Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27
March 29 >

March 28

[edit]

Category:Jimmy Page

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already well covered by Category:Led Zeppelin. -- Prove It (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Current Serie B players

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Serie B players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete for the same reasons as Category:Current Serie A players, which is listed separately. Brandon97 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes, convention of Category:Episodes by television series. -- Prove It (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian authors

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

The result of the debate was Merge. --Xdamrtalk 08:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Canadian writers, convention of Category:Writers by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actors from Alberta

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

The result of the debate was Merge. --Xdamrtalk 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Canadian actors, or Keep. -- Prove It (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of Ottoman Greece

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

The result of the debate was Merge. --Xdamrtalk 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

British television series by decade

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beck

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

An unnecessary eponymous category as described in WP:OCAT#Eponymous categories for people. The only subcategories are "songs by artist" and "albums by artists", neither of which requries a seperate eponymous category for the artist. Likewise neither of the articles needs to be in this category as the links can simply be provided in his main article for navigation. Dugwiki 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Louisville

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:People from Louisville, Kentucky, convention of Category:People by city in the United States, or the reverse. -- Prove It (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People executed under the Stuarts

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People executed under the Stuarts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as misleadingly broad category which conflates radically different periods of British history. This category presently includes executions in both the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, in three distinct periods: a) 1603-1649 (under James VI and I and Charles I), then after the interregnum b) 1660-1688 under Charles II and James VII and II; c) 1689-1694 under Mary II after the Glorious Revolution, though that era of joint monarchy may be better labelled as House of Orange-Nassau; d) under Anne from 1702 to 1714. This was a century of great upheaval, and both the execution of Charles I and the overthrow of James VII and II marked radical changes in British history, and if executions in these periods are to be categorised in relation to the crown, they should be categorised by monarch rather than under a broad House of Stuart category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People executed under the Hanovarians

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People executed under the Hanovarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as irrelevant intersection. In this period, the monarch's power was limited to the ability to pardon, but not to order executions, so it would be more useful to split this category to Category:18th century executions by Great Britain and Category:19th century executions by the United Kingdom, to fit with other categories such as Category:19th century in the United Kingdom. (note that the United Kingdom was only created in 1801; from 1707-1800, England, Scotland and Wales formed the Kingdom of Great Britain; also the use of the word "by" rather than in to include executions carried out by British forces overseas. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, lots of information which could easily be recreated using AWB never is. I do think the POV spin on this is a complete red herring. Johnbod 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek rock bands

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

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Greek rock music groups, convention of Category:Rock music groups by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-race rallying

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Overland expeditions to Category:to be determined by consensus
Category:Road rallying to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Originally, this was just Category:Road rallying but someone decided that since some of the events took place off-road that we would need another category for off-road untimed rallies (Category:Overland expeditions). This doesn't strike me as the best way to do this, since they are basically the same thing and there is considerable overlap. Personally I think sticking them all under "road rallying" is fine, since that is what the concept seems to be called, but I wanted to get other suggestions from people to see if we can avoid the road/off-road thing. Maybe something along the lines of Category:Untimed rallying or Category:Non-race rallying or Category:Hell, I don't know. Recury 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an old related CFD. Recury 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my recommendation to merge Overland expeditions back into Road rallying. Recury 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People executed under the Saxe-Coburgs

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People executed under the Saxe-Coburgs to Category:20th century executions by the United Kingdom
Nominator's Rationale: Rename The monarchy had long since had no role in ordering executions, and since 1837 the Royal prerogative of mercy had been exercised by the Home Secretary. The categorisation by monarchy is therefore a largely irrelevant intersection, only useful as a categorisation by time period, and the change of name of the Royal House from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor is not a sufficiently significant moment in wider British history for it to define a historical era for non-royal purposes. If the cat is renamed to "20th century", the articles from Category:People executed under the Windsors can be aded in here too (that category looks likely to be deleted at its CFD, but the CFD is too far advanced to usefully make a new proposal of merger. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm not sure what to make of the 'delete per nom' comments, given that BrownHairedGirl explicitly advocates renaming. Presumably we all mean the same thing, for this scheme, 'executions-by-royal-house', to be replaced with 'executions-by-century-?
Xdamrtalk 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politics in Somerset

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

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 08:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politics in Somerset to Category:Politics of Somerset
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention for sub-categories of Category:Politics of England. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of fictional characters by distinguishing feature

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Lists of fictional characters by distinguishing feature into Category:Lists of fictional characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very small and not clearly defined what coutns as a "distinguishing feature". Upmerge with parent cat. >Radiant< 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suicides by methods & subcategories

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_28#Category:Models_who_committed_suicide below, and After Midnight's comment here. The entire system of categorising suicides seems to need attention. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. That a celeb killed himself is far more important than how he did it (with a rope, gun, poison, etc). >Radiant< 11:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category is helpful in managing the large number of deaths by suicide. Method of suicide is relevant IMO. Also not just "celebs", any notable person/suicide is plausibly up for this categorisation scheme. --ZayZayEM 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - we've already discussed it before, in previous nomination [1]. I can only repeat my arguments: "Such lists provide valuable help for, for example, a historician who wants to make a research on popular methods of suicide by an epoch, or a psychiatrist may be able to do a significiant research by finding correlations between suicide methods and other factors (epoch, diagnosis, profession of person, nationality, location, etc). It's useful navigational and categorizational mechanism. Also, note that a subcategories includes various ritual suicides, such as Seppuku - I suppose there's no doubt that it's useful to be able to get a list of Japanese people who committed seppuku?" --GreyCat
  • Weak delete. While I can't quibble with the methodology of the categories (hence the "weak" part), the utility of it is questionable to me. I can see lots of scholarship around people that killed themselves, and types of people that killed themselves, and even why people killed themselves, but I find very little commonality around how people killed themselves. These methods don't "advance" internally in technology or effectiveness much, so a hanging suicide in 1770 is pretty much the same as one in 1970. So in interest of reducing death-category clutter, I'd delete these. (Though the Seppuku category is interesting in its own right.)--Mike Selinker 14:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GreyCat as a useful tool for research (suicide is a much-researched subject). Mike Selinker is right to say that "a hanging suicide in 1770 is pretty much the same as one in 1970", so these categories do define a clear commonality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like it's probably a useful categorization for people who study suicide as it allows them to look at cases of specific types of suicide. For example, are certain methods of suicide more likely for certain types of individuals and certain types of situations? What factors might influence how someone goes about committing suicide, and what sorts of measures can be taken to help prevent vulnerable people from committing suicide by various methods? It's not necessarily just about the morbid curiosity factor of how a "celebrity" killed themselves. Dugwiki 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. The category system is not a database tool. Haddiscoe 17:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a database, but it is a navigational tool to index articles on general subjects that readers want to peruse. It's certainly possible that someone studying suicide might want to look at articles as possible cornerstones for case studies on various types of suicide. Dugwiki 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There are far too many death related categories on lots of articles, it is quite disproportionate. The search box can be used to find words such as "hanging". Choalbaton 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you try typing "hanging" in the search box, you'll get a large number of articles unrelated to death by hanging. And even among the articles that do involve death by hanging, a large number of those aren't about suicides. So if you were trying to find articles about people who hanged themselves the search box is an inefficient tool in this case. Dugwiki 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI these are articles about suicides, not executions. I'd also probably dispute you and say that causes of death in and of themselves are useful areas of study in their own right. Dugwiki 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is non-defining characteristics. One more problem with suicides is that it is not something the relatives boast about all over and any verification may be hard/impossible/permanently disputed/influenced by media lies. Pavel Vozenilek 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Wimstead 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think this is every bit as much of a defining characteristic as place and date of birth (which is to say, not a lot, but enough to justify inclusion). Verification will not generally be a problem either, as suicides are often investigated by the police. In cases where verification is hard/impossible/permanently disputed, the solution is simple: don't apply the category. But if the death certificate says suicide, then there generally won't be much question. Xtifr tälk 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll note that we don't categorize by place of birth. Also, from reading your comment here, it appears that you are mistakenly arguing for keeping Category:Suicides, which is not up for deletion here. Don't worry, that's not on the table. — coelacan — 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't strictly categorize by place of birth, but we do have extensive People from location categories whic are most commonly used for place of birth. And yes, I'm aware that this isn't Category:Suicides, which is why I said weak keep; for that category, I would have said strong. Xtifr tälk 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making clear that you were indeed talking about this category. Sorry I sort of misread you. To the topic, it is true that "people from" usually amounts to "born in", and that's a good point. I guess this is because it is pretty common in conversation to ask, "so where are you from?" I would point out that on the other hand, we don't categorize by location of death, which although it is noted in infoboxes, does not seem to be notable enough to categorize by (things categorized are generally held to a higher standard of notability than things simply mentioned in articles). Without running too far down this alley, since I might have made another bad analogy =P if you have time I'd be open to hearing any response you might have to my comment directly below. — coelacan — 03:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is a textbook case of non-defining characteristics. Methods of suicides are most often predicated upon what the person has available to them. Those who own guns, use guns. Those who don't, use a razor or knife in the bathtub or raid the medicine cabinet. Those with a car and a garage often use carbon monoxide. Those who live near tall buildings, often jump. Those who are in prison hang themselves with bedsheets. It's all a matter of opportunism, and thus hardly notable. Categorization reads too much deliberation into opportunity. — coelacan — 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people have multiple options available to them (and I strongly doubt your theory that anyone who owns a gun will use that as their first choice). I do not believe that it's merely a matter of opportunism; I suspect that many (probably most) suicides weigh their options, and think that the method chosen may well reveal important facts about the individual, which is why I think this is, at least slightly, a defining characteristic. Although I suspect it's no more than slightly a defining characteristic, which is why I said "weak keep" above, and why I won't be upset if "delete" carries the day. Xtifr tälk 11:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people are surprised to learn this, but suicide really is opportunistic. Reducing the availability of guns reduces the overall number of suicides,[2] because guns are the very easiest way to kill yourself (quick, painless, private). When dealing with opportunistic actions, some people have more determination than others. Guns need relatively little determination, which is why when someone you know is talking about suicide, prevention centers advise you to surreptitiously remove the guns from their house. In fact, guns are so easy and so common to use that "suicides [account] for about 70% of gun deaths".[3] So the fact that someone used a gun to kill themself really only tells us that they were suicidal (so they go in category:suicides) and they owned a gun. There's nothing more you can read into it. — coelacan — 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Biota by country

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only point of this category is to be a placeholder for the "flora" and "fauna" categories. Every single category like Category:Biota of Brazil only ever contains the subcategories Category:Fauna of Brazil and Category:Flora of Brazil. Thus the "biota" cats form an entirely unnecessary extra layer that only makes it harder, not easier, to find stuff. >Radiant< 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Models who committed suicide

[edit]
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: there appears to be an emerging consensus to merge, but it would be better to do a group nomination that includes the other "<profession> who commited suicide" cats. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Models who committed suicide - Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic - jc37 08:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Decapitated terrorist victims

[edit]
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: upmerge. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Decapitated terrorist victims to Category:Victims of terrorist beheadings
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The current category title came about due to a previous CFD discussion. However, unless I'm mistaken, the current category title implies that it concerns "victims of decapitation who were terrorists" rather than "people who were beheaded by terrorists". I believe the title I propose, Category:Victims of terrorist beheadings, appropriately addresses the issue. Black Falcon 07:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alejandro Turla Quiboloy

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

The result of the debate was WP:SNOW delete and as the abuse of the category space as an article—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alejandro Turla Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This is an article about a non-notable minister whose category reads like a complete article. No articles are included under this "category". Tito Pao 03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former Jews

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People who have renounced Judaism. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Comment -- please remember that this category is a SUBCATEGORY of Category:People by former religion -- thus it deals with the religious side rather than the ethnic one. The fact that people think that this is a stand-alone category (when it is clearly not) is not even taken in to consideration. If this category is deleted then Category:Former Protestants, Category:Former Muslims, Category:Former Scientologists, Category:Ex-Mormons, etc. must be deleted as well in the interests of NPOV. One can't just "pick and choose" which categories to leave in and which ones to delete when they are all valid under the main category heading ("People by former religion"). --WassermannNYC 05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP -- this category was recently recreated (and for good reason): someone recreated this category and I started adding names a little while ago; it looks like it was deleted before (for whatever reason?). Deletion doesn't make sense though considering that we have a whole host of people categorized by former religion(s) at Category:People by former religion including former Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Scientologists, etc -- so what about the former Jews? Why no category for them? I won't add any more names to this category until the issues with this category are resolved, though. Or perhaps this cat. could simply be renamed to Category:Former adherents of Judaism? --WassermannNYC 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As per rationale Jew is also ethnicity. Suggest "People who have renounced Judaism" or something similar as more appropriate.--ZayZayEM 03:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the added ethnic component when it comes to Jews and Judaism does indeed make this category extra tricky. Your proposed name of Category:People who have renounced Judaism is decent. However, per all of the categories in Category:People by former religion, it seems that this Category:Former Jews should stay in line with the accepted format, i.e. "Category:Former [religion]" (see Category:Former Roman Catholics, Category:Former Muslims, etc). --WassermannNYC 03:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR. This category is an obviously needed exception to the current format.--ZayZayEM 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- but 'being a Jew' isn't ENTIRELY an ethnic issue. It is both ethnic AND religious, and this is why I believe Jews are best described (broadly) as an "ethno-religious group." A non-ethnic Jew can convert to the traditional religion of the ethnic group known as the Jews (Judaism) and then eventually leave it; this would make that person a "former Jew" just like a full-fledged ethnic Jew that dropped out of an Orthodox yeshiva and became an atheist. It's a tricky category for sure, but given that we have (non-disputed categories) for many other religions (again, see Category:People by former religion) it makes no sense whatsoever to single this one out for deletion (again). --WassermannNYC 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, it's both. There are people who are Jews by ethnicity only - they do not practice Judaism. But people who practice Judaism are called Jews, too, even if they are not Jews by ethnicity. Yeah, it can be confusing, but that's just the way things are. Jinxmchue 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to lean towards keeping this considering the other categories of the same type for other religions. I think that people will understand that "Jews" in this sense refers to the religion. It's pretty ridiculous to wonder if people will think it refers to people who've changed their ethnicity. Jinxmchue 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because being Jewish means being part of both an ethnicity and a religion, unlike for Christians and Muslims for example who are ONLY part of a religion. See the Who is a Jew? article as well as the Jew and Judaism articles to understand this subject. And there are grades to this according to Judaism: Thus according to Jewish law a Jew who renounces Judaism and practices another religion is still ethnically a Jew albeit one who is now part of a different reeligion. Or, a Jew who is simply ignorant of Judaism and lapses into non-belief is not classsed as a "former" Jew, but is considered to be a full-fledged Jew, albeit an ignorant one, according to Judaism. This category cannot take the place of the reality of what Judaism and Jewish law teach and no-one has the right to propose categories that do not reflect what Judaism itself teaches about Jews and Judaism. If anything, this category should be divided into either Category:Jewish apostates or Category:Jews who rejected Judaism. IZAK 05:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely delete this very contentious, misleading and uninformative category.--Smerus 06:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- so should all of the other categories at Category:People by former religion be deleted as well? --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- so should all of the other categories at Category:People by former religion be deleted as well? --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jinxmchue -- this is the exact point that I am trying to make here, but of course this critical point is blatantly ignored by those with an agenda as they are blinded by their POV. If this category is deleted then ALL of the other sub-categories at Category:People by former religion should be deleted as well. --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- what about Judaism (a religion) and those that formerly adhered to it? --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Horror films by decade

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamrtalk 08:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horror films by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over categorisation. Nominating all individual "decade" categories within this category. No other genre is listed by decade. ZayZayEM 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it cleans out the Category:Horror films quite a bit. Also, we do have Category:Romantic comedy films by decades as well.Andrzejbanas 03:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrzejbanas; it's always good to create sub-categories (or even sub-sub-categories) to deal with massively large & unwieldy ones. --WassermannNYC 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNo other genre is listed by decade.-Maybe they should be.Aatomic1 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the number of articles involved, I'd hate to have them all in the main Category:Horror films, which already has 1300 entries. -- Black Falcon 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per discussion above. This sounds like a useful way of sub-catting a large category. There may be a better way of sub-categorising, but none appears to have been proposed so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Richard Dawkins Award winners

[edit]
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. No objection to a list, but one is apparently already present. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Richard Dawkins Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, another "person by award". — coelacan — 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really don't think you are supposed to do that. If you are, then we should be doing that with all categories, and then it would defeat the purpose in the long run. Do we put every cat in Category:Films? Course not! Andrzejbanas 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Compilation Albums

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 08:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Compilation Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only content is userspace material, and it's not clear if this was ever meant for a serious purpose; still has leftover interwikis from copying Category:Flash cartoons. Personal mixtapes aside, actual "fictional" compilation albums don't seem plentiful. Unint 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fan 3 songs

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamrtalk 08:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan 3 songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

non-notable songs by non-notable band. Nardman1 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_28&oldid=1127753719"