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The result of the discussion was: keep/withdrawn by nominator. — ξ^xplicit 04:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computing terminology to Category:Computer terminology

Nominator's rationale: more inclusive and accurate name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I'm not seeing this as being more inclusive, rather more restrictive, since a computer is a piece of hardware, whereas computing is an activity using it, thus encompassing the hardware, and usages on the hardware. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• But computing is a subset of computers (in general). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong oppose - Mr. Liefting, you'll know the background of my comments, but I believe you are false. When the ACM and IEEE get together to define a terribly vague term with multi-disiplinary contributions, you have to accept that there conclusions are the result of exhaustive exploration, analysis, and debate that is unquestionable by mere documenters of practices such as myself and you. I believe that the aforementioned definition agreed to by the ACM and IEEE form the basis of the recommended cirriculum for computer related studies and are thus widespread and relevant in ways you may not be aware of, thus negating your concerns on recognition, conciseness, precision, ect. Rilak (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As I outlined in our discussion on my talk page dictionary definitions are more important than the ACM and IEEE. Since the contents of the category are about computers and computing it follows that the name should include the word "computer". Computing, in this context, is a subset of computers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. On second thoughts there is room for both categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment are you withdrawing your request? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, but I guess I have to let the CfD run its course. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computing by computer model to Category:Computers by model

Nominator's rationale: Computers in more inclusive and more accurately describes the contents. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. I still see the proposed name as confusing. On the other hand at this point I'm unable to offer another option. Category:Early computers is not exactly a model of computer. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support this is about particular computer models by computer manufacturers. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - While I am unsure of the intended purpose of the category and will have to research its history and past and present use, the name of category in question suggests to me that it is to contain articles relevant to certain platforms since "computing" is more expansive than "computers". As such, I believe it is to contain articles about the computers themselves, peripherals, and the software such as operating systems, games, utilities, ect. If this is the intended purpose, then that's quite an ambitious goal that has not been met from a quick browse of the subcategory. Regarding the proposed rename, the suggested name will be inaccurate as "computer" is not used to describe peripherals or software in current and general usage if the category's purpose is what I think it is. For this reason, I am leaning towards oppose. Additionally, has the nominator checked for redundancy? Most subcategories in the category can probably be moved to less ambigious categories, and this category can be deleted if possible. Rilak (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. 3 articles which link to each other anyway aren't enough to make a category. Munci (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish atheists to Category:Atheists of Jewish descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Confusing at best, contradictory at worse. Proposing this name in the spirit of Category:Americans of Irish descent Purplebackpack89 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strongly Oppose There are Jewish atheists who remain very active in Jewish life – who commemorate holidays and connect to their heritage through Jewish art, history, languages, literature, philosophy, foodways, folklore, politics, Jewish friendship circles, social justice and/or other connections. (See Center for Cultural Judaism, Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, Secular Culture & Ideas, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Workmen's Circle, etc.) This is an entirely different identity (and category) than an atheist of Jewish ancestry who does not feel a connection to Jewish life. Judaism is a vast and vibrant culture that includes religion but is not solely a religion. Population studies repeatedly confirm that Jewish atheists continue to identify as Jewish. Judaism has never been monolithic, it has always changed to meet the needs of people living it and there have always been many Judaisms. Not all Jewish atheists use the language of Jewish secularism, and not all Jewish secularists consider themselves atheists, although there is overlap between the two groups. Scholars now know that the roots of Jewish secularism are much older than previously thought, and go back to the premodern period and arose from forces within Judaism itself. See the new book by Prof David Biale Not in the Heavens: The Traditions of Secular Jewish Thought MyrnaBaron (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Judaism is not a descent, because you can convert to it.Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion, last I heard. The category is for people who are ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish. Your rationale doesn't make any sense Purplebackpack89 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Your rationale doesn't make any sense" is not valuable reply. Like Stuart.Jamieson says, the move to descent will not be correct because it's an overstatement: that being Jewish is automatically and only ethnic. Jews and Judaism in the African diaspora discusses people who are black and Jewish - how's the ethnic component "clear" there? Other factors play an important role and the current version allows for that. Hekerui (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, first off, my argument was a little more than that. Second off, in this particular case, it is clearly not religious. That leaves ethnic. And by the way, can you find any evidence of there being any Black Jewish atheists so categorized? Purplebackpack89 05:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - "Jewish" traditionally means 1) A person of Jewish ethnicity, and 2) An adherent of Judiasm. While I believe the former is the primary meaning, I still think it would be a good idea to call out that we are refferring specificly to ethnicity when we say "Jewish Atheist". It seems to me that the proposed new category title does that. NickCT (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose "Jewish" has several meanings "Descent" being one, but "Culture" being another. It also would instigate the renaming of every "Jewish" categorisation to clarify ethnicity, culture, or religion. Further I started a discussion at WT:BLPCAT yesterday (and notified all editors of Category:Jewish atheists through the Talk Page) about how we handle the case of "Jewish" categorisation and would expect it to run for 7 days before any action was taken. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's slippery-slope fallicious. In most cases, descent or culture can be implied from the subcategory, or it is non revelant. In this case, it doesn't make sense without disambiguation. Also, BLPCAT is not the place to have a discussion about this for several reasons (including the fact), this is Purplebackpack89 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still oppose - whilst slippery slope may apply to comment on other categories. The other comments still apply, particularly the fact that we base our "Jewish" inclusion on whether sources identify the individual as Jewish, the individual may not be of Jewish descent yet may legitimately have been identified as Jewish by a consensus of secondary sources and also have self-identified as an atheist. The title of the article appears clear that Atheist refers to personal philosophy and Jewish can cover any other criteria by which a source may identify an individual as Jewish. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose -- What the category really means is "Individuals who identify as being ethnically Jewish, but religiously atheist". There have been three attempts to get rid of the category previously, but I see no real need to tinker with it, however superficially paradoxical it may seem to some. AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strongly oppose: Judaism, for various historical reasons, is complicated and can't be neatly designated "religion" or "ethnicity"; Jewish atheism differs from other forms of atheism. Renaming to "Atheists of Jewish descent" would lose meaning. Roscelese (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But if someone is atheist, they clearly are no longer religiously Jewish. The category makes no sense/has no meaning already as is Purplebackpack89 02:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're factually incorrect, and I would recommend familiarizing yourself with (to start with) Jewish atheism, Jewish skeptics, and orthopraxy. Roscelese (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't be an atheist while practicing Judaism. Full stop Purplebackpack89 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^{[citation needed]}

-- Roscelese (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow Rosc. That's a pretty bold. Hard to understand how you could question the assertion that "An atheist (i.e. someone who does not believe in a deity), can't be someone who practice a religious faith (which inherent implies a believe in a deity)". NickCT (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the nature of practice is that it is distinct from belief. Not only is Judaism far from the least orthopraxic of religions, there is actually a large body of Jewish theological scholarship having to do with the potential non-existence of God. Roscelese (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ros, atheism generally means rejecting (rejecting, not questioning) both God and organized religions. I don't deny that there are many Jewish scholars, but I do deny that that can be construed as atheism. When almost everyone hears the term "atheist", they will find it confusing or contradictory, and they will most likely not be able to wrap themselves around Jewish orthopraxy. Your argument is both flawly in terms of definitions and in terms of utility. Purplebackpack89 05:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you think my argument is "flawly," but when you resort to "Everyone - you know, everyone - supports me!" (without arguments from atheist philosophers or organizations rejecting the idea of Jewish atheists, the way you find Jewish philosophers and organizations rejecting Jews for Jesus) you're not making a very convincing case yourself. Roscelese (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say that, I said almost everybody finds atheism + a front word contradictory. And much of the stuff in "Jewish atheism", um, well, isn't really atheism, it's more questioning. Please, argue from the real world' and not a handful of thinkers someplace 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; I see we have Category:Muslim atheists, not mention 64 atheist categories by nationality etc. --Kleinzach 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muslim atheist's doesn't make any sense either, and what does having nationality categories have to do with this one making sense Purplebackpack89 02:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muslim atheists also up for discussion...slighty different ball of wax due to it only having six people in it Purplebackpack89 05:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per Roscelese. As the article Jewish atheism makes clear, the concept is not an oxymoron; it's a pity that some of those seeking to rename this category appear not to have read the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brownhared - WP is not a reliable source. Check out how the Jewish atheism is referenced. It should give you some idea as to its quality. NickCT (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, Brown, it's pretty obvious to me that, for starters, much of the things in that article aren't really atheism. Sure, Jews question God. But that's not atheism, if you don't a) outright reject; and b) quit organized religion Purplebackpack89 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead of Atheism - Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. no requirement that an individual has to reject organised religion (in fact the existence of Buddhism speaks against that). I can quote similarly from the OED or The Chambers Dictionary if you dislike my use of WP. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. I understand the nominator's message (we're all entitled to different looks at the subject and I do not intend to "convert" the nominator to anything). However, "descent" automatically inflates present-day compact category into an unmanageable mass. A single drop of Jewish blood will then qualify for inclusion - is this your intention? Vladimir Lenin had Jewish ancestors and was an atheist, does he belong to the same category as Haim Cohen or Claude Lévi-Strauss? Sorry for invoking Godwin's law, but this will end up in gestapo-style "genealogic research". One big can of worms. East of Borschov 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, actually, Borsch, I was under the impression that already was the case. John Kerry is or was categorized as Jewish. The "one-drop" rule has been used throughout Jewish categories Purplebackpack89 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems to support East of Borschov against your position, John Kerry is categorised as of Jewish Descent but not as an American Jew however Cameron Kerry is included as an American Jew because of his conversion. The American Jews Category holds all those who can reasonably be sourced as being Jewish not those who just happen to have a Jewish Grandfather. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose -- Being Jewish can be either ethnic or religious. This makes it a complex subject which the present category name conveniently skates over. "Atheists of Jewish ethnicity" would not really be an improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. According to Israeli law, my ancestry mandates that I be Jewish. I can make a choice to be an atheist. So I must be able to be a Jewish atheist, and it turns out many people I know are.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The movement called Jewish Humanism is both atheist and proudly Jewish. The founder of Reconstructist Judaism, Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, espoused a naturalistic theology that rejected theism and could be called atheism. Atheistic Jews often participate in Jewish observance out of a love for their community. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Per Peterkingiron.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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 as nominated. However, this is without prejudice to a future discussion on what name might be best for this category. In other words, someone could now start a discussion on whether this should be named Category:Classical and art music traditions or just Category:Art music traditions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-Western classical music genres to Category:Classical and art music traditions and change usage to suit.

Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. This category includes many disparate musical traditions which have nothing in common except those traits which are also shared by european classical music. In this way, I suggest that this category be replaced with/renamed as one which treats all classical music traditions, including european, which would be named Category:Classical and art music traditions and be a direct subcategory of Category:Music genres. The current category:Classical music would be a subcategory of Category:Classical and art music traditions and could possibly then be moved category:European classical music for the sake of clarity. This is a renomination of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23#Category:Non-Western classical music genres which came to no consensus because of discussion on the main article, List of classical and art music traditions which has since been moved. Munci (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in two minds as to post an alert on User:Cgingold (the original creator of the page)'s userpage because they are on leave. What do other people think? Munci (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename as Category:Art music traditions as clearer in meaning than 'Classical and art music', which assumes a distinction between 'classical' and 'art music' which I don't think is definable. I agree with nom's repurpose suggestions. --Kleinzach 01:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Would a slash, rather than a conjunction, be better? Munci (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No. In my view Category:Art music traditions has the greatest clarity. --Kleinzach 03:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support original nomination, oppose renaming it to "art music traditions". As I've argued many times, the neologism "art music" is Western-centric and really does not apply to most of the world's classical music traditions. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Very difficult to see how words like 'art' and 'music' can be regarded as Western-centric, even from an exclusively Indian perspective. 'Classical' on the other hand comes with specific cultural connotations - in this case unwanted ones. --Kleinzach 23:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I do not care much whether it gets moved to 'classical and art' or 'classical/art' or 'classical' or 'art' or some other compromise although I verge towards 'classical/art'. What I do want is for it to get moved (something with little/no opposition) and not end up as "no consensus" again. Munci (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. I also support a move, to whatever title. (Though as stated, my preference is for something that contains "classical".) Shreevatsa (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Could the Cfd be done in two parts kind of? That is to say, the main point gets sorted now and then any discussion of 'art' or 'classical' can be done in separate one. Munci (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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: administrative close: already deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Semantic Web articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category that is of no use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as an empty category. Could have been speedyed, per C1. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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 all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Films set in 1824 to Category:Films set in the 1820s

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Requesting an upmerge to the appropriate decade for each of these. Starting only with those individual years set in 19th century before attempting the large of amount of Films set in years of the 20th century. These categories have and will have few entries and not likely to expand (maybe one here and there), and each of the parent categories are not largely populated so I don't see the need to break this down further. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nominator. --Kleinzach 01:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

&Support -- In the pre-film era, a decade should be quite small enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong oppose. Even if films didn't exist before the late 19th century, films about it have been made later. J 1982 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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 all. — ξ^xplicit 04:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Credit Unions are organizations (companies) and appear to be one of the only ones that is name as of state rather then based in state. So this is a test nomination. If there is support for the change, either we will need to add the others or have a follow up nomination. All have been nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to match the naming convention for other organizations. I'd support changing all the categories similarly named as well. Gobonobo ^{T C} 06:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. I thought at first that credit unions might be limited to serving the population of a single state (which is true of all the CUs I've ever joined) but the article makes it clear that there are Federally-chartered CUs that operate in multiple U.S. states. That being the case, I see no reason to treat them differently from other U.S.-based organizations. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Most, if not all, credit unions serve every state and foreign countries. They generally have a once a member, always a member position, so if you move out of their primary service area you can still be a member. With the advent of Credit Union Shared Service Centers, teller transactions out of area directly to your accounts are possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename like all other organizations. It's strange to see the UNFCU listed in "of New York". East of Borschov 14:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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: Already speedy deleted under CSD G5. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Red Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Useless category which links to the game, a WP:TRIVIA characters article, and links to Rockstar Games category. Everything in this cat is covered in Red Dead Redemption --Teancum (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Monhegan, Maine to Category:Plantations in Lincoln county, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OCAT#small. Category is two years old and contains a single article. TM 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Merge as category appears to have little room for growth and is no aid to navigation with only a lone article included. Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note I changed the location from Plantations in Maine to Plantations in Lincoln County, Maine per the category sorting I am currently doing.--TM 06:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 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: make into an article. I could find no similar criticism-of-this-specific-person categories. However, there is Category:Criticisms of living persons articles, where an intelligently designed article might go. I'll put it in Listify for now, and if no one takes up the ball, it will be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listified to a section of Richard_Dawkins[1]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Criticism of Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - The category is incredibly small without potential for growth. It's also a category about criticism of a living person. The category has no use and seems ambiguous. I believe it possibly violates BLP or gives undue weight to the subject. I believe the category should be deleted. GetToDaChoppa (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. No parent page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The articles included in this category are all united by the fact that they are direct critical responses to works by Richard Dawkins, and this category provides an effective means of navigation across these articles. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Isn't it awkward to argue a need for navigation across "Criticism of Richard Dawkins" when there isn't even a section so titled, let alone an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not likely to be populated with many more articles and the category topic is best served by prose in an actual article. Also, the category creator appears to be pushing a POV. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 01:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. NickCT (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep/Rename Four articles is an adequate size (just), & I'm not so sure the supply has dried up. On the present title, one could also imagine some articles on "criticism" of Dawkin's work from the days when he was a straight biologist; there has been plenty. Probably best renamed to ? Category:Christian rebuttals of Richard Dawkins or something. Two of the articles have his name in the title - Category:Books about Richard Dawkins might do at a pinch. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep -- This is not about potentially libellous criticism of Dawkins himself, but of the militantly atheistic views he has preached (or if you prefer, proclaimed). Criticism of the views of one scholar by another is part of the normal academci process; indeed, it is "fair comment on a matter of public interest" - a defence to libel. However, REname to Category:Criticism of Richard Dawkins' views. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Keep It's unusual for an individual to be the target of a criticism category but it sits reasonably well as a sub category of Category:Richard Dawkins there is scope for expansion if critics are included instead of limiting to critical works (Only 4 books have notability, but there have been papers published in the media and in journals whose authors are notable.) If an editor were to collate the information into a Head Article my keep would be much stronger. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Category:Criticism of atheism, subcategory of Category:Criticism of religion. The broad subject is not about the people; it is an academic/popular-academic critical analysis of religion. Dawkins is a current prominent proponent criticising religion, and therefore his name is prominently cited in criticism of the criticism of religion, but still we would better categorise by subject, not by person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This I would disagree with considering Alister McGrath is not opposing atheism but rather antitheism. It's perfectly possible to not believe in God without criticising those who do. But Dawkins is rather antitheist as well as atheist and this what the Dawkins Delusion is countering. Munci (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I considered this merge, but in the same way that Category:Criticism of the Bible is not the same as Category:Criticism of Christianity (Though it is a sub-categorisation) Criticism of Richard Dawkins may not represent a criticism of all Atheism and categorising it as so may be misleading. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Interesting points. Perhaps much of Dawkin's work, and its subsequent criticism, belongs in Category:Antitheism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Rename Category:Antitheism, subcategory of Category:Criticism of religion, to include all anti-theistic comment, counter comment, and associated criticisms, Dawkinistic or otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. A category cannot do justice to a "Criticism of Richard Dawkins" topic (which strictly speaking should be "Criticism of Richard Dawkins' publications"). Rather than a category a section of the Richard Dawkins article should be devoted to criticism of his publications. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not the job of categories to "do justice" to anything, merely to collect groups of articles. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories are set up to do justice to grouping articles as a navigational aid. Since there is no annotation or summary of articles in a category they can only do justice to a set of related articles that that have a strong common theme. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Do not merge to category:Criticism of atheism, you can criticize Dawkins without even touching the issue of atheism. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.