Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 14 January 16 >

January 15

Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes to Category:Documentary films about alleged war crimes WITHDRAWN

:Nominator's rationale: It would seem to me that this name would better satisfy our X of Y requirement for categories, as well as broaden it just a little. Right now, it sounds like a documentary that explores alleged war crimes in a neutral way, without coming down one way or another, might not qualify for this category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this rename. The problem that I see with the proposal is that renaming it in this way turns the category into one of the dreaded "alleged" categories, where it's not at all clear who or how many is/are doing the alleging. Therefore some sort of bias or POV is suggested by the proposed name. If the name is left as it is, it is relatively clear that it's the documentary that is doing the alleging. This category was recently discussed for merger to Category:War documentaries, with a no consensus result. I personally would be fine to merge it there, as I see it as somewhat problematic in either form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my arguments at the previous CFDs. This category was created to POV-push the idea that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. "Allegation" categories are problematic on their face. WP:BLP is implicated in the allegation that someone is a war criminal. No clear inclusion criteria under either category name. Previous arguments for keeping the category under any name were the usual stellar assortment of "it's useful" claptrap. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as nominator, I was not aware of this background. If there are POV-push or WP:POINTy reasons behind its creation, I'd support deletion, as well. I don't see it as an essential documentary category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Otto's claims should be taken with a grain of salt -- it's not as if he's neutral on the category. In any event, whatever the creator's motivations may or may not have been are truly irrelevant. The category should be assessed entirely on its own merits. Cgingold (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have I said anything that misrepresents the surroundings of the creation of this category? No, so put your damn salt back in its damn shaker. I never claimed to be neutral on this category. I've felt for a year that it should be deleted, for the reasons set forth here. It's not like my opposition to it should be coming as some sort of revelation to you. As if not being neutral about the existence of a category is some sin anyway. You're not neutral on the category either, seeing as how you expressed an opinion on it and all. The POV of the category creator is only one of several reasons that I advanced for deletion. Even if the category were created in absolute neutrality I would still support its deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't rename. The only "claptrap" here is Otto's continued insistence that the category itself has BLP implications. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason this category has survived 2 previous CFDs is because there were enough reasonable editors who were able to see through that claim -- precisely because the name of the category informs readers in neutral and accurate terms about the nature of the films therein. To repeat the core point I made in the last CFD:
With respect to The Trials of Henry Kissinger, which seems to be the lightning rod here, I submit that the suggestion that this category raises WP:BLP issues is entirely misplaced, since it's not being used for the bio article about Kissinger. The film itself has a clear POV, and certainly raises highly contentious issues, but the category merely informs readers that the film deals with allegations about war crimes -- a straightforward factual description.
I also think folks need to consider what would happen if this category were deleted: Would it really be better for these articles to be placed directly in Category:Films about war crimes? I for one don't think so. The category serves navigation by putting these articles into the category-tree for Category:War crimes -- but they're two rungs down, in a fairly-named category. It seems to me that that is exactly where they should be. Cgingold (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that someone can't be defamed because of how a film about them is categorized is ludicrous. Do you think if I put an article about a Nancy Reagan biography in Category:Books about adulterers it wouldn't get deleted in a heartbeat? This place continues to amaze me. We can't have Category:Gay porn stars because of BLP, despite the fact that calling someone gay is not defamatory, yet we tolerate a category that functionally calls living people war criminals. Insanity. Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere thanks for clarifying the issues here, Otto. Your Nancy Reagan analogy is faulty in two respects. To begin with, there would need to be a book whose primary focus was her alleged adulterous behavior -- hypothetically, The Secret Life of Nancy R. -- not just a general biography that happened to mention her sexual affairs. Of course, such a book would be exceedingly unlikely to have an article on Wikipedia in the first place -- so there wouldn't be any reason for a category, either. A better analogy would be a category called Category:Films about war criminals, which would be highly problematic at best, and would no doubt be renamed to Category:Films about convicted war criminals. But in either case, such a category would clearly be inappropriate for a film about Kissinger, since he hasn't been convicted of war crimes. It's not Wikipedia's "fault" that the Kissinger film accuses him of war crimes, and uses his name in the title of the film. The present category simply provides readers with a concise indication of what that film and the others deal with -- nothing more, nothing less. Cgingold (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw my nomination. My intention had been simply to address an "X of Y" issue, in keeping with work I've been doing categorizing documentary films by topic. There are clearly other issues and concerns, here. If someone else wishes to CfD it, they can. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category serves a useful purpose: it legitimately groups films with a similar theme. Serouj (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (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.

Category:United States Senators who have been in Space

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. Kbdank71 15:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States Senators who have been in Space (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. We needn't have list for different profesions who have been astronauts. Only four membersd in cat and that is unlikely to increase. Reywas92Talk 22:06, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:All non-free logos

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 I know, there was no opposition, but there was in the prior CFD's, and I'm not seeing the need for this merge. In fact, the nomination itself doesn't appear to know the reason for having both. I would recommend posting this at the Village Pump to get wider input. Kbdank71 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:All non-free logos to Category:Non-free logos
Nominator's rationale: There were three previous discussions for this merger and the results in each case were vague and unclear. Right now there are two non-free logos categories without any rationale behind the duplication. "All non-free logos" should be merged into "Non-free logos" in the interests of standardization with the other categories in Category:Non-free images. Once the category is depopulated, {{cat redirect}} should replace the current text in the category until it is clear it is no longer needed. If there is a need for the additional "All" category, for User talk:Betacommand or otherwise, its purpose needs to be clearly explained with explicit documentation for usage on both categories and the current redundant categorization of non-free logos indiscriminately into both categories needs to be fixed. I think it would just be easier to merge the categories and if a need for an additional category presents itself, then - in addition to writing an explanation pointing out the need for an additional category - use a more descriptive name for the new category so that well-meaning editors don't accidentally use the category inappropriately.  ~ PaulT+/C 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Note that I think a large portion of these uses stem from {{Non-free logo}}... see the following code that is currently present on that template:
[[Category:All non-free logos|<noinclude> </noinclude>{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:{{{1|Non-free logos}}}|<noinclude> </noinclude>{{PAGENAME}}]]
The same functionality can be achieved without using the "All non-free logos" category with the following code:
[[Category:Non-free logos|<noinclude> </noinclude>{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:{{{1|Non-free logos}}}|<noinclude> </noinclude>{{PAGENAME}}]]
Not ideal, but it is the only way to allow for the custom category parameter without using parser functions. ~ PaulT+/C 19:33, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Macedonian people

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, if "Republic of" is desired as a subcat, that can be created. Kbdank71 15:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Macedonian people to Category:People from the Republic of Macedonia
Nominator's rationale: Rename: Macedonian is a disputed nationality demonym, and a disputed name for a geographic area (See Macedonia naming dispute). Per the recent change in consensus regarding the downgrading of consistency and upgrading of accuracy/NPOV with regard to nationality category naming, consensus for the name Macedonaian People needs to be re-established in light of the fact that People from the Republic of Macedonia is now an acceptable alternative. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All this is true, but the existing and proposed names therefore mean different things. At the moment the category, as a whole, reflects the wider term, with sub-cats like Category:People of Macedonian descent. A rearrangement with Category:People from the Republic of Macedonia as a sub-category might be the best way forward. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - [this one does seem ill-named] make a bulk nom if you wish but spreading these out over several noms is not on. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A bulk nom is not appropriate because it was explicit in the new consensus that each case has to be judged on its merits. Otherwise the NI nomination is the one that should have been grouped in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is disruption to make a point - see diff. Desist. Occuli (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. Or do you expect uninvolved people who previously objected to the term Macedonian People but accepted it on the basis of the convention of consistency that was self evident, to be continually monitoring Cfd for any indication that situation had changed. My rationale is clear. If you think this is a point violation, you must think that there are no editors who could possibly object to the category name Macedonian People as applying only to the Republic of Macedonia. That is clearly not going to be the case. Otherwise, you must think that it is OK for Wikipedia to be permanently self-contraticting, because by your accusation here, nobody who is aware of any change in consensus can act on it in another venue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Kosovar people

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. Kbdank71 15:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kosovar people to Category:People from Kosovo
Nominator's rationale: Rename: Kosovan is a disputed nationality demonym, and a disputed name for a geographic area (See Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija). Per the recent change in consensus regarding the downgrading of consistency and upgrading of accuracy/NPOV with regard to nationality category naming, consensus for the name Kosovar People needs to be re-established in light of the fact that People from Kosovo is now an acceptable alternative. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, a Cfd discussion over the Category:Northern Irish People established that accuracy and NPOV are more important than consistency in deciding names for the Categories and sub-categories of People by Nationality, and names should thus be decided on a case by case basis, and if a name is in any way disputed or innacurate, a namd of the form Category:People from Foo is more accurate and less POV. Previously, all Categories in the top level of Category:People by Nationality were of the form Foo/Fooian People. Only 2 of 241 Categories were not consistent with this system, People of the Federated States of Micronesia and People from São Tomé and Príncipe, for unknown reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC) This comment moved here per consensus at this MfD. 22:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it is curious that MickMacNee has switched from vehement opposition to this sort of rename, expressed eloquently just last week in the NI cfd, to strong support. One suspects WP:POINT is being infringed. (Inded we have "Northern Irish=Northern Ireland is as about as intellectualy difficult to understand as East Timorese = East Timor, coincidentally another divided Island. To accept your argument that it is even remotely ambiguous or OR, I would have to seriously lower my understanding of the average IQ of a reader. MickMacNee " I await an East Timorese nom.) Occuli (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not remotely odd to me. I am acting on the new consensus. My vehement belief is that adhering to a convention is of paramount importance to categorisation. That idea has been rejected, so I have nominated the categories that to me would most benefit from applying this new consensus. I cannot see why anybody can have a problem with that. Unless your goal is a permanent state of self-contradiction and by inference, inherent unreliability and total lack of credibility. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Occuli. I disagree with the nominator's interpretation of how the N.I. precedent should be interpreted and/or applied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kosovar seems to be the most common adjective for these people in English, so it should be used. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (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.

Category:Canadian people

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. Kbdank71 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian people to Category:People from Canada
Nominator's rationale: Rename: Significant sections of Canada do not self-identify as Canadian (See Secessionist movements of Canada). Per the recent change in consensus regarding the downgrading of consistency and upgrading of accuracy/NPOV with regard to nationality category naming, consensus for the name Canadian People needs to be re-established in light of the fact that People from Canada is now an acceptable alternative. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not needed - NI is a more special case than Canada; many people born and living there all their lives never hold NI/UK citizenship, but that of the Republic of Ireland. There is nothing comparable in Canada. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is no NI citizenship, but people born there gain UK citizenship by default. Some people in Canada reject being called Canadian, even though they gain canadian citizenship by defuault, so calling them Canadian is POV. Just because they do not have the option to take up another citizenship is irrelevent to their self-identified nationality. And self identified nationality is what was argued for in the NI debate, not the options for citizenship. And this category is not for citizenship, but nationality. That is why it also has a Category for Korean. Applying 'special cases' for the definition of nationality is just as much OR as saying that the presence of dual citizenship means that "from Northern Ireland" implies nationhood any less than "Northern Irish". MickMacNee (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per WP:POINT. See above. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acting on a new consensus is not a point violation. There is no abuse of process here, this is the first time anybody has had a precedent to make the nomination as put. MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator has misread the N.I. discussion, in my opinion. "Northern Irish" is not a "true" nationality in the way "Canadian" is. Even if citizens of Canada reject being called "Canadian", they either are or aren't Canadian citizens—it's not fuzzy at all. You'll always be able to find someone in every state that "rejects" being labelled as a "Fooian" of the country; that is a really bad reason to depart from this standard on a selective basis, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as formulated; no compelling reason for Canada to stand alone as an exception to the naming convention. I wouldn't oppose a broad consensus moving all national people categories to the proposed format. But just Canada, no. Canadian people are, without exception, subcategorized by province/territory, county/city and/or occupation instead of the main national category anyway, so in order to actually serve the stated purpose we'd need to rename a boatload of subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Canada only exists as a {{categoryredirect}} to the correctly-titled category — it contains no actual articles, but having it as such allows people to fix the categorization when it does get incorrectly applied to an article or two. This is a perfectly normal and standard way of going about category naming. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2009 (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.

Category:English people

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. Kbdank71 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English people to Category:People from England
Nominator's rationale: Rename: The recent recent change in consensus established that the lack of a separate Northern Irish citizenship required that Category:Northern Irish People be renamed to Category:People from Northern Ireland for accuracy. In common with Northern Ireland, England (and Scotland and Wales) do not have a citizenship of their own, and reside at the same category level as Northern Ireland. For accuracy, the categories for England, Scotland and Wales should match the form of Northern Ireland, if they are to be defined in terms of citizenship, and not in terms of recognised borders and names. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is to misread the NI debate. No rename needed here. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per WP:POINT. See above. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acting on a new consensus is not a point violation. There is no abuse of process here, this is the first time anybody has had a precedent to make the nomination as put. MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Johnbod and, of course, the nominator is ignoring the fact that for centuries "English people" was a completely separate citizenship for a sovereign country. This has never been the case with N.I. In all respects, I see N.I. as the exception, not the rule, and there is no need to change English to conform to the exception. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you were to assert the fact that history has any bearing on how you name nationality categories, there are plenty of candidates for being treated as a 'speacial case' nationality category. But it appears only Northern Ireland, out of 250 odd Categories, is so misunderstood that it is the only one where being "from" rather than "ish" supposedly means anything at all to anyone, and the intentional confusion and separation that creates with the equivalent UK categories is just now ignored with these replies as seemingly not important in the slightest. It seems to me that nobody seems to be even sure what these categories are for, either true citizenship, or some other POV definition of nationality. It looks to be being made up on the fly (although as we see from Occuli, something made up in one place cannot be applied immediately in another). Looking at Croatia they are even appearing to be interpreted as ethnic Categories, which actually goes against the Categorisation guideline which provides for a totally separate ethnic scheme. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as above. I entirely understand why the decision re NI is thought to be objectionable, but England/English is not the same, and the tone of this nomination does seem to indicate WP:POINT. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (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.

Category:Croatian people

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. Kbdank71 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Croatian people to Category:People from Croatia
Nominator's rationale: Croatian is a recognised nationality of People from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Per the recent change in consensus regarding the downgrading of consistency and upgrading of accuracy/NPOV with regard to nationality category naming, consensus for the name Croatian People needs to be re-established in light of the fact that People from Croatia is now an acceptable alternative. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be true, depending on the meaning attached to "nationality", but it is highly typical of this group of categories. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per WP:POINT. See above. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acting on a new consensus is not a point violation. There is no abuse of process here, this is the first time anybody has had a precedent to make the nomination as put. MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod's reasoning. I agree this is a bit of a fuzzy area, and there is a bit of "cross-polination", as it were, among these "nationality" categories of formerly Yugoslav people, but I'm not convinced this would be the better than the way it's approached now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my English comment, as intentionaly vague as the Categorisation system seems to have been made, there is at least one thing that the guidance is clear on for people: there is a top level scheme for ethnicity, and another one for nationality (whatever it is supposed to mean). Croatia is both a place and an ethnicity, therefore it more important to be accurate in each scheme, not less. Otherwise what is that actual point of this system? MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The system is not constructed by one omnipresent user, thus I doubt anything has been made "intentionally vauge" by anyone. I also don't agree with your assessment of "bright lines" for ethnicity and nationality, especially when dealing with the old "Balkans". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Categorization of people is quite clear, one top level scheme for ethnicity, one for nationality. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It sets out general principles that we try to follow, and can in most cases. But when there is cross-pollination of this sort, it's not always going to work out into the neat little packages you want. The world is messy. Sometimes WP is too, especially when we work by consensus decision-by-decision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Its unfortunate, because providing neat little intuitive packages is the only 'raison d'tre' of the Categorisation system. Reiterating the decision by decision mantra is oversimplification, as it ignores both the presence of agreed on guidance which embodies long standing consensus, and the existence of emergent systemic consensus by default (such as the presence of standardisation). Otherwise you have what we have here, anyone can just turn up with their single issue and change what irks them, and go on their merry way and just ignore the fact that there is a whole rest of an encyclopoedia that exists here as well that has to make some sense when compared with their little tinkering. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's somewhat ironic that you are invoking the "embodiment of long standing consensus" and that these noms would overturn just that on the formatting of these categories. I'm also not sure what "mantras" you are exactly referring to, as it's probably the first time I've ever said what I just said. Anyhow, I've said my bit ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per naming convention of people by nationality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (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.

Category:Republic of the Congo people

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. Kbdank71 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Republic of the Congo people to Category:People from the Republic of the Congo
Nominator's rationale: Per the recent change in consensus regarding the downgrading of consistency and upgrading of accuracy/NPOV with regard to nationality category naming, the insistence of poorly formed names such as this is depreciated. This category, and the other nominated categories listed below, are more properly formed as People from Foo.

MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – per WP:POINT. See above. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acting on a new consensus is not a point violation. There is no abuse of process here, this is the first time anybody has had a precedent to make the nomination as put. MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no new consensus applying to any of these. If you don't like the NI decision take it to DRV. I also think you mean deprecated, not depreciated (and there is no evidence for either deprecation or depreciation). The only recent departure from overall consistency is within Category:British people. Occuli (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would take it to DRV if I had the first clue as to on what basis the decision was made. The closer as is typical is silent on the matter, expecting people to just read his mind, and choose whether the the strongest argument was 'it can be confused just like Eastern Ireland', or 'people dont self identify as Northern Irish', or 'Northern Ireland is not an official citizenship', or 'Northern Irish is a disputed term (but "from Northern Ireland" is proven to be less so, which I saw no proof of)'. Its a pick and mix it seems, as the definitions of this category scheme and interpretations of his decisions seem to change depending on which principle you then try to apply to any other name. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a well-established convention that at least the "true" nationality categories use "Fooian people" or "Foo people" when "Fooian" would be ambiguous or awkward. These all conform to that standard, whether or not they are "true" nationalities. The N.I. example is not really on point since the main point of the nomination as I understood it was that "Northern Irish" is not a "true" nationality. I may have a slightly different opinion about those above that are not "true" nationalities, like Virgin Islands people, but since this is a grouped nomination for clarity I'm just going to blanket oppose for now on these. If we set aside the N.I. "precedent", there are plently of other precedents that are specific to these types that have gradually resulted in this standard being adopted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard that appeared to have emerged is: 1.Does it have a recognised name, 2. Does it have a recognised border. So, once that was broken, and other POV/special case considerations come into play, where is the logic in maintaining it as a 99% true standard, but still producing such mangled garbage as some of the phrases above. I am happy with either: imposing a uniform standard, or make every name sensible in English. Just don't fudge it and call it a credible work. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you're not aware of the practice that is used in English of making nouns into adjectives. It's fairly commonly employed, especially when short phrases are being constructed as opposed to complete sentences. I see nothing wrong with the form. You'll even find many in some dictionaries and reference works as adjectives: e.g., "New Zealand", "Cook Island", "Botswana" ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being a native English speaker, I cannot agree that it is "fairly commonly" used. Certainly, it jars when compared against the alternative form, People From Foo. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the New Zealand people category is fine the way it is, the Northern Ireland rationale has little relevance. What was the logic for selecting these countries and not others (e.g. Category:Australian people)? XLerate (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these are awkwardly constucted as the adjectival forms don't easily roll off the English-speaking tongue but we seem to have settled on using these in lieu of proper adjectives and no reason to change now. An overhaul of the whole naming schema is a valid proposal to discuss, but a slew of one-off nominations only serves to create schism rather than to nudge the community toward a big-ole-change. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (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.

Category:South African people

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. Kbdank71 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:South African people to Category:People from South Africa
Nominator's rationale: Rename:South African can mean both South Africa the country and the region of Southern Africa. Per the recent change in consensus regarding the downgrading of consistency and upgrading of accuracy/NPOV with regard to nationality category naming, consensus for the name South Africa People needs to be re-established in light of the fact that People from South Africa is now an acceptable alternative, eliminating the potential for geographic confusion. The same applies to the nominated categories listed below.

MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – per WP:POINT. See above. Splendid - here are the East Timorese. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your blase attitude is unsurprising - based on your talk page you are happy for Cfd to be a completely random venue, with decisions dependant only on who turns up when and why. (these are the true reasons why POINT was written by the way, it has nothing to do with preventing the application of new consensus) MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a well-established convention that at least the "true" nationality categories use "Fooian people" or "Foo people" when "Fooian" would be ambiguous or awkward. These all conform to that standard and they are all "true" nationalities. The N.I. example is not really on point since the main point of the nomination as I understood it was that "Northern Irish" is not a "true" nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, define true nationality. The Category also contains Korean as well. So, is North Korean above referring to a sovereign nation (not even called or recognised as being officially named North Korea, unlike Northern Ireland), or is it as some tried to assert, a category confusingly referring in some way to people from the vague area of the northern part of the other nationality also in the category, called Korea. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pick your definition: UN member state; recognized by a majority of states in the world; etc. These will satisfy both of those and others. This is starting more and more to look like WP:POINT to me, though I had my doubts at first.
        • Well, pick any of those standards or definitions that makes it clear that "Northern Irish" means anything different than "from Northern Ireland", or that one is more appropriate than the other. Pick anything that makes any distinction of this kind that is usefull in any way to anyone, who is simply browsing categories. That is not the same as making the distinction of using/not using British/Irish in place of it by the way, because of course plenty of sources will support their separation and distinction. But that is not what has been decided here, what has been decided is that "from" carries some sort of special unambiguous meaning, as required by Categorisation, for its adoption here as a special case. And it is only for that reason, because it was made quite clear, though I have my doubts, this is to have no significance for articles (and have a browse, Northern Irish is used everywhere, without a BLP ban or an oversight request in sight). MickMacNee (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you've read too much into the broad applicability of the N.I. decision—it was sui generis, in my opinion. Anyway, this is not about re-fighting the N.I. issue specifically and not for making a point. It's becoming more clear to me that that is part of your intent with these noms, which suggests to me you may not be seriously involved in a discussion of these proposals on their own merits. I suggest you raise the issue of the N.I. discussionn at WP:DRV, even if you don't know the closer's rationale. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I stand by all these nominations. I could have for instance just insisted that the entire system be renamed to People from Foo, that would not go against the decision, but would still be consistent which I support. But that does not take advantage of the new consensus now afforded to the system, which to my mind absolutely might have been overly restricted by the presence of standardisation. I have said it elsehwere, I cannot believe anybody does not recognise that there will be many people who would have previously objected to the use of 'Macedonian', or to the mangled terminology 'New Zealand person', but who would have accepted its use, as I did, because for the overall good, it appeared that having a consistent standard was more sensible for a Categorisation system than allowing interminable tinkering (which can be reversed at any time based on a parsity of opinions). But if it is here, I am perfectly entitled to apply it to the areas I believe would have fit this bill. It is absolutely ridiculous to just expect people to wander on by and realise the change and take advantage of it. We don't throttle back consensus backed article development, so why throttle back the adoption of new consensus for Categorisation? MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Off topic for this discussion, but I'm living in NZ right now and you may be surprised to know that "New Zealand" is widely used as an adjective here in speech and print. "New Zealand people" would be considered good NZ English, and the OED agrees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "New Zealand people", "New Zealand writer" and so on is standard usage, dramatic (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2009 (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.

Category:Buddhist studies contributers

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:Buddhist studies scholars. Kbdank71 15:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buddhist studies contributers to Debate
Nominator's rationale: Currently oddly named. Editor2020 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Religion films

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:Films about religion. Kbdank71 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Religion films to Category:Religious films Grammartically incorrect. nirvana2013 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which includes the linguistically incorrect "Grammartically" lol. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename I fail to see how the name is ungrammatical when you have had the title The Pirate Movie. The noun "pirate" here indicates that the film is about pirates or a pirate. It may not be a pure semantic form, but it can be considered an informal or colloquial usage. I don't see why we have to be pedantic about this. The rationale against the name "religious films" is that that expression implies the promotion or espousal of religion whereas this expression designates films which deal with religion whether positively, negatively or indifferently.--drb (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Films about religion. It respects the X of Y structure in category names as well as subcat Category:Documentaries about religion, while avoiding the impression that only films that are Religious, i.e, non-critical of religion, can be in the category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Films about religion per Shawn. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Films about religion, which is an improvement on the current name. Under no circumstances should it be renamed to Category:Religious films; however, that might be considered for a sub-category to group the existing sub-cats that are for "religious films". Cgingold (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested on the cats talk page "Films on the subject of Religion", however I would be happy to go with a
  • Rename to Category:Films about religion. Although do bear in mind there is strong suggestion that the films would "non-fiction", but the majority being categorized here currently are fictional narratives that touch on religion to a greater or lesser extent for their themes or subject matter. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has the same problems regardless of the name of how much about "religion" must the film be and what "RSes" tell us that it's at least that much. Like Monty Python's Life of Brian is about religion, but Foul Play (attack on an Archbishop and plot to kill the pope) or Keeping the Faith (friendship story about a rabbi and a priest) or The Exorcist aren't. OK, that's your opinion. This category is purely OR & POV & Subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2009 (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.

Category:Disambig-Class tennis pages

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 It would appear that the template has already been updated, as everything is already showing as being in the red-linked categories. Kbdank71 15:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disambig-Class tennis pages to Category:Disambig-Class tennis articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Request to rename to accomodate new {{WPBannerMeta}} usage by {{WP-Tennis}}. Mjquin_id (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I would rather keep "pages", but the WPBanner(s) do not support it? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for this and the following ones. This will need to be coordinated with the changing of the project template. Not sure if the new template is ready. As to the objection by Carlossuarez46, individual projects don't control the names of the categories. This is set by the templates used. So if there is an objection to this one, it really is calling for an update of the templates and renaming hundreds of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template has been updated and is production. (moved from custom banner to WPBannerMeta standard. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2009 (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.

Category:Template-Class tennis pages

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 It would appear that the template has already been updated, as everything is already showing as being in the red-linked categories. Kbdank71 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Template-Class tennis pages to Category:Template-Class tennis articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Request to rename to accomodate new {{WPBannerMeta}} usage by {{WP-Tennis}}. Mjquin_id (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Image-Class tennis pages

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 It would appear that the template has already been updated, as everything is already showing as being in the red-linked categories. Kbdank71 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Image-Class tennis pages to Category:Image-Class tennis articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Request to rename to accomodate new {{WPBannerMeta}} usage by {{WP-Tennis}}. Mjquin_id (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Project-Class tennis pages

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 It would appear that the template has already been updated, as everything is already showing as being in the red-linked categories. Kbdank71 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Project-Class tennis pages to Category:Project-Class tennis articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Request to rename to accomodate new {{WPBannerMeta}} usage by {{WP-Tennis}}. Mjquin_id (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Portal-Class tennis pages

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 It would appear that the template has already been updated, as everything is already showing as being in the red-linked categories. Kbdank71 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Portal-Class tennis pages to Category:Portal-Class tennis articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Request to rename to accomodate new {{WPBannerMeta}} usage by {{WP-Tennis}}. Mjquin_id (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Category-Class tennis pages

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 It would appear that the template has already been updated, as everything is already showing as being in the red-linked categories. Kbdank71 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Category-Class tennis pages to Category:Category-Class tennis articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Request to rename to accomodate new {{WPBannerMeta}} usage by {{WP-Tennis}}. Mjquin_id (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Pedophiles

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. Was deleted, no consensus to recreate it. Major BLP issues, which will not be solved with a rename, in fact may introduce new problems. If someone wants to create a "convicted" category and populate it with articles that are sourced, I can provide the article list from this category. Kbdank71 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pedophiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I see this category as one of the "classics" of the problematic or potentially problematic type. If you were going to think up a category name that could seem plausible but in reality cause numerous problems, what better one than this one? (Incidentally, it was deleted via CfD in 2005, re-created and deleted once more in 2005, and then just recently re-created again. I encourage everyone to read the previous discussion, as it's still relevant.) Right now, the category seems to be applied in a way that is quite similar to how it was used in 2005—as a category mainly for people who have committed some sort of molestation or sex crime against a child, whether convicted of it or not. The problem, of course, is that not all those who commit sexual crimes against children are true "pedophiles", meaning "adults who are sexually attracted to children". As the original nomination discussed, the sexual molestation is often done for "non-sexual" reasons, and even if it is done for a sexual reason, we don't know if the person's primary sexual interest is in children or if it's just an "on the side" thing. Obviously, most true pedophiles probably never commit a crime and never reveal their attraction to anyone. More and more, "pedophile" is becoming a term used to mean "person who committed a sex act with a minor", but for these purposes we already have categories like Category:Convicted American child molesters and even if the person wasn't convicted of anything, those categories in Category:Sex offenders by nationality. In short, I see the category and its application as (1) mainly redundant, (2) very prone to misunderstanding and misapplication (as it already has been), and (3) usually impossible to verify anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Rename to "Category:Convicted child sex offenders and cleanse the hell out of it or Delete per the nom's rationale. This is sown with the seeds of BLP nightmares. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above; I can't agree more with CaveatLector about the nightmares it might cause. A whole host of problems, most of which were outlined in the previous debate. Renaming probably doesn't cut it either as it just ends up being redundant. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the problems surrounding calling paedophiles child-molesters are outlined here (and elsewhere on that website, which is written by, and aimed at, paedophiles as far as I can tell), though it's hardly something that can be taken lightly. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Convicted child sex offenders or merge to Category:Convicted American child molesters and ensure that all such articles are supported by reliable and verifiable sources. I don't know if the nominator is offering a rather demented joke, but the description that "we don't know if the person's primary sexual interest is in children or if it's just an 'on the side' thing", perhaps because "the sexual molestation is often done for 'non-sexual' reasons" has to be one of the more grotesque trivializations of child molestation I have ever seen, anywhere. But then, any excuse is acceptable as long as its being tossed out for the worthy purpose of deleting categories. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all—this has nothing to do with "trivializing" child molestations, and I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith on such a matter. I'm discussing whether the person is a pedophile—are they sexually attracted to children. In other words, if you understand the meaning of the word, not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles. It seems clear that you haven't read the previous discussion, as I was pretty much paraphrasing/summarising what was mentioned there in the original nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your wording is despicable, and that is a term I use only because I am assuming good faith. If I wasn't I would have used far worse. That you claim to be paraphrasing someone else's revolting opinions (and that's not how your nomination reads), without applying any thought or interpretation, does not mitigate the repulsive nature of your characterization. Your arguments betray a revolting trivialization of child sexual molestation. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, get off your high horse and get over yourself. We're not here to discuss the revolting nature of child molestation. The fact that you don't like how I phrased something is quite irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Convicted child sex offenders or merge to Category:Convicted American child molesters, the conviction is what is verifiable, propensity isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move any applicable members that can be sourced to Category:Convicted child molesters or Category:Convicted American child molesters. --MPerel 05:58, 20 January 2009 (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.

Category:List of religious groups by country

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. recreation permissible if other articles are found/written. Kbdank71 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:List of religious groups by country to Category:Religious groups by country
Nominator's rationale: A category, not a list Editor2020 (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Delete, per Cgingold.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Lists of religious groups by country. I think this is what was intended. --Eliyak T·C 03:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was about to support Eliyak's suggestion, but after discovering that there's only a single article -- and no others available to add to the category (I searched, to no avail) -- I see no reason to keep it. If more articles materialize at some point, the category can be re-created. Cgingold (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2009 (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.

Categories by genre

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. Consensus was to do something. While there may be some logic to deletion, it did not gain any traction here. If deletion is needed, it would be best discussed on a by category basis. I don't see how that could work in a group nomination like this one. It appears that the oppose comment only applies to one, or at best two, of the nominations. Since there was this only comment, I fell that it should be treated the same as the others in this group nomination. Since it is a rename, we have not really lost anything and we can rename to something better if someone has a suggestion. The two categories marked as not having been tagged were tagged at some point in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
*These two categories are not currently in Category:Categories by genre.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Genre" has a specific meaning ("style of literature/entertainment") that makes it confusing when used in these cases. Also, the format "FOO by BAR" is used for categories that sort further into multiple subcategories (for examples, see the other denizens of Category:Categories by genre).
Not included here is Category:Anarchism by genre, which is currently being discussed for renaming on the same grounds. Eliyak T·C 03:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that the meaning in some popular uses seems to be extending itself, but eg "Terrorism by genre" is at best a WP:Neologism. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarianism by genre to Category:Libertarianism by form:

Oppose: While I don't like genre, form is even less relevant. Category is really correct term, but obviously that's used! Classification seems most relevant. See other synonyms below:
  • Synonyms for genre: brand, category, character, class, classification, fashion, genus, group, kind, school, sort, species, style.
  • Synonyms for form: anatomy, appearance, articulation, cast, configuration, conformation, construction, contour, cut, design, die, embodiment, fashion, figure, formation, framework, mode, model, mold, outline, pattern, plan, profile, scheme, silhouette, skeleton, structure, style, system. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all but rename the libertarianism one to Category:Libertarianism by silhouette. No, seriously—rename all as nominated. I agree they are not perfect, but most are miles better than "by genre", in my opinion, since "genre" suggests some sort of by-media classification. The fact that "form" has more synonyms than "genre" is irrelevant, in my opinion. Anyway, the fact that we may be grasping for a good term probably means the more general ones are more appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Golden Boot Award winners

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. Kbdank71 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Golden Boot Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. First off, this category is for the award that recognises contributions to the Western genre of film and television, not for any of the various other "Golden Boot" awards in football/soccer, Rugby League, and American football. Anyway, it's not a major award and the recipients seem to be listified quite well at Golden Boot Awards, so I'm proposing deletion as per the usual procedure for award categories. (If kept, probably needs to be disambiguated to Category:Golden Boot Award (Westerns) winners due to the multiple possible meanings.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Minor awards are not categorised. It will be sad to see it go, as I created it about a year ago, but I wasn't as aware then about Wikipolicy as I am now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nearly 200 have won this award. It should be continued. It is most prestigious in its genre. It's not "minor" to people interested in the American West.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I meant "minor" in relation to, say, the Oscars. I will grant that most awards would count as minor in this regard. There may also be a case for the presence of systemic bias or recentism on Wikipedia against the American West, as it is no longer as popular as it was in the early-to-mid twentieth century. I would like to see it remain on Wikipedia; I have just noticed in the past a bias against awards that are not at the level of the Oscars. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the nom is calling for deletion.
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.

Category:Christian literature

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. Kbdank71 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christian literature to Category:Christianity-related literature
Nominator's rationale: Standard form Editor2020 (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how much related to Christianity does the literature have to be? And what WP:RSes tell us it is that much related? Where's The Exorcist, for example - which has a lot to do with Christianity IMHO but not in the POV's of the category's maintainers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the parents, sub-cats, and a sample of the huge contents under this shows, this is for Christian literature of many types, and not The Exorcist, and is better kept that way. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (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.

Category:Islam related literature

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. Kbdank71 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Islam related literature to Category:Islam-related literature
Nominator's rationale: Standard form Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as soon as someone can get a bot working on this. gren グレン 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how much related to Islam does the literature have to be? And what WP:RSes tell us it is that much related? And what's the little tree structure for? Is "critical" have the meaning of academic review or only of a negative view? Too POV to support a category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - the structure here, as shown in the helpful diagram on the page, is different from that of the other two, & has category:Islamic books etc, so the rename works here. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (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.

Category:Buddhism related literature

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 Buddhist literature. Kbdank71 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buddhism related literature to Category:Buddhism-related literature
Nominator's rationale: Standard form Editor2020 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (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.

Category:Soviet repressive organs

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. Kbdank71 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Soviet repressive organs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Essentially the duplicate (although not filled yet) of Category:Law enforcement in the Soviet Union. I'd even say it is POV fork, although I agree with this POV: in a totalitarian state all law enforcement is repressive by definition. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saudi Arabian state organs used to repress homosexuals? Nope... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2009 (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.

Category:Anthropology films

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. Kbdank71 15:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anthropology films to Category:Ethnographic documentaries

:Nominator's rationale: I believe this to be a more precise term for films grouped. The documentary part is most obvious: these are non-fiction films. But are these not also, strictly speaking, ethnographic? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN PER BELOW[reply]

  • I created the category to group the films in the anthropology category. A quick glance suggests that the current films are indeed ethnographic documentaries. My only question would be, what about films such as, for example, a biography of Margaret Mead? And are there are other genres within what might be considered "anthropology films"? I only raise these questions for discussion, and have no firm opinion for or against the rename. --Lquilter (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that many more categories are needed. As it stands now, a bio-film on Mead could be categorized by, say, Category:Documentaries about people, or a bit more helpfully, Category:Documentaries about writers or even Category:Documentaries about science. Maybe it's a question of simply creating Category:Ethnographic documentaries as a subcat of Category:Anthropology films -- but I'd be worried about creating confusion. My reason for the CfD is that I think there's an urgent need for an Ethnographic documentary category: there are scores of them out there. For every biographical documentary about an anthropologist or some other non-ethnographic anthropology doc, I'm willing to bet there's a thousand ethnographic film portraits: it was such a dominant strain in documentary cinema, until the idea of indigenous communities using media to tell their own stories began to surface, much more recently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, noting a wider cat may be needed in future. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I can see already that Anthropology films should remain as the master cat because there a fascinating hybrid genre called Ethnofiction, as well. So I withdraw and will simply create a new sub-category for Ethnographic documentaries, when I get a moment. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though this has been withdrawn, no one has considered how much about Anthropology must a film be and WP:RSes tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure what the above comment is trying to express, but my interest in this area is anthropological documentary film, in which case it's a fairly cut and dry distinction.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (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.

Category:Philosophical films

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. Kbdank71 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Philosophical films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I suggest that this is a POV categorization. This is best illustrated by reproduction of the category definition in full: "Films with philosophical themes, or that raise interesting philosophical questions. These films may be suitable for use in philosophy classrooms, as inspiration for philosophical cafes or informal socratic discussions, or as food for thought for the philosophically-minded." Defining what is an "interesting philosophical question" is POV and, of course, almost all films could probably qualify depending on how loose the standard is. There is no established film "genre" known as "philosophical films". Somwhat similar to the problems that led to the deletion of Existentialist films, Films which explore libertarian themes, Atheistic films, and others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It could be argued (and I do) that most films explore, in one way or another, a philosophical question or theme. Or at least they do if they fall into the hands of a film scholar. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also, it is not a defining category: there is no stamdard definition of "phylosophical film", unlike, say, "Western". Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no telling how much about Philosophy a film must be and WP:RSes tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_15&oldid=1089914682"