< March 2	March 4 >

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 09:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Shakespeare theatres, or Delete. Mostly covered by Category:Shakespeare festivals. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thousands of theatres have staged Shakespeare's works, but I don't see the benefit of recording the fact in this way. AshbyJnr 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivial, non-defining characteristic. Given the prominence of Shakespeare in the English-speaking world, I would think that a better basis of categorisation would be theatres which have not staged one of his plays, although that too would fail the triviality test. --Xdamr^talk 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete misspelled trivia lacking clear definition. Doczilla 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sierra Leone Cemeteries to Category:Cemeteries in Sierra Leone

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per naming conventions in Category:Cemeteries by country. GregorB 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and conventions of Category:Cemeteries by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per buildings and structures convention. ReeseM 14:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People on the autistic spectrum.' There was consensus for some change, and the nominated category name seems to have the most support.--Mike Selinker 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders to Category:People on the autistic spectrum

Nominator's Rationale: This was recently renamed from "Category:Autistic people", but the name is POV. Many people with Asperger's object to being labelled with the word "disorder", so there are WP:BLP concerns, as the word is often popularly used as a pejorative. Contrary to Doczilla's and Wryspy's assertions in the previous CFR, it is not NPOV to simply take the DSM's terminology as given. Per WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." There is a widespread point of view that is well characterized by the Autism rights movement article: "The basis of the movement is the view that autism is not a disorder but simply a different way of being." The NPOV policy requires recognition of this non-DSM perspective. I think everyone can agree upon Category:People on the autistic spectrum. Also contrary to Doczilla's arguments, "on the spectrum" is a legitimate descriptor of people, not simply the diagnoses themselves. As these two google searches show, usage of "on the spectrum" is applied to people extremely often, by people on the spectrum themselves, their families, and doctors. It's used both colloquially and academically, and so there's no reason for us to shy away from it. It certainly is a neutral descriptor, unlike "disorder". Rename. — coelacan — 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We just went through this (so recently that this probably qualifies for a speedy keep without renaming). A decision was made. You're offering no new argument. The DSM is an external source. While arguing against the use of the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, you're ironically pushing your own POV. If someone has not been diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder, there is no way to categorize them as autistic except by invoking POV. It's not up to us to challenge the DSM on behalf of the autism rights movement. These individuals have been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders. By your rationale, we can't categorize anything if somebody somewhere disagrees. "I think everyone can agree" is an odd, odd thing to say when you just quoted some of us who'd expressed opposing views. Not that a Google search is the best argument to use, but since you brought it up, I would point out that a Google of "autistic spectrum" will repeatedly and overwhelmingly connect the term to disorders.[1] Doczilla 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral. Although it's psychiatrically more accurate to say "disorder", the proposed change is better than other alternatives that seem likely to pop up if we don't accept this. Doczilla 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. See below. Doczilla 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter that there was just a CFD. Since I am offering new reliable sources as evidence (below), there's no grounds for speedy keep. It also doesn't matter that "autistic spectrum" is often used to speak of the disorders themselves; I acknowledged that. But I showed that it is also often used to speak of the people, by themselves and by doctors. So it's a falsity to say that it does not apply to people. You don't know what my POV is, Doczilla, so I suggest you limit your discussion to content and not editors. It's not up to "us" to challenge the DSM. But here is an M.D. saying Asperger's is "not a disorder". We know that there are reliable sources that say it is not a disorder, so the DSM doesn't get to "win" this POV push. By taking out "disorder" and simply acknowledging the autistic spectrum, we avoid taking either side. I'm not advocating for "People with autistic spectrum differences not disorders". I'm asking for a wording that does not choose sides. That's what NPOV means. It's also "not up to us" to take the DSM's side either, since we know there is a debate and reliable sources for both sides. — coelacan — 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, even people who use the DSM refer to individuals as being "on the spectrum". Temple Grandin, who consistently uses the term "disorder" and endorses the DSM, says "people on the autistic spectrum". So it's not improper usage, and that's why I said I think everyone can agree on it. — coelacan — 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you live with "Category:People with autistic spectrum conditions"? Your own Google searches clearly show more sources that say "autistic spectrum disorders" than "people on the autistic spectrum". So even though this doesn't about be about what the majority says, the "people on" version pushes POV too regarding the perspective that people are on the spectrum rather than, as the DSM says, the disorders. Wryspy 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Conditions" is not disparaging but it's also not used. It only gets 814 hits, so although it's a comfortable suggestion, I think we ought to use one of the wordings that is already established. "People on the autistic spectrum" is used by sources like the BBC and Wired, as well as United Kingdom government workgroups. I don't see any reliable sources that say anything to the effect that "on the spectrum" should not be applied to people. — coelacan — 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a subcategory of Category:People by medical or psychological condition. Wryspy 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's a useful term for this particular category. 814 ghits. It's not used. — coelacan — 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I note also that we have Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum. If that terminology is good enough for people to self-identify with, then we ought to extend the same courtesy to those people we're writing articles about. Again I note that this is a WP:BLP issue. You cannot put this category as it is currently named on articles like Amanda Baggs, Jim Sinclair, Michelle Dawson, Judy Singer, Jasmine O'Neill, Donna Williams (author), or anyone else associated with the Autism Rights Movement. That is a violation of WP:BLP. — coelacan — 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How people self-identify is not necessarily encyclopedic. Convicted shoplifters might prefer to self-identify as discount shoppers. For encyclopedic entry, we have to go with accuracy. It is accurate to say those people have autistic spectrum disorders. People can argue about whether those conditions should be classified as disorders, but it doesn't change the fact that they are classified as disorders and the terms were created as disorders. We have no reliable basis for saying someone has autism without the diagnosis of a disorder. Without the diagnosis, any use of the term either becomes POV or lacks a valid source. If the people you name have autistic spectrum disorders, then they have autistic spectrum disorders. There's a bigger battle you should perhaps fight. As long as anyone is categorized as having other psychological disorders (all of which are arguable as disorders), then this can happen. Personally I don't think anyone should be categorized by any psychological disorder. I would support a nomination to delete all psychological disorder categories on the grounds that it's an inappropriate way to categorize people. For example, depression is far too common to categorize people by it. But as long as any psychological disorder categories exist, then this one needs the title that is medically accurate. It is medically accurate to say that they have disorders because disorders are medically defined. Wryspy 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the problem at all. There are medical doctors saying it is not a disorder. I gave you a link to one, above. The medical community is divided. We don't get to pick sides and decide which one is right. I am not arguing that these people do or don't have a disorder. I could not even define the term "disorder" from a medical point of view, and I doubt that anyone involved in this discussion could (no cheating; don't google it or look it up on disorder ;-) The point is that there are reliable sources that say otherwise, and therefore in order to adhere to WP:NPOV, we have to choose a category title that doesn't "take sides". Read WP:NPOV again, please: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." Both sides are not being represented by this category title. Both sides would be represented by "on the autistic spectrum" because even people who call it a disorder (like Dr. Grandin) use this "on the spectrum" terminology. The terminology is encyclopedic. I have proved that. It is used by multiple reliable sources, which I have already cited above. So it's encyclopedic, accurate, NPOV, sourced. Please come up with an argument I haven't already answered, or actually answer my specific arguments. — coelacan — 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the medical community is "divided" makes it sound like a larger number disagree. The medical community uses the diagnostic manual. Your link to a specific doctor who disagrees is insufficient. I can also find links to doctors who don't think HIV causes AIDS. That doesn't make them right or noteworthy. Saying "people on the autistic spectrum" doesn't represent both sides either because the diagnostic manual puts the disorders on the spectrum, not the people. Wryspy 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not equipped to go out and find dozens of citations for M.D.'s arguing that Asperger's, for instance, should not be classified as a "disorder". I don't have access to those journals. But this is not predicated simply on what the psychiatric community has to say. Other widespread points of view exist, and per WP:NPOV, they must be represented. Again, people who use and endorse the DSM use "people on the autistic spectrum" terminology, as I have already demonstrated, so it does represent both sides. You're splitting hairs. Prove that there is in fact a POV that exists that says that "on the autistic spectrum" should not be applied to people. Give me one reliable sources that says that. I don't believe that this POV exists. — coelacan — 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "We have no reliable basis for saying someone has autism without the diagnosis of a disorder", you are playing wordgames. I assure you that medical doctors who dispute the classification of "disorder" are nevertheless perfectly capable of diagnosing autism. If a person is "diagnosed with autism" then they are "diagnosed with autism". It may or may not be correctly termed as a disorder, but we have reliable sourcing that they are "diagnosed with autism" so let's not pretend that we need to call this a disorder to adhere to WP:ATT. That's a big fat red herring. And regarding your "It is medically accurate to say that they have disorders because disorders are medically defined" argument, we're not here to decide what's medically accurate and what's not. Wikipedia is not where truth is decided. We can only report attributable and neutral points of view. Homosexuality was defined as a "disorder" in the United States medical community up until 1973. See Homosexuality and psychology. Does this mean that in 1972, it was a disorder? Does this mean that in 1972, it would have been NPOV to label homosexual people as "disordered"? We cannot simply say "oh, the DSM says so" and be done with it. We have to be NPOV. The DSM is not and never has been inherently NPOV. There will be a new DSM in 2011, by the way, because it undergoes continuous revision and bcause the current one is recognized by the psychiatric community to be less than ideal, and less than definitive. You cannot assign to the DSM a definitive status that not even the psychiatric community would assign. — coelacan — 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all psychiatric disorders have that problem. Either we use the psychiatric disorders the DSM defines or we avoid them altogether. They're just labels someone created. They're words to describe sets of behavior. By using terms like "austism" and "Asperger's" at all, you're already using their system of labeling these behaviors. In 1972, it would have been NPOV to say "People diagnosed with homosexuality disorder" IF they had been diagnosed despite the fact that we have now redefined those terms. However, POV would come into play there because rarely was any specific individual so diagnosed. One of my best friends gets SSI because of her Asperger's. If it qualifies you to draw disability, it's legally recognized as a disorder. Wryspy 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Having an amputated leg is legally recognized as a disorder? No, qualification for disability payments is not the same as a disorder. You are misrepresenting my argument again. I am not worried about "labelling" people, in general. There wasn't a problem earlier when the category was Category:Autistic people. That was NPOV, because both the "is a disorder" and "not a disorder" crowds endorse that terminology. My argument is merely that per WP:BLP, categories applied to living persons must be NPOV and not disparaging. Adding the word "disorder" created this problem. I have no problem with the label "autistic" and I don't see any autistic people saying that the word shouldn't be used either. So I don't know why you're on about labelling people. It's not a problem as long as the labels are NPOV. Now look, if you think that in 1972 it was NPOV to call gay people "disordered" then by the same logic it was NPOV to call them "perverts" and recommend castration and electoshock therapy in the 1920s. And it would have been NPOV to label runaway slaves in the 1850s as being "afflicted with drapetomania". Sorry, medical labelling is not inherently NPOV. But we can use "People on the autistic spectrum" here, which is NPOV, because people on both sides of the debate use that terminology and there is no citable POV that says it should not be used. — coelacan — 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course medical labels invoke POV. We're not the ones diagnosing people. We can demonstrate NPOV while reporting someone else's POV. Without POV somewhere in the chain of information, there is no information to report at all. You cannot report that someone had cancer without reporting someone else's perspective that a person was diagnosed with cancer. It's like the philosophical arguments about how you know anything exists. Back to the real world, though and addressing the first part of the last thing you said: Psychiatric disability requires a diagnosis of a disorder. You don't draw a check for being autistic without having the diagnosis of autistic disorder. You don't draw a check for having Asperger's without having the diagnosis of Asperger's disorder. The government codes these according to the medical/psychiatric terms. Wryspy 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not putting anybody's disability check at risk here. The fact is that a person draws a check for being autistic if they are diagnosed with autism. Whether or not autism is a disorder is not the same question. You seem to be saying that a person cannot be called autistic unless autism is a disorder, so everyone with autism has a disorder. But it is the question of whether or not autism is a disorder that is in play right now, not whether autism exists. Autism may exist and be something else besides a disorder. Indeed, that is the POV of the autistic rights movement, which must be represented. That's what WP:NPOV means. We do not have a choice in the matter. We do not get to decide that the DSM is better than the autistic rights movement. "People on the autistic spectrum" is used by both DSM supporters and dissenters. Thus it is NPOV. The only conceivable argument against it would involve providing reliable sources that say "on the autistic spectrum" should not be applied to people, and you are not providing any such sources. — coelacan — 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nomination. Although the majority of people who express an opinion about autism express it as a disorder, there is still a significant minority who assert that it is not a disorder. It is therefore POV for the category to call autism a disorder. Q0 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be willing to accept Category:People with autistic spectrum conditions as a compromise. Q0 13:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would I. Doczilla 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expressing Reservations Everyone is on the autism spectrum, it is according to many opinions a continuum from "normal" people to people with "autism." JoshuaZ 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This illustrates why Wikipedia shouldn't use the phrase. "People on the autistic spectrum" lacks the specific, objective definition that "People with autistic spectrum disorders/conditions" does. What does "people on the autistic spectrum" mean? Either it refers to whatever degree of autism a person has (ranging from 0 to 100, which therefore includes all human beings) or it means people with specific autistic diagnoses, in which case the category name needs to reflect its meaning more accurately by referring to the diagnostic status. Doczilla 14:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the potential for confusion here. Nobody in any citable sources is using "on the autistic spectrum" to include neurotypical people. It's clear what is meant in the citations I provided earlier of the term being used. The diagnoses of autism are not in question here, but rather the categorization of autism. I do not believe that there is a real potential for misunderstanding of the category, only semantic juggling in this debate. — coelacan — 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this something you expect to cause confusion? I was not aware of this perspective, but it seems that "on the autistic spectrum", used as I've seen, is pretty unambiguous usage. BBC, Grandin, etc., don't give any indication that they mean "everyone" when they say it. Do you expect that there are people out there who will read "on the autistic spectrum" and think "neurotypical"? If it's unlikely to be a problem of misunderstanding, then I think I'd rather solve the WP:BLP problem. — coelacan — 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the continuum is more like from "perfect" to "autistic", but that's argumentative because there is no consistent test or definition besides "I know it when I see it". So do the WP thing: choose a description that is the least negative (knowing that, as the included conditions become redefined, the names we use to describe them will change). If you think 'autistic' is negative, then any qualifier is just more noise ('disorder' sounds as negative as 'autism' to me, so I honestly can't distinguish between the names). However, if autistism can be considered positive (and I know it can), then eliminate known negative qualifiers such as 'disorder' or 'condition'. 'Spectrum' is elegantly inclusive, so Rename -- it shows the same 'good faith' that we are told to assume. --Renice 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I stand solidly behind removal of the term "disorder" from anything pertaining to autism. (Opposition to the "disorder" label is not limited to Asperger autistics btw!) I am not wild about the idea of "spectrum" to describe possible types and ranges of autisms -- most people think of a spectrum as two-dimensional (as others have said here, from "normal" or "perfect" to "autistic") whereas I see it as a lot more complex than that (a sphere?) Anyway, the spectrum part can be debated at length elsewhere. Thank you. --Bluejay Young 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Spectrum is a more neutral and accurate term. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The article for the spectrum is at Autistic spectrum, not Autistic spectrum disorders, so the name of the category should reflect that. Also, you cannot have a spectrum disorder, you have a disorder that's on a spectrum of disorders. Therefore, the current name of the category is not accurate and the proposed name (people on the autistic spectrum) is much more accurate. --James Duggan 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename. Sorry if I seem un-politically correct, but why should self-identification take precedence over academic consensus? We're talking about autistic spectrum disorders, like SPD. If you decide to arbitrarily take out 'disorder', you might as well take out 'autistic'. To be blunt, an autistic is someone who has deen diagnosed with an autistic disorder. I'm sorry people don't like the word 'disorder', but that's not reason enough to delete it. Raystorm 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not merely a question of whether people like it or not. There is significant controversy over whether or not autism is a disorder. Taking the terminology "disorder" presents this POV as correct and endorsed, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Taking the other terminology, something like "People with autistic differences" would also be a violation. The proposal is neutral; it's not just used as self-identification, it's used in the literature, it's used by doctors, it's used by the media, it's used by governments (all of which I've documented above). It's used by people who believe that it is indeed a disorder, and by people who don't. Now, as I have already made clear, the category as named is a WP:BLP violation on some people's articles. So if we want to categorize them as autistic, we have to use a name that's not a BLP violation (the category really should be removed from all of those people's articles immediately, but I've been hoping that work won't be necessary, depending on the outcome of this CFR). An autistic is someone who has autism. Whether or not autism is a disorder, or something else, is an open question. You seem to be saying that a person cannot be called autistic unless autism is a disorder, so everyone with autism has a disorder. That's circular reasoning. Medical doctors who dispute the classification of "disorder" are nevertheless perfectly capable of diagnosing autism. We can use autism categories without giving endorsement to either POV, and that's exactly what "people on the autistic spectrum" does. How else do you propose dealing with the WP:BLP violation here? I'm not saying anything I didn't say above, yet you didn't answer any of my specific responses that already apply here. I feel like you didn't even read the full discussion; I'm sorry if that's mistaken but please answer what I've already said. — coelacan — 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coelacan, I have read your arguments. The problem is the category name. Yes, there is an academical debate on this issue, whether autistic spectrum disorders exist and constitute a helpful global category or not. The term is fairly new (from 1997, I believe). It still needs a lot of research. Lorna Wing, for example, is one of the main defenders of its existance. Bishop, on the other hand, is not so sure about it. But it's not a debate about using the word disorder or not. If a category here is to exist and encompass for example people with SPD, then it's gotta have the full name given to it. I do not believe it is POV to use the name given to it. If there are people who do not like it (hence my pc remark), I guess we could create another category that could be equally exact yet devoid of what other people believe are the negative connotations of the word disorder. Like 'high-functioning autists', for example. Raystorm 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category was originally Category:Autistic people, which was NPOV and worked fine. It was changed in the CFR I linked to in the beginning. But it is false to say that there isn't a debate about the word disorder. This is one of the issues of the autistic rights movement. Their POV has to be incorporated, per WP:NPOV we cannot take sides on this. You can find many instances of the debate over the word disorder simply by googling autistic+disorder+difference. I have linked above to an M.D. who disputes the term. It's simly false to say that there is no debate. It is clearly POV to take one or the other side, as one POV is that it is a disorder, and the other POV is that it isn't, the very definition of POV is to pick one of these. And it's a BLP violation to apply it to the categories of people who regard it as disparaging. All of these problems are solved by using "People on the autistic spectrum" and I don't see you specifically disputing this terminiology, so I don't understand why you're opposing it as a NPOV fix. — coelacan — 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this, copied from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard:

I think that your name change is preferable in that it completely avoids having the lengthy (and no doubt exhausting) argument about whether or not it's a disorder. Your proposal is both neutral and fair in my eyes. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— coelacan — 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if people are so fussed about it I withdraw my objection, but I'm not nearly convinced enough to support the rename. I feel as if we're discussing at two different levels. I do not believe it is POV to call it a disorder, and I believe the debate is a different one. But if people find it 'disparaging', I'm not gonna force the issue. I'd rather have an inexact category. Cheers Raystorm 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I'm not arguing for or against the concept of autism as a disorder, and the relevant research should be (and already appears to be) laid out at the autism article, where I have no quarrel with the opening, "Autism is classified by the World Health Organization and American Psychological Association as a developmental disability that results from a disorder of the human central nervous system", and other similar statements. That's all attributable, and since it's not on a person's page, there's no BLP problem there. My concern is only that the category gets applied to people like Amanda Baggs and Jim Sinclair, and grammatically, a person with a disorder is "disordered", which may be disparaging to anyone but we know for sure that these people consider it so. Just wanted to make that clear; the autism article has no BLP issues and appears fine to me. — coelacan — 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What's wrong with "Category:Autistic people"? —Ashley Y 06:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's okay, although it did get killed through a much earlier CfD for many reasons. Autistic is not who they are as human beings, so some alternative would be preferable. Also, "people with" is more consistent with most of the larger category, Category:People by medical or psychological condition. This isn't just about categorizing them. It's also about the precedent one category sets for other categories. Doczilla 08:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Counter-proposal: set up separate sub-categories corresponding to the headings on List of people with autistic spectrum disorders i.e.

1. People with unspecified forms of autism
2. People with Asperger syndrome
3. People with high-functioning autism
4. Autistic savants
5. People with severe autism

These are a good deal more useful than one general category. These sub-categories would need a head category, with or without the word "disorder", e.g. Category:People on the autistic spectrum by syndrome. Mind you, having read JPod, I would be tempted to put Category:Wikipedians into that too. Especially Category:Wikipedians who contribute to CFD! :-) Fayenatic london (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's not exactly a counter-proposal. "By syndrome" isn't all that different from saying "disorders" or "conditions". And setting up subcategories within the category doesn't change the fact that we need to address the name of the category itself. You can have subcategories without tagging "by syndrome" on and making it even wordier in a way that does nothing to cover people's existing concerns. Doczilla 08:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weary of suggestions that are worse than either the existing name or the proposed rename, I'm changing my vote to support rename to Category:People on the autistic spectrum. Doczilla 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Since Little Rock appears to be unambiguous but the article is at Little Rock, Arkansas, I will leave a ((category redirect)). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Little Rock to Category:People from Little Rock, Arkansas

• Merge, This is a redundant subcategory of Category:People from Little Rock, Arkansas Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge redundant category. Doczilla 10:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geography (terminology) to Category:Geography terminology

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - there is no reason to have the parentheses in the category name. Not sure if this qualifies as speedy since it's not actually a typo or spelling error but if so then speedy rename by all means. Otto4711 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American labor leaders to Category:American trade unionists

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I have just been harangued for putting an American unionist who was not a leader of his union in this category. The only way I can see to make the American category as flexible, appropriate and useful as the other national categories is to rename it to "trade unionists". The existing name would need to be kept as a redirect. CalJW 21:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but wouldn't Category:American labor unionists be preferable? ReeseM 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose No reason advanced why category should be changed to improve WP. Categories and articles and names should reflect 'on the ground' reality. In the US, they are 'labor leaders', not anything else. If there are sufficient members, not leaders, to be categorized, then a higher category is needed for 'American union members' that would include the American labor leaders category. Hmains 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to all: Trying centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#centralized discussion of category naming, instead of across the many CFDs and user talk pages. Please feel free to weigh in there. — coelacan — 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American labor unionists, so that both all people in the movement of sufficently notability to have articles may be included, just as they are for every other country. Hawkestone 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I just created Category:American labor unionists and made Category:American labor leaders its subcategory. This should provide everything that is needed for the US: a place for all members and within that a place for leaders. As far as other countries, sub-categories named 'f00 trade union leaders' can be carved out of the 'f00 trade unionists' categories if there is reason to do so. Having categories that just include leaders of various organizations is normal in WP and helpful to the reader. Hmains 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose renaming. As Richard Myers points out elsewhere, this renaming overlooks industrial unionists and presumes that all labor unionists are trade unionists, which is not true. This is a larger unsolved problem with the labor categorization scheme at this time, but there is no reason to exacerbate the problem with this renaming. The reorganization by Hmains is okay unless and until a wider consensus develops. — coelacan — 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Generic fair use tags to Category:Generic fair use tags

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, no Wikipedia-related categories have the "Wikipedia:" prefix anymore. To be consistent, this would should not have the prefix either. Iamunknown 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mr. T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - serving in part as a categorization of Mr. T's performances, which we don't do. The articles are interlinked with Mr. T and each other, making this category unnecessary. Otto4711 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As stated above, a list in the article on Mr. T is preferable to a category indicating whether Mr. T appeared in the show or movie. Dr. Submillimeter 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, all these article links would be accessible from his main article, and it doesn't look like there are any articles that would be orphaned by the category removal. Seems like it can be safely removed. Dugwiki 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A substantial number of directly connected articles/sub-categories are needed to justify an eponymous category. Setting aside the 'actor by performance' categorisations, there are too few residual articles to justify it. --Xdamr^talk 15:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Soviet phraseology. the wub "?!" 11:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet expressions to Category:Soviet phraseology

• Merge - categories are redundant. Would be fine with a reverse merge if people prefer "expressions" to "phraseology." Otto4711 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Soviet words and phrases, in line with the standardisation effort which is currently underway. CalJW 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the "words and phrases" construction has tended to be for languages. Religions, ideologies, industries and the like have tended to be "terms" or "terminology." I see some measure of utility in maintaining that distinction as part of the Category:Words by language and Category:Terminology category trees. Perhaps merging and renaming the result to Category:Soviet terminology would work? Otto4711 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. "Phraseology" is correct. — coelacan — 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Comparison with the vegetarian categories was rejected. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:British teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Canadian teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Côte d'Ivoire teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:English teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Finnish teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Indian teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Irish teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mexican teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Swedish teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Teetotalers are people who do not drink alcohol for assorted reasons. While this may or may not be worth noting within articles on these people, it is generally not the reason why these people are notable. It generally brings together people who are otherwise unrelated (such as Mahatma Gandhi, Stonewall Jackson, "Weird Al" Yankovic, and Triple H). Moreover, this type of material may be difficult to verify (for example, I saw no reference to alcohol on "Weird Al" Yankovic), and whether or not the label should be applied to someone who has only been a teetotaler for part of their lives (e.g. George W. Bush) or to someone who mostly (but not entirely) avoids drinking is debatable. Furthermore, this is not a defining characteristic for anyone who belongs to a religion that forbids the drinking of alcohol (such as Islam). Therefore, I advocate deleting this category. (If anyone asks, I do not drink alcohol, either.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. CalJW 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. (Nor me.) The argument about religion is weakened by the fact that not all adherents to such religions abide by the rule, but the rest of the rationale stands. - Fayenatic london (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is essentially the same argument that was put forward in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4#Category:Vegetarians, which was kept, and most of the opposing arguments apply here too. On top of that, the historical existence of the 19-20th century teetotaler movement pretty much demands that the categories be kept. As to modern inclusions in the category, I'll answer Dr. Submillimeter's arguments at least: If a person has made it publicly known that they do not drink alcohol, and if this can be verified in their article because a reliable source makes note of it, then it's notable enough for inclusion in the category. If it can't be verified (such as the example of Yankovic), then they don't go in the category, simple as that, it's the same novel and revolutionary criterion we use for all categories. If a person is currently a teetotaler, or were when they died, then they go in the category. If they renounce it, then we take them out of the category. If someone mostly (but not entirely) avoids drinking, then by definition they are not a teetotaler and we take them out. I don't believe any of that is debatable, to be honest. The "not notable on basis of religion" thing was tried with vegetarians/Jainists and it's still spurious. Ask a Muslim if they consider it important and defining that they don't drink. I know Muslims who drink, too, so it's not really an overlap. And the fact that someone might fit in both Category:Muslims and Category:Teetotalers is not any kind of argument against either category. (And if anybody asks, I drink like a fish. A fish that ... swims in vodka, I guess.) — coelacan — 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The difference between the vegetarian category nomination and this nomination is that vegetarian editors were able to describe vegetarianism as more important than religious beliefs. However, since I am a teetotaler and I do not view my choice not to drink as being a primary defining characteristic for my biography, I know first-hand that this does not have the same importance as what the vegetarians claimed for Category:Vegetarians. This is why I am pushing this category forward for deletion. (Are you a teetotaler, coelacan?) Dr. Submillimeter 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I just told you I drink like a fish. However, I do not accept your single personal perspective as any argument for or against the category. You do not know and cannot speak for others who may view it as more defining than you do. — coelacan — 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though this characteristic is important in the private lives of individuals, it is not of an encyclopedia interest. AshbyJnr 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the primary and in some cases the only reason why people like Carrie Nation, William E. Johnson, Bishop James Cannon, Jr., and Neal S. Dow are notable. Maybe you can define "encyclopedic" for us. Are you proposing that no one would ever want to research the rise or decline of alcohol abstinence? — coelacan — 04:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - It may be appropriate to place people like Carrie Nation into an "Anti-alcohol campaingers" category. However, grouping Carrie Nation with Triple H and "Weird Al" Yankovic is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Inappropriate how? Unseemly? If they're doing it for similar reasons then I don't think the generation gap alone counts against co-categorization. — coelacan — 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The modern-day professional wrestler has nothing else in common with a 19th century anti-alcohol advocate, and neither person has anything else in common with the modern rock/pop music satirist (aside from the fact that the modern people are both still alive). Dr. Submillimeter 10:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Dr. Submillimeter. Consider creating Category:Anti-alcohol activists activists. ReeseM 14:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Coelacan actually pushed me from neutral into the "delete" camp on this one with his Carrie Nation argument. Otto4711 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Come on Otto, that's not fair. At least explain what you find is wrong with my argument, please. — coelacan — 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, um, basically all of it's wrong. Carrie Nation isn't notable for not drinking, she's notable for being a Temperance activist. Categorizing Temperance activists under the rather banal label of "teetotalers" doesn't properly describe the notability reason. Otto4711 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Dr. S and Otto4711: teetotalism is not in itself a defining attribute, but temperance campaigning may well be; I did hesitate for a time over whether a teetotal category was needed for like Matt Talbot, but then spotted that he was already in Category:Ascetics, which seems more appropriate than singling out his teetotalism. It would be useful to have a Category:Anti-alcohol activists activists, where some national sub-cats might be better called "Countryish temperance campaigners" etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Dr. S and Otto. Doczilla 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Thai terms to Category:Thai words and phrases

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per recent CFRs supporting this construction. Otto4711 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per recent consensus that makes good sense. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pali terms to Category:Pali words and phrases

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - pre all recent similar CFRs. Otto4711 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per recent consensus that makes good sense. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greek phrases to Category:Greek words and phrases

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - pre convention established by recent CFRs. Otto4711 20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per recent consensus that makes good sense. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese phrases to Category:Chinese words and phrases

• Merge - redundant category. Otto4711 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tamil terms to Category:Tamil words and phrases

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per all recent similar CFRs. Otto4711 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per recent consensus that makes good sense. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian terminology to Category:Russian words and phrases

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per recent CFRs, this is the preferred construction. Otto4711 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per recent consensus that makes good sense. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish phrases to Category:Spanish words and phrases

• Merge - redundant category. Otto4711 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, redundant. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - few enough items that the distinction isn't necessary. --Closeapple 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish terms to Category:Spanish words and phrases

• Merge - per recents CFMs, this is the preferred construction. Otto4711 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, redundant. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - few enough items that the distinction isn't necessary. --Closeapple 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sanskrit terms to Category:Sanskrit words and phrases

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per many recents CFRs indicating "words and phrases" is the preferred construction. Otto4711 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per recent consensus that makes good sense. — coelacan — 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Unassessed-Class articles, convention of Category:Articles by quality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Unknown-type children and young adult literature aricles into Category:Unassessed children and young adult literature articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Unassessed children and young adult literature articles, convention of Category:Unassessed-Class articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Doczilla 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Catholic martyrs to Category:Catholic martyrs of the Early Modern era

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to distinguish this category from the existing categories for martyrs of the Roman or Medieval eras (most of whom are also honoured by the Roman Catholic church). If agreed, I will set up a corresponding category for the Modern era and move the relevant articles. The Protestant category will likewise need to be split (which will not be contentious after this one) and I will add Orthodox categories as required. Fayenatic london (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Oppose. just create Category:Catholic martyrs of the Early Modern era and move all relevant articles. I think we should keep Category:Catholic martyrs to avoid flooding Category:Christian martyrs with subcategories.---23prootie 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Actually, although you have struck out your own suggestion there, it's not a bad idea. I would then keep Category:Jesuit martyrs and Category:Martyred priests as subcats of Category:Catholic martyrs; and set up Category:Christian martyrs by historical era as a new subcat of Category:Christian martyrs and therefore minimise the subcats of the latter, as you suggest. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Category_talk:Christian_martyrs for proposed scheme of up to 8 mutually exclusive historical categories. Specific categories like priests & Jesuits would be additional categories on relevant articles. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseYeah, I think the more detailed one is better. --23prootie 19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. If anyone creates Category:Large and boring places I think this consensus may be held to apply equally. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk)

• Delete – subjective. The only way to avoid conflict over such cats is to include everyone's ideas of interesting places, which would not be useful. ×Meegs 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. subjective and fairly pointless. — coelacan — 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There are lots of tiny and interesting places all over the world. If we can group them all in a category it would be great, because anyone could check that category in the Wikipedia, and then visit these tiny, cute and interesting places that are spread all over the Earth. So there is no reason to remove it, but a strong reason to keep it alive: to group all these places in a single category so anyone can check them, read their articles, and then visit the places IRL. Onofre Bouvila 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - La Timba does not seem very tiny to me. It's 2 km long. Dr. Submillimeter 08:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because "interesting" is incredibly POV/subjective and "tiny" is also POV/subjective (though not as much). And removing both of those would leave us simply with "Places". There's really no way to salvage this one, unfortunately. Xtifr _tälk 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Travel magazine stuff. AshbyJnr 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Besides the POV problems, this category has a very silly name. Dr. Submillimeter 08:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly, subjective category. Doczilla 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Fusekis to Fuseki, Josekis to Joseki. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. "Fusekis" does not sound right, as "Fuseki" is enough to imply it is plural. Same for "Josekis" -> "Joseki". CanbekEsen 16:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Fuseki" and "Joseki". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. bleeagh. this is just as unattractive as sheeps, deers, or meese as a plural for moose. LordAmeth 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Fuseki" and "Joseki". Certainly not a common enough term in English to warrant an English "s" ending. BilabialBoxing 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Guilford County Elementary Schools into Category:Elementary schools in North Carolina. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Elementary schools in North Carolina, convention of Category:Elementary schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn and renominated.--Mike Selinker 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations to Category:ASEAN

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Based on my previous arguments as well as consistency with the articles and subcategories within that section as well as consistency with the usage of "ASEAN" within its own article as oppose to the usage of "Association of Southeast Asian Nations". --23prootie 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since ASEAN is not a well-known acronym. However Category:ASEAN should be kept as a redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So should we also renameCategory:NATO to Category:North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Category:CARICOM to Category:Carribean Community just because there are some people who do not know what they mean? Also can you explain your stance?--23prootie 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep so that people will to able to see what the category is for even if they do not know what ASEAN stands for.AshbyJnr 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think that's the point of the article. If you don't know what it stands for read it. Anyway, most people who would end up in this category would probably know what it stands for so its not important if everyone knows what it means or not.-23prootie 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename ASEAN is well known. 70.55.84.23 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe in some limited area, but clearly not everywhere. Vegaswikian 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename We already have precedent for using acronyms, ie NATO etc. That being the case this boils down to an argument re. what the 'average user' understands. Setting aside my view that most well informed international affairs types will understand very well what ASEAN is, the use of the acronym is widespread in the articles and sub-categories. Amongst others we currently have sub-categories for ASEAN Heritage Sites, ASEAN events, ASEAN laws, etc, etc, etc. We also have extensive use of ASEAN within articles, not least the main article itself - ASEAN. As a result I support renaming, if for no other reason than for the category to match its article.

This is Wikipedia, from time to time we will all come across things that we don't understand. If you don't understand 'ASEAN' then take a look at the article - simple.

Xdamr^talk 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a universally know acronym like NATO. Vegaswikian 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the people who don't know ASEAN also don't know the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.--23prootie 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Withrawing nomination- move discussion to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6#Category:ASEAN. --23prootie 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? This is an ongoing debate, why end it prematurely only to duplicate it?

Xdamr^talk 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Politics of Georgia (U.S. state), convention of Category:Politics of the United States by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom; facts are as stated 67.174.57.188 21:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People from Halifax, West Yorkshire. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Halifax, Nova Scotia with Category:People from Halifax, Nova Scotia is a community and former city of Halifax Regional Municipality with a population 4 times that of Halifax, West Yorkshire Mayumashu 09:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. But some of the people currently in this category are Canadian, not English, and should be moved to the appropriate category. LordAmeth 15:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:People from Halifax, West Yorkshire, per the name of the article.

Xdamr^talk 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People from Halifax, West Yorkshire per X. — Dale Arnett 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hip hop songs popular at sporting events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Rock songs popular at sporting events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Songs popular at sporting events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - A very trivial way to categorize songs. "Popular" is a POV determination. Otto4711 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, but move Category:Fight songs into Category:Sporting songs. I must admit, I kind of like the cats for browsing, but the criteria are irreparably subjective and will inevitably lead overpopulation and disputes distributed across its member pages. I just discovered List of baseball entrance music, which has some problems, but looks like a good model for representing these sorts of sets; it lists the song, when they're played, and references every entry. Similar lists could be created for songs that teams play after victories, adopted theme songs, etc. ×Meegs 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I am guessing that Otto has omitted Category:Sporting songs, Category:Rugby songs, and Category:Football songs and chants from this nomination because they're intended for songs written for or written about sports. That's fine with me, but if anyone is looking for a project, there seems to be a lot of miscellaneous "songs popular at sporting events" that could be purged from these cats too. ×Meegs 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - The category's inclusion criteria are subjective. Moreover, similar categories have been deleted before. Dr. Submillimeter 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for subjective inclusion criteria. --Xdamr^talk 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus Tim! 10:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian labour union leaders to Category:Canadian trade unionists

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, From what I can gather from the articles, both "trade union" and "labour union" are used in Canada, but the former seems to be somewhat more common. If this category is renamed it will match most of the categories for other countries and also category:Trade unions of Canada. If this proposal is implemented the current version should be retained as a redirect. CalJW 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. ReeseM 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to all: Trying centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#centralized discussion of category naming, instead of across the many CFDs and user talk pages. Please feel free to weigh in there. — coelacan — 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I see no benefit in restricting the category to leaders. Hawkestone 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose renaming. As Richard Myers points out elsewhere, this renaming overlooks industrial unionists and presumes that all labor unionists are trade unionists, which is not true. This is a larger unsolved problem with the labor categorization scheme at this time, but there is no reason to exacerbate the problem with this renaming. — coelacan — 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Back to the Future cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The articles on the films and anmated series include cast lists that cover the territory. Otto4711 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 10:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games with time travel to Category:Time travel video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, simpler name in line with categories like Category:Time travel films. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That goes in the category below us ^^; Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The proposed changes the meaning by implying that time travel is the main characteristic of the games, whereas the existing name suggests it might just be one feature amongst many. Is that appropriate? LukeHoC 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Like most of the other items in Category:Time travel in fiction, many of the items in the category do figure time travel into the plot. I fail to see a difference. If a film or book has a main character that travels through time, it is called a time travel film or book. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Yeah, I agree that the rename creates a shift in meaning. I think it is a bit more objective to describe a quality of a video game ("has time travel") then to place it in a (sub)genre like "time travel game". — brighterorange (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is just a superficial detail about the video games' various scenarios. The games themselves are unrelated. Compare, for example, Command & Conquer: Red Alert, Day of the Tentacle, Sonic the Hedgehog CD, and Where in Time Is Carmen Sandiego. These games are unrelated, which is why I vote for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the time travel films are unrelated as well, yet it is a valid genre. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A game like Okami features time travel at one point, not as a game mechanic, therefore, replacing a category saying a game features time travel to one that implies all the games in it specifically feature time travel as a major part seems wrong to me. The Kinslayer 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename. I don't care whether this is kept or deleted, but the proposed name change changes the intended meaning of the category. --- RockMFR 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wii Virtual Console games to Category:Virtual Console games

Nominator's Rationale: Delete, The article is at Virtual Console, the list is at List of Virtual Console games, so why is this different? 82.19.127.212 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The category was started when the Virtual Console article was still known as "Wii Virtual Console". TJ Spyke 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it for sure then. — brighterorange (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --- RockMFR 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. --waffle iron ^talk 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as it's useful to create a category and interesting information which doesn't really have notability concerns. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Prove It ^(talk) 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magnum, P.I. cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The article on the show lists the main and recurring cast and the vast majority of the category members are one-shot guest appearances which should not be listified. Otto4711 02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scream cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The articles on the three films contain cast lists which cover the territory. Otto4711 02:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 03:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle Royale cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The film article and List of characters in Battle Royale (film) are more comprehensive than the category. Otto4711 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alien (film series) cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. Cast lists in the various film articles cover the territory. Otto4711 02:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Games for Windows certified games Tim! 10:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games for Windows to Category:Windows games

• Merge, Games for Windows is pretty much redundant to the main Category:Windows games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, this category is about a specific branding (or certification) by Microsoft, unfortunately named Games for Windows. Merging to the parent would remove that information. I think it'd make the most sense for all of these articles to be in both category:Windows games and something like Category:Games for Windows certified games, as awkward as that sounds. — brighterorange (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - brighterorange is correct. Many of these games are PC games produced or released by Microsoft, so they should not be grouped with other Windows games. However, I do not have a good suggestion for a new name. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible names - Games for Windows Products, Games for Windows Program, Games for Windows Branded, Games for Windows Branding, or Games for Windows Certified. - sciss0rz 21:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I like category:Games for Windows certified since it is a certification process, but "Certified" isn't part of the proper name (so it should be lowercase). — brighterorange (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should maybe end with "titles" or "games" though as usually category names end in a self-explanatory way (e.g. "Category:PlayStation Portable games" rather than "Category:PlayStation Portable". Garrett^Talk 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, already resolved. Prove It ^(talk) 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The X-Files cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The article on the TV series and film, along with List of recurring characters from The X-Files, cover the territory. Otto4711 01:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pirates of the Caribbean cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seedy delete - per Listify tag. Cast lists exist in each of the three articles on the films in the series. Otto4711 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus Tim! 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor leaders to Category:Trade unionists

• Merge, as a duplicate. It only contains the one subcategory Category:American labor leaders. That subcat is also in Category:Trade unionists and all the subcats for non-North American countries use "Trade unionists". CalJW 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be kept as a redirect. CalJW 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Labour movement and Template:Labor suggest these are not necessarily synonymous. — coelacan — 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever subtle nuances there may be, they are basically the U.S. English and international categories for the same topic area, and the co-existence of these categories can only cause confusion and inconsistency. Right now some American labor leaders/trade unionists are in Category:American labor leaders, some are in Category:Trade unionists and some are in category:Labor leaders, which is not a helpful state of affairs for readers. CalJW 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for the moment. I don't yet understand the categorization structure sufficiently well to know what effect this would have. However, in searching for a global solution, i'd like to point out yet another complicating factor. There are two competing philosophies of unionism, which are frequently described as craft unionism, and industrial unionism. In brief, the craft unionists organize by craft: all carpenters in one union, all plumbers in a different union, etc. The industrial unionists organize all crafts into the same union. Now, the specific problem on Wikipedia results from a widespread interpretation of the word "trade" as equivalent to "craft." There is a rivalry between these two philosophies such that, when an industrial unionist sees a fellow industrial unionist categorized as a "craft" or a "trade" unionist, they may feel compelled to change the term. I had to repair a broken link last week when someone said "Frank Little isn't a trade unionist" and changed the word to industrial. Of course the text displayed in links can be finessed using a pipe, but the category problem remains an issue. I expect we're stuck with this state of affairs, but it sure would be nice if we could refer to a single category of "labor unionist" across the board. As far as i know, that term is neutral — even if it is a little unfamiliar. (By the way, thanks for the concern and effort to address this issue.) Richard Myers 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. This duplication does not facilitate navigation. ReeseM 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*oppose Trade Union presupposes a particular type of labor union. Consider instead renaming all categories to the more general terms, 'labor union'. 'labor unionists' and 'labor union leaders' Hmains 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to all: Trying centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#centralized discussion of category naming, instead of across the many CFDs and user talk pages. Please feel free to weigh in there. — coelacan — 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge wrt to Hmains's comment, that is not true in the UK. If it is a U.S. issue, then it is the U.S. category that should be renamed or subdivided, not the global category. "Labor unionist" is not a broader term, but is conspicuously a narrow U.S.-centric one. Craig.Scott 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that "labor unionists" or "labour unionists" works fine. It includes trade/craft unionists and industrial unionists. It's used in the USA, but it's also used in the UK, in Canada, and in Australia. So it doesn't appear to be US-centric. — coelacan — 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge We wouldn't be having this discussion if America did not exist as "trade unionist" is overwhelmingly the most used term in other English speaking countries. Hawkestone 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• create subcategories named 'foo trade union leaders' in each of the relevant 'foo trade unionists' categories and place these articles into them. Also move all the articles out of the Category:Trade unionists and place them into their proper 'foo trade unionist' or 'foo trade union leaders' categories. Hmains 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose renaming. As Richard Myers points out, this renaming overlooks industrial unionists and presumes that all labor unionists are trade unionists, which is not true. This is a larger unsolved problem with the labor categorization scheme at this time, but there is no reason to exacerbate the problem with this renaming. — coelacan — 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Brady Bunch cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - Per Listify tag. The articles for the various television series and films have cast lists and those who aren't listed in any of them are one-time guest stars like Deacon Jones and Desi Arnaz, Jr.. Otto4711 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grease cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. Grease (film) and Grease 2 have cast lists and it does not appear for the most part that we do cast lists for musicals. Otto4711 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Return of the Living Dead cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The film articles contain cast lists which cover the territory. Otto4711 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, per decision of January 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:View Askew cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - tagged Listify but I believe it should be deleted without listifying. The category captures actors who have appeared in any one of several films set in the View Askewniverse, so this is more akin to a performers by studio than a performers by project categorization. The individual projects appear to have cast lists already and the View Askewniverse article also lists many of the actors who have appeared, so it still meets speedy delete criterion. Otto4711 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per above. Doczilla 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listified Maybe I misread, but I've just created a list based on this template message on the category page: "After this discussion, it was decided that this category should be replaced by a list. Once a list is created that includes all the information found here, this category may be speedily deleted." I created List of actors in Kevin Smith films -- not that I believe this is a article that makes any sense to have, but I'm abiding by the consensus that there be a list rather than a category.--Tenebrae 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Twin Peaks cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete per Listify tag. Character chart with cast list appears in Twin Peaks article. Otto4711 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rocky Horror cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - per Listify tag, the cast list exists in the RHPS article. Otto4711 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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