Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< 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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator.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Propose renaming Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes to Category:Documentary films about alleged war crimes WITHDRAWN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?

talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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
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.
      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
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
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
]
  • This is disruption to make a point - see diff. Desist.
    talk) 17:13, 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
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]
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
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
]
  • Except for LGBT people, who are "from Canada" already. See
    talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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
    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]
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. 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]

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
    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 {{
talk) 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, I would rather keep "pages", but the WPBanner(s) do not support it? --
talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Template has been updated and is production. (moved from custom banner to WPBannerMeta standard. --
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 {{
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 {{
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 {{
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 {{
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 {{
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]
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.
  • Delete - per
    talk) 19:24, 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: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]
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]
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
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?

talk
) 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN PER BELOW[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.
    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"