Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 15



Category:Loughborough UCCE cricketers

 * 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:Loughborough University cricketers.  --  X damr  talk 18:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Loughborough UCCE cricketers to Category:Loughborough University cricketers
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the other University first class cricket categories. Ian3055 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Hockey 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:Ice hockey films.  --  X damr  talk 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Hockey films to Category:Ice hockey films
 * Nominator's rationale: While it rankles me to do so, as a Canadian, reluctantly propose we rename to match the Category:Ice hockey → Category:Ice hockey media category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - while it may rankle, most people around the world who know of a sport called "hovckey" would instantly think of what is perplexingly called "field hockey" here (and before you suggest otherwise, "field" hockey is a national sport in India). In any case, since two completely different sports are both known to some people as "hockey", the current name is ambiguous - unless you want to use it as a parent category to new categories for each of the two sports. Grutness...wha?  02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is precisely the ice hockey/field hockey distinction that I am referring to, yes. But no, I do not propose we repurpose this as a "hockey films" master category as it would serve no useful function that I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to match title of ice hockey, the parent article for almost all of the films included in the category. We do have to figure out what to do with Chak De! India, a film about field hockey. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious: create Category:Field hockey media and stick it there. Done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Victims of human rights abuses

 * 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. Andrew c [talk] 03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Victims of human rights abuses to Unknown
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another victim category at or near the top of the tree that is purely POV. Once a new name is decided on then we can tackle the thorny question of what belongs.  I don't see Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws fitting in with the others. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree This is a valid use of the word "victim". Debresser (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions How do we determine that an incident is a "human rights abuse" and that a particular individual is the "victim"? One person's human rights abuse is another person's legitimate exercise of governmental authority. Do we require a conviction stating that there was an abuse of human rights? Do we need to provide reliable and verifiable sources to establish that this has been identified as a case of human rights abuse? How is this established? Alansohn (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer to Alansohn: as far as I can see, this category is not meant to contain articles about individual cases directly; it's only a parent category for things like or . Hence, the NPOV/V problem with individual cases begins only at the lower level. For this level, we only need verification for the valid classification of the type of abuse, and here I don't see a fundamental problem: if Torture and Genocide can uncontentiously be categorised in, then the respective "victims of" categories can be categorised here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have organisations like Amnesty International and plain news sources to guide us in this respect. No fear for original research. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So these are anyone who a third party calls a human rights abuse victim? Useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete can't be recast as NPOV. "Human rights abuses" mean different things to different people: those who lived through Fascism or Communism and had limitations place on speech, religion, assembly, and other rights that many would agree are "human rights" victims as per this category, even if we can see no evidence of an ill effect? What about rights to bodily integrity: are victims of non-consensual circumcision, FGM, and such categorizable here? What about rights to own guns which in the USA is enshrined in its Constitution. Are the citizens of countries which ban gun ownership now victims of some abuse? Ditto citizens of countries that outlaw (or formerly outlawed) divorce, inter-racial marriage, abortion, homosexuality, religious dissent, the Communist Party or any other political group, alcohol, trade union organization, or deny (or formerly denied) rights of women to vote, rights of 17 year olds to vote or smoke or have sex, rights of 15 year olds to drive cars, right of 20 year olds to drink alcohol, and on and on...Amnesty International and other groups focus on what they want to focus on and one could probably find some upstanding group that considers nearly any law - even the tax laws - of any jurisdiction to be some sort of human rights abuse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this extreme relativistic stance is unhelpful. If you were to take this stance seriously, you'd have to delete Category:Human rights, first of all, and then Category:Human rights abuses. But fact is, there is a very clear consensus that certain things (torture, genocide, extrajudicial killing, etc.) are in fact human rights abuses; and fact is also that nobody has tried to add people who have run afoul of gun possession laws. I agree with Debresser: we have reliable sources to determine this; and I also repeat: if you disagree with such categorisation, this is the wrong place to start changing it. The "victims of" categories are valid and practically viable exactly as long as the corresponding daughter cats of Category:Human rights abuses are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this "very clear concensus" that certain things are human rights abuses? Is it here at WP? Is it at the UN? Is it in the USA? Iran? Israel? North Korea? the Vatican? where is it? It's subjective unless we place an "in the opinion of" qualifier to who is making the determination. I would say that there is as clear a concensus that the right to vote, to religious practice, and bodily integrity, are human rights as basic as the other things you mention, and denial of voting rights on the basis of color, race, ethnicity, sex, or such would be an abuse of that human right, as would denial of the right to practice one's religion or to coerce people to convert would be a human rights abuse, similarly non-consensual attacks on bodily integrity may be viewed as abuse of the basic human right to be whole. Those who are denied these human rights seem to be "Victims of human rights abuses" in any ordinary formulation of the term. Similarly, it's not relativism, it's trying to make something objective so we can have a category - if we're just collecting categories and need a parent, that's not overly useful if we have to be inaccurate and subjective to do that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per the common sensen meaning of the words. This category includes many subcats and articles directly which would then be lacking a good parent.  The purpose of categories is to aid the user in WP navigation; this category does just that.  Hmains (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep i dont think we need consensus on what this means. that means of course, that some people may be multiply categorized as victims and aggressors. as long as the articles attempt to be NPOV, the listings in categories seems ok to me. It might be nice to have a category of people convicted in a court of law of commiting human rights abuses, as well as a category of people who were acknowledged in a court of law as victims of such abuses, but i also dont know what you would call them. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as the standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, NPOV and OR issues are addressed. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While true, that means every entry needs to be verified based on some standard. As you know, this type of category will contain people placed there to make a point and that don't belong.  So that introduces a maintenance need for the category in addition to the POV problems.  It also does not address the issue of, is this defining for the members?  I suspect that for those who belong, it would probably be defining, for the others it clearly would not be defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn. I don't see this category more prone to POV abuse than what we can deal with. __meco (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Commuting cyclists

 * 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 as a trivial categorisation.  --  X damr  talk 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * commuting cyclists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Strikes me as an example of Overcategorization, notably the grouping of articles by a "non-defining or trivial characteristic" Lincolnite (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion (from category creator): I simply argue that whether or not someone commutes to work by bicycle is, in fact, a defining characteristic in most of the English-speaking world. How many mayors of large U.S. cities, for example, would fit into this category, as does Houston mayor Bill White. How many American television personalities would fit into this category, as does Harry Smith? How many Australian state chief justices would fit into this category, as does Victoria Chief Justice Marilyn Warren?


 * If we are to trust a detail (unreferenced) that is mentioned in the Wikipedia article for screenwriter Jay Presson Allen, the fact that she rode her bicycle to the studio was not only "defining", but film director Alfred Hitchcock considered it "down-class."


 * The fact that UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron rides his bicycle to work was central to charges of hypocrisy against him.


 * A person's trivial and non-defining characteristics are generally those that both a) Don't involve the person's choice (e.g. hair color, age at death) and b) aren't unusual or otherwise a social issue (e.g. favorite color, favorite food).


 * The Commuting cyclists category is about a notable, defining and non-trivial choice of behavior. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per WP:OC. And I say this as someone who does cycle to work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I change to neutral. I suppose cycling could be a defining characteristic for otherwise notable figures who have chosen bikes as their principle means of transport, especially in this day and age. I don't think that would be the case, though, for societies and eras where cycling is or was more commonly practiced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Could those of you who express the opinion that the category is "non-defining or trivial" please support your opinion with facts or other objective argument? Otherwise, this isn't really a discussion as much as it is an opinion poll. See WP:PNSD. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as categorisation by trivial detail. No mayor was elected because of his cycling (as opposed to governors and presidents being elected because they became popular as actors). If that were true, we should have created Category:Commuting cyclist mayors. This proof ad absurdum shows that the argument to keep the category is flawed. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You seem to be linking article notability requirements with categorization requirements. Qualification for inclusion in a category is usually unrelated to what makes an article subject notable. The qualifying fact itself (in this case, whether or not an individual has regularly commuted by bicyle) is notable in these articles: reliable third-party sources highlight the fact and occasionally center on the fact. It cannot simultaneously be notable and trivial.
 * You seem to mix up notability and categorisation. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You then argue that a logical deduction from that must argue in favor of a category that is small and has no potential for growth. One can take any example and proceed to an extreme, and I agree that that the category you provided as an example would be overcategorization on the basis of WP:OC. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Be careful, because it's "definingness" rather than notability that is the key question here. And I also disagree with your statement that something "cannot simultaneously be notable and trivial." From the point of view of categorization, it actually can -- and has been. Two examples offered in WP:OC of classic examples of trivial deleted categories are Category:Bald People and Category:Famous redheads. I would argue that, say, Yul Brynner was a notable bald actor: his Film Reference.com bio states that "Yul Brynner's trademark—his baldness—was obviously the actor's most identifiable feature." While Hepburn's red-hair was prominently mentioned in her People magazine obit. These were notable characteristics within articles, but red- or bald-headedness was still not judged to be sufficiently defining to support categories grouping classes of people along these lines. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, Debresser puts it quite well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Debresser, trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete i would support a category of "cycling activists" that would include people who make a big deal of their greenness by cycling to work, or people who work towards cycle friendly cities/routes. but this category seems trivial and ephemeral. i wonder how many of these people will always be commuting by bike, and the category seems to say they always do, like its a permanent physical disability that compels them. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:2002 Cincinnati Masters

 * 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 as empty.  Strongly support whacking all out-of-process-emptiers with a big stick.  --  X damr  talk 01:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 2002 cincinnati masters


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination to consider how to handle these. The contents of this category appear to have been moved to Category:2002 Western & Southern Financial Group Masters without a discussion. This is apparently a follow on to a rename of the tournament.  I suspect that if this was a normal nomination it would pass.  So I guess the question is should we delete this and modify the speedy deletion criteria to allow categories of this type to be handled there?  Or should we require a full discussion here?  In either case, how strongly should we scold the editors.  In this case the comment I left was that the category was emptied out of process and should have been discussed here. Maybe a warning template (template:uw-CfDprocess)? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment --Alumni categorises for colleges that merge or change name are named according to the existing institution. When I get to an article I find that this is about a tennis event.  My question is whether the tournament wnet by its present name in 2002, in which case the change would be appropriate, or whehter the sponsorship is more recent, in which case it would be highly inappropriate and should be restored.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the articles, it would appear that it became dual named in 2002. But the article quality is poor so this may or may not be correct.  However, I have included the navigation template since it shows Cincinnati Masters as the correct name. Cincinnati Masters tournaments Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments – Category:2003 Cincinnati Masters has the same problem. Category:Cincinnati Masters is the parent. The corresponding articles have also been renamed recently .. perhaps a gentle chiding would suffice. Occuli (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many more examples in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. This is not an isolated occurrence.  I just listed this one to explore how to deal with these.  I expected the delete to be supported.  I was surprised about the considerations discussed by Peterkingiron which make a lot of sense and I did not even consider when I brought this here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 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:Woodworking abrasives

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Merge all per nom.  --  X damr  talk 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Woodworking abrasives to Category:Abrasives
 * Suggest merging Category:Metalworking abrasives to Category:Abrasives
 * Nominator's rationale: This is a case of overcategorization. This category only contains one article and there are only a dozen articles in its parent category (Category:Abrasives). Wizard191 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge both - I've combined the nominations since the likelihood of disparate results is low. No need to subdivide the abrasives articles, and given that the same abrasive can be used on multiple materials, it's probable that we'd end up with a series of small categories, several of which would be placed on each article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for combining the nominations. Wizard191 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. That's why I created category:Abrasives last week. Both of these sub-categories are valid and can easily be populated, but they would have substantial overlap. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Crusade people (Christians)

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename all to Christians/Muslims of the XXXX Crusade form.  Clear consensus for change and clear support for something along the lines of  of the Crusades.  Per User:Carlaude, we are not looking for a statement of personal faith, simply which side the individual in question fought on but in respect of an event like the Crusades, this division is well expressed in terms of religion. --  X damr  talk 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Crusade people (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Crusade of Nicopolis (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Ninth Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Eighth Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Seventh Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Sixth Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Fifth Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Fourth Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Third Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Second Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the First Crusade (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:People of the Crusade of 1101 (Christians) to Category:to be determined
 * Propose renaming Category:Crusade people (Muslims) to Category:to be determined
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - parentheticals should be avoided in category names if there is a reasonable alternative. Here there are several possible alternatives, of which I suppose my preference would be Category:Fooian people of the Crusades. At the very least "Crusade" should be pluralized. Otto4711 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – we have Category:People of the Crusades, so this suggests Category:Christian people of the Crusades and Category:Muslim people of the Crusades. (The subcats mostly follow the (mixed) pattern Category:People of the First Crusade (Christians), which would suggest Category:People of the Crusades (Christians).) Occuli (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged all of the parenthetical subcats for the Christians (none exist for Muslims) so they can all be considered here, still having a preference for my original suggestion. Otto4711 (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another option would be 'Christians/Muslims of', per the categories Category:Christians, Category:Muslims. Occuli (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or "Crusaders of ...." Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename as such –
 * Category:Crusade people (Muslims) to Category:Muslim people of the Crusades
 * Category:Crusade people (Christians) to Category:Christian people of the Crusades
 * Category:People of the First Crusade (Christians) to Category:Christian people of the First Crusade
 * Category:People of the Crusade of 1101 (Christians) to Category:Christian people of the Crusade of 1101
 * Category:People of the Second Crusade (Christians) to Category:Christian people of the Second Crusade
 * Etc. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 12:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am liking the idea of Johnbod's about as much as mine now, Category:Crusaders of the First Crusade, etc., in the "Christian people" categories above. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude


 * Rename to something per consensus. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename as such –
 * Category:Crusade people (Muslims) to Category:Muslims of the Crusades
 * Category:Crusade people (Christians) to Category:Christians of the Crusades
 * Category:People of the First Crusade (Christians) to Category:Christians of the First Crusade
 * Category:People of the Crusade of 1101 (Christians) to Category:Christians of the Crusade of 1101
 * Category:People of the Second Crusade (Christians) to Category:Christians of the Second Crusade
 * Etc. (Tweaking earlier proposal by User:Carlaude) Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While acceptable as an improvement and the same in many cases-- IMO, it reads (today) more like a statement of the individual's personal faith, rather than its intention-- just a statement of which side of the Crusades the person worked on. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Alansohn, except for Muslims, who might better be Category:Muslims of the crusade period, or something like that. Crusades (if my etymology is correct) necessarily involve a cross, a Christian symbol; hence there could be no Muslims "of" the crusades, possibly "opposing" them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Jurists by faith

 * 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:Jurists of religious law.


 * Clearly little appetite for classification of Jurists by their religion - as such the presumption is very much against retention. However, per Johnbod, renaming and re-purposing the category iot categorise bona fide jurists of religious law is entirely appropriate and seems to be supported.  I advise a specific nomination wrt Category:Muslim jurists so that the relations between this category, Category:Sharia judges, Category:Sunni fiqh scholars, and Category:Islamic legal occupations can be properly considered.


 * -- X damr  talk 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * jurists by faith


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - given the consistent deletion of categories that reside at the intersection of "jurist" and "faith" (see here and here for recent examples) and noting that two of the three subcategories are out-of-process re-creations and subject to speedy deletion have been speedily deleted, this category cannot ever be populated in any meaningful fashion. Otto4711 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – and perhaps the 'Muslim jurists' could be renamed (and repopulated as necessary) to 'Jurists in Sharia law' or similar (while we are here). Occuli (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the nommed cat. (See below) A category for notable writers on Islamic law, which seems to cover most of these, is entirely encyclopedic and desirable.  Ulema seems to be the technical term for these, and Fiqh what they study.  We have Category:Sharia judges already, Category:Sunni fiqh scholars and Category:Islamic legal occupations.   But this group mostly doesn't use these categories.  I think a category for modern jurists in Islamic countries, who work in mixed legal systems with statutory and sharia elements, is also justified - they can't just be called "Sharia judges", any more than an Anglosphere judge can be called a "common-law judge". The category includes the Pakistani Minister for Justice, appointed 2008, & the Afghan Chief Justice.  Redistribute some of the sub among these categories, perhaps creating Category:Shia fiqh scholars if necessary. As that cat isn't nommed maybe that doesn't need discussing here.  What were the deleted sub-cats?  Some of those articles should probably be added to the others mentioned above. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The deleted categories were for Jewish jurists and Roman Catholic jurists, both created by Philly jawn in the last couple of days. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I have linked up some of the cats I mentioned, which were of course not joined up before. No doubt there are others out there. A category for "Jurists of Jewish law" would of course also be ok, & no doubt we have that & one for RC canon lawyers somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Canon law jurists; I now think this should renamed Category:Jurists of religious law to include this as well. The Jewish law jurists seem lost in Category:Rabbis. The "Muslim jurists" should be renamed "Jurists of Islamic law". Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. In fact, the other sub cats should be restored. The arguments over the intersection of religion and occupation were not overwhelming. It is relevant to our category system. Is anyone watching the news today about the U.S. supreme court? Philly jawn (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the outcome of a CFD, the proper approach is to first discuss it with the closing admin on his or her talk page. If you are unable to come to an understanding with the admin, your next stop is WP:Deletion review. Recreating deleted categories, especially so soon after they were discussed and deleted, is out-of-process. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, did list these at Deletion_review/Jurists by faith. Philly jawn (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of process? Perhaps, but since the Muslim Scholars category works for both relgious scholars and those jurist who happen to be Muslim. So ... since that one exists, the broader category of Category:Jurists by faith should be allowed to exist. Also, there are the categories of Category:Roman_Catholics_by_occupation Category:Jews_by_occupation and Category:Muslims by occupation, why can't there be a jurist sub-category? I suggest we table this discussion and discuss the recreation of the Catholic, Jewish and Hindo cats at Deletion_review/Jurists by faith. Philly jawn (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep All and Recreate Deleted Categories In the disruptive game that is CfD, "process" only applies to anything necessary to delete categories any one editor doesn't like. Neither consensus nor reliable sources can stand in the way of this "process". As raised earlier, there is a clear and defining connection between jurisprudence and religion, one that has been the subject of hundreds of reliable and verifiable sources. The categories exists within well-defined structures and their deletion only serves to further disrupt navigation using the category system. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment For sure a "Jurists by faith" category is relevant if they are judges of religious law, like Sharia judges and Rabbinical judges. Otherwise, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a category should IMHO be structured to limit the category only to those jurists who practice within the religious laws and customs of a particular faith or tradition, rather than for any jurist who happens to be of a particular faith. Some of the suggested formulations above would probably serve better than the generic "by faith" construction. Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not a useful method of categorization. While it doesn't approach being a trivial intersection (more than a little newsprint has been blotted by discussion on the intersection), it isn't a terribly enlightening one or (importantly) a helpful means of picking between justices.  At least for judges in the united states (I know, I know, systemic bias), this five-thiryeight article sums up the trouble quite simply.  We would just have 95% protestant judges (of various flavors) and then some catholics and jews.  I'm not certain that a category which is populated by predominantly one sub-category is terribly useful. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why it would be 95% Protestant-- or even 75%-- or 75% anything else either.User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 07:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave the caveat above of US justices. In that case the article linked provides evidence to support the claim.  If I add in other justices and exclude justices who are overseeing islamic courts (what it discussed above), I don't know what the breakdown becomes, but it is still probably predominantly christian. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - if we have (per Occuli) Jurists in Sharia law, Jewish law, Canon law (RC and various other denominations where this exists), such can be categorized there, akin to Category:Canon lawyers, one could have Category:Canon jurists or Category:Canon judges - whatever the proper terminology. Whereas for the secular law judge, the happenstance of his or her Muslim, Jewish, Baptist religion, or Atheism or Agnostism for that matter, is not a proper basis on which to categorize. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, that is a totally POV Western distinction. In Europe canon law and secular law parted company early on; in Islamic countries that has not been the case, except under colonization. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible keep all - Notable subject and perfectly appropriate as a category for our encyclopedia and users. The fixation on the part of three or four extremely vocal, highly motivated editors who edit WP primarily to damage the navigation as regards ethnic group-related subjects (and Jewish-related subjects in particular) is disruptive to our project, and has been for several years' time. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfounded accusations of bad faith are hardly a reason to keep the category. Ethnicity and religion are not the same thing, so arguments relating to "ethnic group-related subjects" would seem to have little or no bearing on this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable intersection. Category:Sharia judges makes sense, but this doesn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Multiplayer browser-based games

 * 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:Browser-based multiplayer online games.  --  X damr  talk' 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Multiplayer browser-based games to Category:Browser-based multiplayer online games
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. From our own website, the acronym we are using is BMOG (but it may have just been invented here), hence the main page is named Browser-based multiplayer online game. The order of the qualifiers B vs. M is arbitrary and the "online" is redundant, but assuming that we have the correct acronym, we should strive for consistency (and simplicity) in our nomenclature.--Writelabor (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:The Nation of Gods and Earths 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: Rename to Category:Members of the Nation of Gods and Earths iot match parent.  --  X damr  talk 18:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:The Nation of Gods and Earths people to Category:Members of the Nation of Gods and Earths
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match its parent Category:Members of the Nation of Islam.


 * Rename. For consistency with the parent category. —  Σ  xplicit 05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - pending the outcome of the CFD of the parent category. Although participation is light, opinion there is trending toward "Nation of Islam members". Agreed that the categories should follow the same convention, so the outcome here should match the outcome there. Otto4711 (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait & match parent per Otto. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait & match parent per previous 2 editors. Judging by nominator's rationale "Match its parent", he would probably agree with that as well. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The other CFD has been closed as "keep, no rename" but I've asked the closing admin to review it. Otto4711 (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing admin has reviewed and decided to maintain the keep (noting it could be "no consensus, defaulting to keep"). I disagree with that outcome but it's not unreasonable and I don't feel a DRV would change the outcome. That said, I prefer the "Foo members" construction because it's shorter, so rename to Category:Nation of Gods and Earths members. Otto4711 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Race (historical definitions)

 * 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:Historical definitions of race.  --  X damr  talk 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Race (historical definitions) to Category:Historical definitions of race
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match its current main article name Historical definitions of race, since 2007-09-24 08:21:48.


 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Parliament of Israel

 * 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:Knesset.  --  X damr  talk 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Parliament of Israel to Category:Knesset
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because the main article is Knesset and all of the articles and subcategories in the category use "Knesset", I am thinking this should be the name of the category. Compare to Category:German Bundestag, for example. Depending on consensus, it could go the other way, however, as when Category:Riksdag was renamed to Category:Parliament of Sweden, but a major reason that seems to have been done was to match the name to the main article. I'm slightly in favour of renaming, but can also see the merits of keeping the current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Favor - Let's use the official/correct name. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per correct name (which is well know in English speaking countries), and per main article. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:New South Wales State of Origin players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:New South Wales Australian rules football State of Origin players for consistency with NSW Rugby League category.  --  X damr  talk 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:New South Wales State of Origin players to Category:New South Wales State of Origin players (Australian rules football)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To differentiate from Category:New South Wales Rugby League State of Origin players.


 * Oppose - the name is sufficiently disambiguated by the words "Rugby League". Otto4711 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But Category:New South Wales State of Origin players could also refer to any person in Category:New South Wales Rugby League State of Origin players. The former is meant only for Australian rules footballers, a completely different sport. Jevansen (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support a rename to something - Category:New South Wales State of Origin players is ambiguous. The top category is Category:Players of Australian rules football so it could be Category:New South Wales State of Origin players of Australian rules football. (There are several others in Category:Australian rules football State of Origin which are also ambiguous.) Occuli (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only New South Wales and Queensland play rugby league State of Origin so categories like Category:Tasmanian State of Origin players can't be ambiguous, in my opinion, as they can only refer to Australian rules football. Jevansen (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Several 'State of Origin' categories showed up as empty requesting deletion as empty.  I did delete those.  I don't believe that action has an impact on this discussion, just mentioning it in case the decision here affects my deletions. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just tried to find the main AFL article on State of Origin and find it's called Interstate matches in Australian rules football, whereas that for Rugby League is called Rugby League State of Origin. As a result I wonder if we are looking at the right name for this category. I can only think of awkward names such as Category:New South Wales born players in Interstate matches in Australian rules football. By the way, I note that the last "official state of origin game involving AFL players was held in 1999." Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason that the article is named what is it is because the State of Origin format was only used in Australian rules football from 1977 to 1999 whereas regular interstate matches have been taking place since around 1900. These categories however only include players who took part in a State of Origin match. Jevansen (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Given that the main article doesn't have "State of Origin" in it, what about renaming for consistency with the League category to Category:New South Wales Australian rules football State of Origin players? This avoids parenthetical words. I know we have to have them sometimes, but I prefer to avoid them where possible. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Drought(-)tolerant categories moved from speedy
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom.  --  X damr  talk 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The following two categories were liested on speedy - the following is the complete discussion from there. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Drought tolerant trees to Category:Drought-tolerant trees /Pzrmd (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Drought tolerant plants to Category:Drought-tolerant plants /Pzrmd (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? On google, 15 of the top 20 hits for drought-tolerant say "drought tolerant" not "drought-tolerant". Hesperian 06:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You could call a plant a "drought plant" whatever that would mean. So the category as it is says drought, tolerant plants. But "drought-tolerant" makes it clear. Another example is "formal dance tickets," which is ambiguous; it could mean either "formal-dance tickets" where the the dance is formal, or "formal, dance tickets" where the tickets are formal. Also, good-looking glass and good looking-glass. (I know it's obvious what "drought tolerant plants" was supposed to mean.) Soft-spoken, well-read, good-looking, and stain-resistant are some examples. Google is *not* a good way to determine grammar/punctuation conventions. Pzrmd (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the hyphen is correct and resolves the ambiguity. As it stands now, this could mean "tolerant plants" that are "drought"; or "plants" that are "drought tolerant". It's a small detail but one that I think is worthwhile fixing if an editor proposes it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems logical to me, too. Two-word adjectives placed before the noun (including, I note, "two-word") are hyphenated as standard on Wikipedia, and in grammar in general. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Renaming Drought tolerant to Drought-tolerant eliminates ambiguity, I agree with the change --Jaguarlaser (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, sorry for not getting back to this. My question above wasn't actually an oppose. It wouldn't have bothered me if this had gone through as a speedy. Hesperian 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. From a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style a question was raised about the form when you use a dash/hyphen.  As I understand it the correct form for the above should be to Category:Drought - tolerant trees with spaces added.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not come across routinely putting spaces around hyphens in normal typography before. Occasionally a thin space might be needed to offset a hyphen from the numeral 4 - depending on the font. However, spaces are put around en-dashes, but not em-dashes. As a result when I see spaces around a hyphen I read it as an en-dash, which changes the meaning. For the category under discussion the correct punctuation sign is an hyphen (let's not go into a discussion of a/an with an initial h) and therefore the spaces are not appropriate. I've read the discussion referred to by Vegaswikian, but didn't see any explanation of why the spaces are needed in Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Drought-tolerant, spaces ill - advised. Occuli (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for advising. Hope they get well soon. :) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  02:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, with no spaces, if kept. But I'm dubious about this category - "drought" and "tolerant" are both very relative terms. It's not encouraging that the first entry Abies pindrow "is occasionally grown as an ornamental tree in large gardens in western Europe, but demands high humidity and rainfall to grow well". I don't think it would cut it in Somalia then. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In looking at several articles, drought tolerance is not mentioned.  From experience, some of the species mentioned are used in the Vegas area and seem to die if water is restricted, so inclusion of those species here is not really a good example of being drought tolerant.  Rather then sorting through all of the entries to see which of these are in fact deserving of the designation, it seems to be more prudent to delete and then repopulate a new category that is properly researched. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename-- per nom, with no spaces, Drought-tolerance is a virtue, Drought-tolerant does not mean that they have to live in the desert ( If somebody wants a category for plants of the desert a good example would be Plants of the desert), but these plants withstand long periods of drought, about Abies pindrow no sources point out that it is drought-tolerant then it has to be deleted from the category--Jaguarlaser (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * REname -- correct punctuation for a compound adjective (without extra spaces). The question of what species ought to appear is not appropriate to a CFD discussion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Films feautring orphans
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 orphans.  It's a fair point that this category, once renamed, will fit right in with Category:Films by topic.  Personally I think that this is an excellent reason for nominating that category, and its contents, for deletion...  However, until that happens, this category does fit into a structure - however flawed.  --  X damr  talk 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Films feautring orphans to Category:Films featuring orphans
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Typo. Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Blatant misspelling --Cybercobra (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the mere presence of an orphan does not define a movie - there are too many of them and this "feature" is trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – it is indeed a trivial characteristic of a film. Occuli (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm fine with it being deleted, just that if it exists I want it spelled correctly. :) - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial and non-defining. PC78 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My idea. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Films about orphans and Prune We have a rather well-defined structure of Category:Films by topic, and this fits well within that structure. There are about a half-dozen versions of Oliver Twist, a film that focuses on orphans, and if anyone wants you can have some more. More?!? Some of these films don't focus on orphanhood and should be removed from the category. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename & prune per Alansohn. Part of an overal structure.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Films about orphans. Unless we're willing to scrap Films by topic entirely, I don't see why films about orphans should be uniquely more trivial than the other topics, especially when being raised an orphan is a pretty defining experience. Renaming to "about" as Alansohn proposes will help us weed out the more tangential examples. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename and prune-- or better yet, just create Category:Films about orphans now. (Only because I think you will be better able to sort them into the category than out of it.) User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * rename to Category:Films about orphans. This is certainly a valid topic of films, a topic which holds the interest of film viewers, as do the many other sub categories of Category:Films by topic.  Hmains (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How much about orphans must a film be? And what RS tells us that it's at least this much? And does it matter if the orphanhood of the character isn't in the main theme of the movie - like a movie about Andrew Jackson's presidency or about Augustus that details his time as emperor - those are films about "orphans" though nothing about being orphaned is part of the plot line. A similar topic would be Category:Films about obese people and put fact actors in them because they are fat on screen as off. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it makes no sense to have this category cluttering up the screen. anyway, this is a boring category.--fortheorlingas (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing rationale for deletion there.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename per nom. Orphans feature prominently in many films including such well-known characters such as Oliver Twist, Harry Potter and Annie. It is certainly worth including as a film topic in some form. Films about orphans seems too much of a restriction as there are several films such as the Harry Potter films that have a main character as an orphan but could be said to be about other things. The term featuring should be sufficient as it suggests a prominent feature of orphans.Cjc13 (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.