< September 29	October 1 >

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 and contents added to list at List of U.S. place names connected to Sweden, which is unsourced but can be considered on its own merits at AFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish place names in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining or trivial characteristic. TM 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At first glance, this tree would seem to slot somewhere under Category:Placename etymologies which has such myriad descendant categories as Category:Locations in the world with British names, Category:Latin place-names, Category:Untranslated Irish place names, and Category:Slavic toponyms. Nevertheless, the fact that a place has a name of a particular ethnic origin is not particularly defining. Atlanta is Greek but not exactly because it was a hotbed of Greek settlement; Pierre takes its name from a fort, not a Frenchman, who wouldn't recognize its pronunciation anyhow; Revere is named after a person, but Paul Revere is not noteworthy for his French descent. - choster (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of U.S. place names connected to Sweden. Nominate at AfD List of U.S. place names connected to Sweden if no one can suggest any sourced prose suggesting that anybody has cared. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify as List of Sweden-related placenames in the United States. I do not agree that this is trivial. The list should be limited to places taking their names from places in Sweden (not people). The list can easily be converted to a table, which would enable the Swedish original to be identified in a later column. By adding that, it might become a useful article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (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 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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 12. Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories to Category:Wikipedia cleanup

Nominator's rationale: Pages needing cleanup used to be added directly to Category:Wikipedia cleanup, but that's not done anymore. There doesn't seem to be a continuing reason to diffuse nearly all subcategories from Wikipedia cleanup into a single subcategory. Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (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 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:  Relisted at 2010 OCT 11 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT to Category:LGBT topics

Nominator's rationale: Instead of having a floating adjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I don't find the floating adjective problematic in a title, and I like keeping category names short. The addition of the word "topics" seems to me to add no clarification to the reader, so the extra verbiage just creates clutter in the category list of articles. However, if the rename does go ahead, please re-create the existing title as a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WT:LGBT has been notified by me. This should really have been done by the nominator :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2010 (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 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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with potentially unwanted sections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It seems that this category has never been used. The template ((Remove-section)) now adds Category:Articles with sections that should be removed (until recently, it didn't add any category). Another option is to delete that category and keep this one. Svick (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "unwanted": keep this word out of editorial matters. East of Borschov 14:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and Borschov. --Bsherr (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—useless category, superseded by Category:Articles with sections that should be removed. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 October 2010 (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 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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Category:Special forces of the United States' would be better named 'Category:Special Operations Forces of the United States'. "Special Forces" actually refers to the Green Berets of the US Army. Special Operations Forces would include the Green Berets, plus other SOF elements such as Rangers, Civil Affairs, Psychological Operations, SEALS, USMC Special Operations, etc.--S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:03, 30 September 2010 (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 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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Dinosaur redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete – I can't really see that this category would be helpful as a navigational tool. Are there any situations where it would make sense to look for redirects in a category? J. Spencer (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd already considered bringing this here for the same reason. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion, or renaming Category:Muslim atheists to Category:Cultural Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Rename, or delete outright. Seems contradictory, and plus only has six bios in it. Purplebackpack89 03:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's like 'Christian atheists'. You can't be a follower of a religion and an atheist, which is what this title suggests. Dougweller (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Christian atheism don't exist. // Liftarn (talk)
• Delete Some Slavic Muslims are considered "Muslim" by ethnicity, but this term is clearly used in reference to religious belief and that is inherently theistic. It is simply easier to delete this category and add Category:Former Muslims to the appropriate articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have notified WT:ISLAM, as should have been done by the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The nomination is based on a simplistic premise which is not borne out in real life. It is quite possible for someone brought up in a theistic religion to shed their religious belief but retain many of the practises and observances of their former faith, and to be culturally embedded in that faith. This is particularly the case for religions such as Islam or Judaism which place a lot of importance on observance of religious rules. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Who decides that? Looking at the articles, some of them don't even say the subject is Muslim. I don't think any of them identify themselves as Muslim atheists, and I will probably remove those who don't from the category. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Brown, it is generally impossible to me a Muslim and an atheist at the same time. Hence the rename to something like Category:Cultural muslims or Category:Atheists of Muslim descent if the delete fails. And don't forget that this may not even have enough pages to be a vital category, even if Doug's argument can only bear off one or two of them Purplebackpack89 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or possibly a weak rename). We have Christian atheism and it looks like it's enough for a category there if someone wants to create it. We already have Category:Jewish atheists. The category have already been discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 12#Category:Muslim atheists. // Liftarn (talk)
  • BLP again -- at Jewish atheists we have Alexander Abusch. Although he is in several categories saying he is Jewish, his article doesn't mention his religion, atheism, etc. We have a policy that says for those born less than 115 years ago, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.". The 2nd entry also fails this policy. I suspect most do. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that goes back to argument about not really having enough for a category, at least in this case. Purplebackpack89 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Oxymoron. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Being a Muslim is almost a matter of ethnicity. Some one born a Muslim who has become an atheist could correctly be described by this means. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. There are Muslims of many different ethnicities, not just "Arab" (That's the ethnicity). Being a Muslim is usually about religion. Also, remember that there are six people in this category Purplebackpack89 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three now. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Liftarn. If there are similar articles explaining that it's not an oxymoron, that's proof enough, and reason to override unproved arguments to the contrary here. BLP can still be enforced while keeping this category. If a person self-describes as this, cat them as it. --Bsherr (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming Being a Muslim is not "almost a matter of ethnicity" as Peterkingiron suggest; Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.--TM 20:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are two distinct groups of people, the ones that are called cultural Muslims in English wikipedia, and there's a lesser group of atheists of Muslim extraction (suggest a better formula if you would). They marginally overlap, but should not be merged together even if there's only a handful of entries (it appears that the category has been thoroughly cleansed). The definition of cultural Muslim excludes militant atheist "former muslims" or "scions of Muslim families" who openly warred against Islam. East of Borschov 07:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course Islam is a religion, but according to its teachings, it is legitimate to kill apostates. Any child of a Muslim is in the Muslim view automatically a Muslim. In India, he will almost certainly marry a Muslim. This practice of endogamy, means that they are in practice almost an ethnicity. I thereforee stand by my words. In Muslim dominated lands (unlike the West), it is no small matter to change religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2010 (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 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Constantine to Category:Constantine, Algeria

Nominator's rationale: The emperor is far more famous and the article Constantine is a dab page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Svick (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parrent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and make nominated category a disambiguation category since Category:Constantine I also exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 5 October 2010 (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.