anthony 06:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment This seems to just be going to delete. Is there any rename or retooling that would be an acceptable alternative to deletion?--T. Anthony 10:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition I have a question. Is there a reason categorizing scientists by ethnicity, sexual orientation, or cause of death is more acceptable? See Category:Asian American scientists, Category:LGBT scientists, or Category:Scientists who committed suicide.--T. Anthony 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional question should I add Category:Muslim scientists after all? Because if what you all want is to delete all of them keeping the Muslim one could look strange. (The Jewish one can be considered ethnicity or nationality)--T. Anthony 16:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a few were missed, like Category:Muslim scientists, then they should be added so that we can have a single discussion with a single result. Vegaswikian 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and Strong Oppose rename -- Avi 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete All, and reject rename As in the mathematicians discussion.zadignose 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all. Based on many previous discussions. This is basically a set of catch all categories. While in some cases this intersection might be notable, it is not for most of the people listed. Vegaswikian 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment since I've already said Keep all as is. It is significant for many scientists. For the Christian... group, most of them are in fact people where the interplay between the science and the religion is significant. I hadn't realized how many till I looked at the category, thus showing that the categories are useful. As for the name, generally simple names are best. Any possible ambiguity is better than the excessive fragmentation and misues; the philosophy part would just be confusing things. And I cannot see any reason why X science people is better than X scientists. It's not as if the name contained the taboo m_n. DGG 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People didn't look at the deleted Catholic one much either I fear. Even before it was CfD all but nine names, repeatedly endlessly as a justification, were clergy or monks or advocates of the Catholic Church in scientific debated.--T. Anthony 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sort of last ditch. I really want these to survive in some form as I think they can be relevant to researching the history or philosophy of science. My poor attempts at renaming notwithstanding.--T. Anthony 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, shouldn't usually subcat professions by religion. >Radiant< 12:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all Mostly irrelevant. Osomec 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as is. Sure I put this up for rename, and tried several ideas for rename, but I realize now rename is impossible. However I'm strongly/intensely opposed to it being deleted. The relation of science and religion is significant to many individuals. It's also of historical/cultural significance. Still I'll support putting them all as subcategories of Category:Religion and science rather than Category:Scientists. However there is a historical/cultural logic to them.--T. Anthony 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all These categories promote the idea that religion plays an important role in a mathematical career, when it only does so in a few select cases. Pinoakcourt 14:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete same as mathematicians. Avt tor 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep all, renamed or not It's interesting to see lists of which scientists belonged to which religion. Roy Brumback 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all as per mathematicians. Sumahoy 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all, this stuff has nothing to do with one's scientific work, as all scientists are always bound to methodological naturalism in their actual work. They might be Christians or Muslims or atheists when they come home and put their feet up, but in the laboritory, their supernatural beliefs simply do not come into play. Therefore one cannot write an article on the subject, since there's no actual intersection, and if one cannot write an article then one cannot have a category. These categories are probably more point-scoring than anything, and they certainly do not contribute anything to the encyclopedia. Indeed they may be quite misleading to readers who are not familiar with the methodologies of science. There is no Hindu Chemistry. Let's not imply otherwise. — coelacan talk — 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well as I'm kind of interested more in history, particularly History of science, I'm looking at this from a different perspective. One that I've explained a great deal, but I'll repeat one last time I guess. This is not about science being by a religion, hence it's not called Category:Science by religion. It's about scientists as people and their feelings on science/religion interactions. Those interactions have existed by the way, see History of science in the Middle Ages, Relationship between religion and science, and Category:Religion and science. In addition in pre-modern times science was seen as a form of philosophy so there were eras where there kind of was "Hindu science" or Islamic science. In addition there is no "Asian American science", but I doubt you'll get Category:Asian American scientists deleted. So why is an ethnic intersection any more acceptable?--T. Anthony 09:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say anything about science being a religion or not. I said the two things have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. A scientist in the laboratory is not a Hindu or a Christian or a strong atheist, but a methodological naturalist. If they are anything else, in the laboratory, then they are not doing science. Historical arguments are irrelevent. Whatever these people's relationships and interactions with the religions of their day, it still cannot have infringed upon their science or they weren't doing science. Science is Popperian falsifiability (and always was even before Popper formalized the notion). Religion is not. So there simply is no intersection. We can have articles on how religion has influenced the day-to-day lives of various scientists. But these categories imply an overlap, that there can be something "Christian" about particle physics, or something "Hindu" about molecular biology, and this overlap is a false construction. Category:Asian American scientists is also overcategorization. Help me find the other ethnicity-science categories and I'll nominate them all in one swoop so they'll all get deleted together. — coelacan talk — 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They aren't meant to imply an overlap in the way you mean. They aren't about "the lab" but scientists as people and their role in history. Therefore they are meant to imply scientists as people have been involved in religious writing or controversy about religion/science. I tried various methods of clarifying that, but I got no support on that. Anyway along with the Asian American scientist category I find Category:Jewish scientists, Category:Jewish American scientists, and Category:African American scientists. I doubt a CfD of those will succeed, but the idea of scientists as only interesting for their lab work is strong enough here you might have a chance.--T. Anthony 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per Dr. Submilimeter. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 speedy delete per below. Robert Moore (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Rhythmic Top 40 acts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This lists people who have appeared in a specific top 40 chart in Billboard magazine since 1987. It is the only such category within Category:Billboard charts. In the past, such categories have been deleted in favor of listifying because such categories are unweildly and less informative in terms of navigating the individuals. (This will also remove a category from Alanis Morissette, who has now beaten George H. W. Bush as the most categorized article on Wikipedia.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. JW 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Oppose trade categories that appropriate ordinary language for specific, non-intuitive, trade meanings. --lquilter 16:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, since most of the artists are already listed in their respected genres (mostly the Dance musicians and Dance musical groups categories and I'm willing to remove them from this list and place some of those that don't fit into those categories, plus I'm open to new suggestions. I thought it was a great idea at the time but now I've think it has run its course. Robert Moore 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Extremely trivial. Chicheley 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 merge. the wub "?!" 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Natives of Württemberg to Category:Natives of Baden-Württemberg

• Merging, Is this category really needed? Wouldn`t Native of Baden-Württemberg suffice? I mean natives of West Virginia when it was still part of Virginia dont have an own category either. I think, the current name and borders of the state should be used and are enough --Tresckow 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Baden-Württemberg should probably be merged too. Xiner (talk, email) 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge Only 20 articles included, opposite 93 in the "Natives of Baden-Württemberg". Apparently the distinction has not had much use. User:Dimadick

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. the wub "?!" 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States

• Rename, For consistency with similar RC diocese categories for countries/regions.. MH au 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Warrior women is not encyclopedic term for historical figures. Warrior Woman is a comic book character. JBellis 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - I would guess that "female military soldier" and "female military officer" categories exists somewhere on Wikipedia, but I did not find obvious categories in Category:Women in war. This category should probably be renamed as something. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete What exactly is a "warrior woman"? A woman who is a decorated soldier? A female police officer? A female boxer or wrestler or other fighter? Not a well defined category. Use the actual occupation of the woman instead, assuming there is even a need to sort by gender (most gender specific categories are deleted unless gender plays a particular role in the occupation). Dugwiki 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete in favour of more specific categories. Honbicot 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Colage 08:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki. Cat is too ambiguous. --MChew 11:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete We disambiguate Women in War by conflict, period and region as well as by specific occupation. This subcategory fails to make any such distinction. User:Dimadick

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 deleted as empty on 18:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC). David Kernow (talk)

Category:Computer Security into Category:Computer network security

• Merge. Apparent incomplete nomination from December 19. Relisting. Vegaswikian 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per Vegaswikian. The Rambling Man 07:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep/merge to Category:Computer security security is not solely involving networks. Encrypting your ZIP files has nothing to do with network security, your Win XP password is not concerned with netowrk security, rather keeping the rest of your family off your particular desktop. A boot sector infector from your sneakernet days is not network based. Anti-Virus programs have been around since before most people got network or internet connections to their home computers. (or even modems) 70.51.9.11 08:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 both Category:Annual activist events and Category:Awareness Days to Category:Awareness days. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Annual activist events to Category:Awareness Days

• Rename. Apparent incomplete nomination from December 14. Relisting. Vegaswikian 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Awareness days with lower case d in days per Wikipedia style title capitalization. Doczilla 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per Doczilla. The Rambling Man 08:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Awareness days per Doczilla. --lquilter 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Awareness days. Pinoakcourt 14:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 speedily renamed per below. David Kernow (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Patient's organizations

• Rename Category:Patient's organizations to Category:Patients' organizations --lquilter 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename for the obvious reason. CiaranG 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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. the wub "?!" 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams into Category:Lists of fictional characters by organisation

• Merge, Proposed cat is a smaller subset of the second cat. Second cat, while it has to potential to grow, is not large enough to subdivide at this time. J Greb 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I'm surprised Category:Lists of fictional characters by organisation isn't MUCH bigger than it currently is. How many organisations are there that play a role in fiction? Just rambling off the top of my head some organziations that aren't in this category yet: UNCLE, the Impossible Mission Force, FBI agents, CIA agents, Men in Black, various secret societies and cults, members of the church of various religions, terrorist groups, unions, mega-corporations. The potential growth of that category is huge! So while there might not be a lot there now, I could definitely see a need for subdividing in the future. Dugwiki 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and make subcat of characters by organization. It's pretty standard across these sorts of categories to break out Marvel and DC entries.
  • Comment I'd agree with that, but the cat would also need to be renamed to Category:Lists of Marvel Comics characters by organisation for consistency. — J Greb 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 Merge --WinHunter ^(talk) 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Batman villains. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Doczilla 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. --lquilter 05:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. The Rambling Man 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep The category actually looks like it's short some villains from the show (Golem and Willy the rat king come to mind for example). More importantly, though, Batman Beyond is an entirely different story continuity from standard Batman stories. "Batman" and "Batman Beyond" have almost entirely different casts of characters. So there is little redundant information between the two, and sorting out the Beyond characters from the normal Batman characters could be useful for readers interested in reading about one continuity or the other. Dugwiki 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The deciding factor for me was the use of the word "Batman." This is the only Batman that ISN'T Bruce Wayne, and that suggests his villains "belong" to a different character, Terry McGinnis.--Mike Selinker 07:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rat genera to Category:Genera of rats

• Rename, similar to Category:Genera of mice. These two have been bouncing around CFDs separately with the result that they were not renamed in the same style. Timrollpickering 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename I proposed the last rename, trying to standardize with Mice. I agree that they should be the same and don't have a preference between these two forms. ~ BigrTex 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Doczilla 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. The Rambling Man 07:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom.^T** Kingrom 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 speedily deleted per below. David Kernow (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Category:Ooccupational organizations

• speedy delete - I created it, did a preview, and still didn't see the typo. --lquilter 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Timrollpickering 02:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete per typoo. The Rambling Man 07:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 -- Drini 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Serious games to Category:to be determined by consensus

• No vote, as this is an admin sort of relisting. This category has been nominated twice before, here and here, just closed. The last has had a strong feeling for a clearer name, but rejected Category:Educational computer and video games as being too different. Category:Instructional computer and video games is one that was suggested but a wider debate is needed to resolve this one. Timrollpickering 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So is this for discussion here but no votes? Or discussion somewhere else? --lquilter 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say discussion and a suggested new name that could get consensus. Vegaswikian 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This may sound harsh but if we can't agree on what the category is, why do we keep it around? >Radiant< 16:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• My understanding of the cat structure thus far is that there are games; and then there are subcats (1) educational games (kids/YA); (2) serious games (adult educational/training + games developed to promote a product). "Serious games" is an industry term, and the industry understanding of "educational" is YA/kids.

  My own opinions are that (a) in a conflict between trade-specific usage and ordinary English language terminology we should prefer the latter (but maybe there's a guideline on this somewhere I'm not familiar with?). Here there are two industry-specific usages -- ed games as limited to YA, and "serious games". I would suggest "educational" should mean both, as it does in other "educational" categories at wikipedia. Within Category:Educational computer and video games there can be a subcat that contains "adult educational/instructional/training games" (perhaps Category:Adult educational and training games). "Serious games" hasn't made the leap from trade to ordinary Eng-language and so it reads like a simple adjectival category, and not a very clear one (hence this debate). So I would delete, and/or redirect with explanation to other relevant categories. And (b) the advertising-oriented games are a different kind of category, and, unfortunately, will be difficult to distinguish in practice from promotional tie-ins, product placements in games, and so on. So I would prefer to maybe just not address this set of games for now, or perhaps have a separate category that would be Category:Advertising with computer and video games or Category:Computer and video game-based advertising. The article Serious games should discuss the industry concept and be included in both the ad-game and ed-game cats. --lquilter 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know of the term "serious" games as having any real traction in the industry. It's just that if you ask for "educational" games, you'll be uniformly shown to the K-12 aisle. I do note the article also uses the title "persuasive games" which might be a slightly better term here (but only in comparison). At the moment, I stand by my earlier idea, which is the one given at the top. :) --Rindis 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But maybe that's because most "educational games" for adults are not really consumer home games, but are used in specific occupational settings? --lquilter 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Inherently POV. Xiner (talk, email) 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - As Xiner said, it's POV. For the most part, the games listed seem to be simulations , and categorizing them as "serious" is redundant. --Colage 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete POV term that will be unclear to nearly everyone as used. Doczilla 10:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This isn't a vote - this is a discussion to try to come up with consensus for a new name. --lquilter 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, this is a discussion. So the decision of a particular outcome is not predetermined. As with any category listed here, there are many possible outcomes. If the editors believe this discussion and the previous ones allow them to recommend deletion, then they can do that. Since this has been discussed for a while, editors are able to view the new comments and adjust there opinions on what they believe is the best action. Vegaswikian 20:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: I'm going to have to go with keep as this is an actual industry term. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I think >Radiant< has it right. There have been several attempts to find a name. From other discussions, being an industry term is not always an acceptable reason to use it as a category name. The name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I'm in the industry, and have never heard a widely accepted meaning for this term. Compare casual game, which doesn't have a category because it too is nebulous.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Delete: I'm about twelve years out of the industry, so I don't know. But it seems to me that those claiming this is an industry term should be able to offer an authoritative source. There's also POV here; you'd be surprised at what people think of as being "serious" (I have heard of both "The Movies" and "The Sims 2" being used as educational tools, the former at a post-secondary level.) Avt tor 08:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.