Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9



Category:Inkworld trilogy

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Inkworld trilogy to Category:Inkheart trilogy
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is at Inkheart trilogy and Inkworld trilogy redirects there. If this nomination is accepted the subcategories could be speedily renamed to match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to match main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2011 (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:Castle series

 * 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:Howl's Moving Castle. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Castle series to Category:Castle (novel series) Category:Howl's Moving Castle
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category name could be confused with Castle series, which is about a series of stamps. There is also Castle (TV series). In this case, there is no article about the novel series that we can match the name to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Whatever: Amazon calls this |"Howl's Castle Series". A clarification is definitely needed so I'm open to either rename. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Howl's Moving Castle, as this is the main article of the category. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Howl's Moving Castle, per Armbrust, and also to avoid a no-consensus outcome defaulting to the current title. There does not appear to be a single, accepted name for the series, and it is referred to in different sources as the "Castle", "Howl's Moving Castle", "Moving Castle" and "Wizard's Castle" series or trilogy. The fourth one is used in Template:DWJ books to group the novels in the trilogy. I have notified WikiProject Novels of this discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (nom). Rename to Category:Howl's Moving Castle sounds good. I wasn't aware of this article at the time of the nomination and it wasn't in the category, so thanks to Armbrust for getting it in there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2011 (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 Clique

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:The Clique to Category:The Clique (series)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match The Clique (series). "The Clique" is ambiguous and the undisambiguated article The Clique is about something entirely different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2011 (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:Iranian religions

 * 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 to Category:Persian religions, though some post-merge cleanup may be needed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * iranian religions


 * Nominator's rationale:  Delete . These religions are/were not limited to Iran. I would suggest a merge to, but the articles seem to be already appropriately categorized there, so it seems like largely a duplication. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this category supposed to be about the Iranian/Persian people and culture rather than the modern nation state? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: That was my thought and I'm willing to defend the inclusion of Zoroastrianism. But none of the other articles apply and one article does not make a cat.
 * It looks like it might be something to do with the area the religion emerged in, which in these cases is present-day Iran. I don't see how this goes beyond anything that could be placed in . Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or, better, Rename to Category:Persian religions like a great number of historical Persian cats. At least the earlier ones are a recognized group in scholarship.  Category:Religions originating in Persia might be best - then the Bahá'í Faith can be added.  The logic of the nom is flawed - try applying it to Category:Indian religions, which includes Buddhism!  Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not work for the Indian category but it would seem to me it could work fine in this instance. But given that already exists, a simple merge is probably the best solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (nom). Perhaps the best thing to do here is simply merge this category with . I did not know this category existed when I nominated this one, but it makes no sense to delete this one but to retain . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (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:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2,010

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2,010 to Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2010
 * Nominator's rationale: The version with the comma is both redundant and incorrectly formatted, and every effort to merge them myself has failed. DanTD (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy merge per obvious error. VegaDark (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge - it shouldn't be necessary to have a discussion about using the correct formatting of dates. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2011 (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.

Spanish provinces

 * 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 option 1 - (X) Province. Given the limited response to this full nomination despite being open for so long it's best to go with the more limited option for now. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:A Coruña province to Category:A Coruña Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Albacete province to Category:Albacete Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Alicante province to Category:Alicante Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Almería province to Category:Almería Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Ávila province to Category:Ávila Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Badajoz province to Category:Badajoz Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Barcelona province to Category:Barcelona Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Burgos province to Category:Burgos Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Cáceres province to Category:Cáceres Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Cádiz province to Category:Cádiz Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Castellón province to Category:Castellón Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Ciudad Real province to Category:Ciudad Real Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Girona province to Category:Girona Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Granada (province) to Category:Granada Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Guadalajara province to Category:Guadalajara Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Huelva province to Category:Huelva Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Huesca province to Category:Huesca Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Las Palmas province to Category:Las Palmas Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Lleida province to Category:Lleida Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Lugo province to Category:Lugo Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Málaga province to Category:Málaga Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Ourense province to Category:Ourense Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Palencia province to Category:Palencia Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Pontevedra province to Category:Pontevedra Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Salamanca province to Category:Salamanca Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Santa Cruz de Tenerife province to Category:Santa Cruz de Tenerife Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Segovia province to Category:Segovia Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Sevilla province to Category:Sevilla Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Soria province to Category:Soria Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Tarragona province to Category:Tarragona Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Teruel province to Category:Teruel Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Toledo province to Category:Toledo Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Valencia province to Category:Valencia Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Valladolid province to Category:Valladolid Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Zamora province to Category:Zamora Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Zaragoza province to Category:Zaragoza Province


 * Propose renaming Category:A Coruña province to Category:Province of A Coruña
 * Propose renaming Category:Albacete province to Category:Province of Albacete
 * Propose renaming Category:Alicante province to Category:Province of Alicante
 * Propose renaming Category:Almería province to Category:Province of Almería
 * Propose renaming Category:Ávila province to Category:Province of Ávila
 * Propose renaming Category:Badajoz province to Category:Province of Badajoz
 * Propose renaming Category:Barcelona province to Category:Province of Barcelona
 * Propose renaming Category:Burgos province to Category:Province of Burgos
 * Propose renaming Category:Cáceres province to Category:Province of Cáceres
 * Propose renaming Category:Cádiz province to Category:Province of Cádiz
 * Propose renaming Category:Castellón province to Category:Province of Castellón
 * Propose renaming Category:Ciudad Real province to Category:Province of Ciudad Real
 * Propose renaming Category:Girona province to Category:Province of Girona
 * Propose renaming Category:Granada (province) to Category:Province of Granada
 * Propose renaming Category:Guadalajara province to Category:Province of Guadalajara
 * Propose renaming Category:Huelva province to Category:Province of Huelva
 * Propose renaming Category:Huesca province to Category:Province of Huesca
 * Propose renaming Category:Las Palmas province to Category:Province of Las Palmas
 * Propose renaming Category:Lleida province to Category:Province of Lleida
 * Propose renaming Category:Lugo province to Category:Province of Lugo
 * Propose renaming Category:Málaga province to Category:Province of Málaga
 * Propose renaming Category:Ourense province to Category:Province of Ourense
 * Propose renaming Category:Palencia province to Category:Province of Palencia
 * Propose renaming Category:Pontevedra province to Category:Province of Pontevedra
 * Propose renaming Category:Salamanca province to Category:Province of Salamanca
 * Propose renaming Category:Santa Cruz de Tenerife province to Category:Province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife
 * Propose renaming Category:Segovia province to Category:Province of Segovia
 * Propose renaming Category:Sevilla province to Category:Province of Sevilla
 * Propose renaming Category:Soria province to Category:Province of Soria
 * Propose renaming Category:Tarragona province to Category:Province of Tarragona
 * Propose renaming Category:Teruel province to Category:Province of Teruel
 * Propose renaming Category:Toledo province to Category:Province of Toledo
 * Propose renaming Category:Valencia province to Category:Province of Valencia
 * Propose renaming Category:Valladolid province to Category:Province of Valladolid
 * Propose renaming Category:Zamora province to Category:Province of Zamora
 * Propose renaming Category:Zaragoza province to Category:Province of Zaragoza


 * Nominator's rationale: These categories were listed for Speedy renaming, but some objections were raised. The original listing, seen below, mirrors Option 1 above, simply capitalizing "province." This option has the advantage of matching the categorization scheme of every other country of Spanish or Portuguese origin on Wikipedia (see Category:Provinces of Argentina, Category:Provinces of Bolivia, etc.). Option 2, creating "Province of X," has the advantages of matching the article names (see Province of Sevilla, etc.) and of conforming with this recent close concering Córdoba. I thought I would see if listing all the categories that were nominated on Speedy would produce a different result. I don’t have a strong opinion, but if it were up to me, I’d likely go with Option 1 for consistency. --Mike Selinker (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Barcelona province to Category:Barcelona Province — C2C - All other categories for individual provinces in Spanish-speaking world contained in the tree Category:Provinces by country show that it is the Wikipedia naming convention to use a form like Barcelona Province when the Spanish proper full name is like "Provincia de Barcelona". The prove for the application of the naming convention can be found in the following categories: Category:Provinces of Argentina, Category:Provinces of Bolivia, Category:Provinces of Chile, Category:Provinces of Colombia, Category:Provinces of Gran Colombia, Category:Provinces of Costa Rica, Category:Provinces of Cuba, Category:Provinces of the Dominican Republic, Category:Provinces of Ecuador, Category:Provinces of Equatorial Guinea, Category:Provinces of Panama, (no categories within Category:Provinces of Peru, Category:Provinces of the Spanish Empire), Category:Provinces of Venezuela. Same Wikipedia naming convention for linguistically and/or geographically related Portuguese language items apply to Category:Provinces of Portugal, Category:Provinces of Angola, Category:Provinces of Mozambique. The only ones that inconsistently use lower case "province" are the ones from Spain listed here. TopoChecker (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the other categories for Spanish provinces use a lower-case P. Although, shouldn't it be Category:Province of Barcelona like the article? The same goes for all the other categories named after Spanish provinces.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The others are proposed for change below. Shouldn't the articles be changed to match the other Spanish-speaking world province articles? Then we would have it all consistent, all articles and all categories? TopoChecker (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [EC] Looking at other categories is not by itself a sufficient basis for identifying a Wikipedia convention on category names. It's not clear that the "convention" you perceive is truly a convention arrived at by consensus. One generally established convention at Wikipedia is to name categories consistent with the names of main articles in those categories. In some of the other categories you cite, the articles for provinces have names in the form Azua Province and Niassa Province, so the category names are consistent with the article names. As you note, that is not the case for the main articles for provinces in Spain, where the article names are in the form Province of Barcelona. Unless there's a past discussion somewhere in the archives that supports your theory on the "convention", I'd like to see a discussion of this proposal that can arrive at consensus agreement on a convention to follow. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * C2C "established naming conventions" - it does not talk about how the convention for the other items was reached. Agree with the article names. Shouldn't these be changed to match the other Spanish-speaking world province articles? TopoChecker (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Las Palmas province to Category:Las Palmas Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Lleida province to Category:Lleida Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Lugo province to Category:Lugo Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Málaga province to Category:Málaga Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Ourense province to Category:Ourense Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Palencia province to Category:Palencia Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Pontevedra province to Category:Pontevedra Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Salamanca province to Category:Salamanca Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Santa Cruz de Tenerife province to Category:Santa Cruz de Tenerife Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Segovia province to Category:Segovia Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Sevilla province to Category:Sevilla Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Soria province to Category:Soria Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Tarragona province to Category:Tarragona Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Teruel province to Category:Teruel Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Toledo province to Category:Toledo Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Valladolid province to Category:Valladolid Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Valencia province to Category:Valencia Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Zamora province to Category:Zamora Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Zaragoza province to Category:Zaragoza Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Cáceres province to Category:Cáceres Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Cádiz province to Category:Cádiz Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Castellón province to Category:Castellón Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Ciudad Real province to Category:Ciudad Real Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Girona province to Category:Girona Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Granada (province) to Category:Granada Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Guadalajara province to Category:Guadalajara Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Huelva province to Category:Huelva Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Huesca province to Category:Huesca Province — C2.A capitalization, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to the above-listed requests to rename categories for provinces. The proper names of these provinces are Las Palmas, LLeida, etc., not Las Palmas Province, Lleida Province, etc. The current names are not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, but the new names also are not consistent. --Orlady (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All other categories for individual provinces in Spanish-speaking world contained in the tree Category:Provinces by country show that it is the Wikipedia naming convention to use a form like Las Palmas Province when the Spanish proper full name is like "Provincia de La Palmas". It is true that the short forms are as you write. But they cannot be used as category names since they are ambiguous - several provinces are named after towns, or the names are found in other countries. The prove for the application of the naming convention can be found in the following categories: Category:Provinces of Argentina, Category:Provinces of Bolivia, Category:Provinces of Chile, Category:Provinces of Colombia, Category:Provinces of Gran Colombia, Category:Provinces of Costa Rica, Category:Provinces of Cuba, Category:Provinces of the Dominican Republic, Category:Provinces of Ecuador, Category:Provinces of Equatorial Guinea, Category:Provinces of Panama, (no categories within Category:Provinces of Peru, Category:Provinces of the Spanish Empire), Category:Provinces of Venezuela. Same Wikipedia naming convention for linguistically and/or geographically related Portuguese language items apply to Category:Provinces of Portugal, Category:Provinces of Angola, Category:Provinces of Mozambique. The only ones that inconsistently use lower case "province" are the ones from Spain listed here. C2C. TopoChecker (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied above under your new proposal for Category:Barcelona province. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:A Coruña province to Category:A Coruña Province — C2.A capitalization fix, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country, e.g. Category:Provinces of Afghanistan. TopoChecker (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Albacete province to Category:Albacete Province — C2.A capitalization fix, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country, e.g. Category:Provinces of Afghanistan. TopoChecker (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Alicante province to Category:Alicante Province — C2.A capitalization fix, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country, e.g. Category:Provinces of Afghanistan. TopoChecker (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Almería province to Category:Almería Province — C2.A capitalization fix, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country, e.g. Category:Provinces of Afghanistan. TopoChecker (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Ávila province to Category:Ávila Province — C2.A capitalization fix, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country, e.g. Category:Provinces of Afghanistan. TopoChecker (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Badajoz province to Category:Badajoz Province — C2.A capitalization fix, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country, e.g. Category:Provinces of Afghanistan. TopoChecker (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Burgos province to Category:Burgos Province — C2.A capitalization fix, C2.C majority in Category:Provinces by country, e.g. Category:Provinces of Afghanistan. TopoChecker (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to the above-listed requests to rename categories for provinces. The proper names of the provinces are A Coruña, LLeida, etc., not A Coruña Province, Albacete Province, etc. The current names are not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, but the proposed new names also are not consistent. --Orlady (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Córdoba (Spanish province) to Category:Córdoba Province (Spain) — Like Category:Jaén Province (Spain), Category:Cuenca Province (Spain), Category:Córdoba Province (Argentina) TopoChecker (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to the above requests to rename categories for provinces. The proper names of the provinces are Barcelona and Córdoba, not Barcelona Province and Córdoba Province. --Orlady (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Barcelona and Category:Córdoba are ambiguous, cities with such names exist. TopoChecker (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category names can be disambiguated in the same fashion as article names (e.g., "Córdoba (province)"). It is not necessary to invent an new name form like "Córdoba Province." As stated above, I think this proposal requires discussion -- it does not qualify for "speedy" renaming. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2011 (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:Physician-assisted suicide

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Physician-assisted suicide to Category:Assisted suicide
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. While physician-assisted suicide is a subset of assisted suicide, the two terms are mostly used interchangeably. Articlewise, physician-assisted suicide already redirects to assisted suicide. Gabbe (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Orderinchaos 07:35, 16 February 2011 (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:Documentary films about anthropology

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about anthropology to Category:Anthropology documentary films
 * Nominator's rationale: Part of a mass renaming a while back to the "Documentary films about foo" structure, this is one that I think we need to tweak. None of the films in this category (that I can see) are about the science of anthropology or focus on the work of anthropologists as the subjects of the film (though that would be a worthy and interesting subject). So I suggest we rename to Category:Anthropology documentary films as a sibling for Category:Anthropology literature. Later, if we do have a sufficient number of films about anthropologists, we could recreate the deleted category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2011 (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.

Alumni by secondary school in Fiji

 * 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: six weeks, five participants, four proposals. There is unanimous agreement to use a consistent format, but no consensus on which format to choose. I encourage a follow-up nomination, especially if a consensus forms for the Australian or UK categories. I will rename Category:Alumni of Queen Victoria School, Fiji to Category:Alumni of Queen Victoria School (Fiji), to match the main article, as a technical fix to which there was no direct objection. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Lelean Memorial School alumni to Category:Alumni of Lelean Memorial School
 * Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Queen Victoria School, Fiji to Category:Alumni of Queen Victoria School (Fiji)
 * or
 * Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Queen Victoria School, Fiji to Category:Queen Victoria School (Fiji) alumni

Plus
 * Propose renaming Category:Alumni by secondary school in Fiji to Category:to be determined by consensus if necessary


 * Nominator's rationale: So far there's only two schools categories for Fiji and it's better to get a consistent format now than when there are many more. Since both use "alumni" and Category:Alumni by university or college in Fiji uses the form "Foo alumni" I think rename all to "Foo alumni". Either way the Queen Victoria School should match the main article at Queen Victoria School (Fiji). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to the first option. Much cleaner looking. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like US schools are being named Category:Whatever School alumni and other countries are being named Category:Alumni of Whatever School. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Former students of Lelean Memorial School, Category:Former students of Queen Victoria School, Fiji, and Category:Former students by secondary school in Fiji. The schools do not use the term alumni, with Lelean Memorial School using "Lelean Old Scholars" and Queen Victoria School using "Queen Victoria School Old Boys" to describe former students. Cjc13 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If "alumni" is not widely used in Fiji, I suggest these be named "People educated at Foo School", which is a neutral term avoiding a choice between "alumni", "former students" or "former pupils". This is gaining some support in the discussion bleow for similar categories in Australia and a wide discussion on similar categories in the UK. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:42, 5 March 2011 (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.

Former students by secondary school in Australia

 * 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 People educated at xxx. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Whichever of the following to a consistent format:


 * Category:Alumni of Toowoomba Grammar School
 * Category:Alumni of Trinity Grammar School (Victoria)
 * Category:Former pupils of Launceston Church Grammar School
 * Category:Former pupils of Orange High School (New South Wales)
 * Category:Former pupils of St Peter's College, Adelaide
 * Category:Former pupils of The King's School, Parramatta
 * Category:Former students of Aquinas College, Perth
 * Category:Former students of Chatswood High School
 * Category:Former students of Christ Church Grammar School
 * Category:Former students of Epping Boys High School
 * Category:Former students of Guildford Grammar School
 * Category:Former students of Hale School
 * Category:Former students of Manly High School
 * Category:Former students of Melbourne Grammar School
 * Category:Former students of Pembroke School, Adelaide
 * Category:Former students of PLC Melbourne - Presbyterian Ladies' College, Melbourne
 * Category:Former students of PLC Sydney - Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney
 * Category:Former students of Scotch College, Perth
 * Category:Former students of St Michael's Grammar School
 * Category:Former students of St. Bernard's College, Melbourne
 * Category:Former students of the National Institute of Dramatic Art
 * Category:Former students of Trinity College, Perth
 * Category:Former students of Wesley College, Perth
 * Category:Old boys of St Patrick's College, Strathfield
 * Category:Old Boys of St Joseph's College, Hunters Hill
 * Category:Brisbane Boys' College Old Boys
 * Category:Carey Baptist Grammar School alumni
 * Category:Caulfield Grammarians - Caulfield Grammar School
 * Category:Haileybury, Melbourne alumni
 * Category:Melbourne High School (Victoria) alumni
 * Category:St. Kevin's College, Melbourne alumni
 * Category:Sydney Technical High School alumni
 * Category:Old Brighton Grammarians - Brighton Grammar School
 * Category:Old Camberwell Grammarians - Camberwell Grammar School
 * Category:Old Cantabrians - Canterbury Boys' High School
 * Category:Old Geelong Collegians - The Geelong College
 * Category:Old Geelong Grammarians - Geelong Grammar School
 * Category:Old Knox Grammarians - Knox Grammar School
 * Category:Old Mentonians - Mentone Grammar School
 * Category:Old Newingtonians - Newington College
 * Category:Old Reds - Prince Alfred College
 * Category:Old Scotch Collegians - Scotch College, Melbourne
 * Category:Old Southportians - The Southport School
 * Category:Old Sydneians - Sydney Grammar School
 * Category:Old Trinitarians - Trinity Grammar School (New South Wales)
 * Category:Old Wesley Collegians - Wesley College, Melbourne
 * Category:Old Xaverians - Xavier College
 * Category:Shore Old Boys - Sydney Church of England Grammar School


 * Possibly also:


 * Category:Former students by secondary school in Australia to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Category:Former students by secondary school in New South Wales to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Category:Former students by secondary school in Queensland to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Category:Former students by secondary school in South Australia to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Category:Former students by secondary school in Tasmania to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Category:Former students by secondary school in Victoria (Australia) to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Category:Former students by secondary school in Western Australia to Category:to be determined by consensus


 * if a different term from "former students" is picked.


 * Nominator's rationale: There's 48 schools categories for Australia using nine different formats; of the states with more than one category only Western Australia uses a consistent form ("Former students of..."). Having a consistent format is clearly desirable.
 * It's notable that the seven Western Australia categories listed (Aquinas College, Perth; Christ Church Grammar School; Guildford Grammar School; Hale School; Scotch College, Perth; Trinity College, Perth; and Wesley College, Perth) all state there's an "Old Fooian" name for the school's output but do not use it. There's also a few categories here with names that could apply to more than one school - e.g. "Old Scotch Collegians" seems to be used by both the Melbourne and Perth schools.
 * Since "Former students" is the single most used format and is consistently used for the parent categories my initial instinct is to go for that and rename all the others to Category:Former students of Foo with back-up preferences for any consistent format. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In a recent CfD for Categories about "Old Edwardians" in the UK (there are several King Edward VI or VII Schools), this issue was widely discussed and consensus was reached on "People educated at Foo School". A proposal will be made to alter all UK categories of this nature. I prefer "People educated at" over "Former pupils" "Former students", "Old Boys of", "Old Girls of", "Old Fooians" or "Alumni of" because it avoids the argument about what the people are called and just concentrates on them being educated at a particular school. What they are called has been a matter of dispute, so a more neutral phrase is need. So I propose they all be named to "People educated at Foo School". -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note The UK bulk nomination took rather longer to prepare; it's now up at this discussion and all formats are on the table. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well as the creator of a few of these categories I guess I'm one of the reasons there is little uniformity. I agree that a consistent format should be used and, to be completely honest, I don't really mind which is chosen, as long as it's consistent. Personally I like "Former students", but that's just my $0.02. To sum up, I support renaming to a consistent format. Jenks24 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support renaming for consistency, and I like the logic behind Bduke's suggestion so support it as well. (It also avoids the situation for those schools which don't have a name for their ex-students which can be verified against an RS.) To clarify, Support rename to "people educated at X". Orderinchaos 11:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - a) It's like it currently is for a reason. b) This insidious WP attitude that "one size must fit all" seems to ignore the reality that, if one size really did fit all, we wouldn't be having this discussion. c) The suggested solutions show zero understanding of, and zero attempt to understand, why they are like they are. Just one example: Many of these schools are not just secondary schools, so shoe-horning them into an inaccurately named category is, in my opinion, not a particularly good idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason why the parent categories use the term "secondary school" is because of this past CFD which settled on the name; one of a number for several different countries. In some of the other cases people preferred alternative terms based on the actual use in the country; if the Australian parents cats are wrong then now is a good opportunity to amend them, but the individual schools categories were already in them before this nomination began. As for why they're different it seems to be a) because of inconsistency when they were created hence the various "former pupils", "former students", "Alumni of Foo" and "Foo alumni" forms which don't appear to follow any clear pattern beyond the WA schools being consistent, and b) the "Old Fooians" form is used by some schools but not all the categories use it when it exists - compare Scotch College in Perth and Melbourne. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. It seems I must have been ambiguous. if the Australian parents cats are wrong - "secondary school" is a subset of "school". In Australia, other subsets of "school" include, but are not limited to, "Primary School", "Area School", "Pre-school", "Kindergarden" (K), and more recently "Early Learning Centres" (ELC), etc. As I said (but changing emphasis) "Many of these schools are not just secondary schools". Depending on State, Secondary Schools are either Yr7-12 or Yr6-12. Primary schools K-yr6 or K-yr7. Area schools K-yr12. Private schools K-12, etc. So, in and of itself, "secondary school" is not "wrong", but it doesn't cover all situations, and it's not clear what to do with schools that are broader than "secondary school" - to date, it seems like the problem has been "too hard", and these schools have been placed in "secondary school". Given that the previous discussion seemed to move away from "People by school in Australia", I don't know what the solution is. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for using just "school", with both the Singapore and United Kingdom categories using it. Certainly the easiest solution would be to strip "secondary" from the parent categories if that better reflects the broader base. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "the "Old Fooians" form is used by some schools but not all the categories use it when it exists" - Yes, that is indeed a fact, but I don't understand what your point is. You say: "compare Scotch College in Perth and Melbourne" - Yes, they're different. There is no reason why they should be the same - the two schools are 3,000km apart! Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both schools' articles and categories state that their output are "Old Scotch Collegians" but the two categories have taken a different approach. There's nothing in the overall distribution of usage that indicates this is down to geographic reasons beyond a consistent format having already reached the WA categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the WA ones are consistent due to a strong group of editors from PSA schools in Perth who edited and to a large extent collaborated in 2007-08. The other states, from my observation, had more scattered (in both time and effort) groups of editors. Orderinchaos 12:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying "as it is not used consistently, then it should not be used at all"? If so, I disagree. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: As you have discovered, also in fairly wide use is "Foo Old Collegians" Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You say: "As for why they're different it seems to be because ... " - I disagree. Perhaps there is some inconsistency in categorisation/classification, but in general, I think that if you investigate you will find they are inconsistent because their registered names are inconsistent. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Old" forms maybe but are the others, with different terms and word orders, really deliberately inconsistent because of how the schools are registered? That's not what even the creator of some of the categories is saying. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support matching the result of the UK discussion, assuming it produces a result other than "Old (X)ians." I'd prefer "(X) alumni," "Alumni of (X)," and "People educated at (X)," in that order of preference. The container categories should match as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "people educated at X" sounds good for me, one best way sounds great. Five Years 11:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename all to Category:People educated at X – This is the simplest form and does not use any terminology that may be specific to a particular variety of English so may be used for the entire category tree.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "people educated at X" - I dislike it intensely, but as others have said, it has its merits, and I agree that it does indeed seem to have more merits than any other option mentioned. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support change to "People educated at xxx" - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Change I think the best bet is "people educated at FOO". Among other advantages it makes it so on the rare occasions that people at the secondary level at notable (most likely child actors, but also figure skaters and some other sports and so other possible cases) they can be placed in the category when the article is created even if they are still recieving their education.  Beyond this it avoids the "pupil" verses "student" debate which at least in some cases involves the people who prefer one of these terms rejecting the other one as unacceptable, often very vehemently.  Any form people educated at/former students of/former pupils of/aluimni of has the advantage of Old + FOOian in that in the Old Fooian is unclear we normally have to write out the whole name in parenthesis, which makes the whole name longer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is better to use local terminology rather than 1 size fits all. Are those Americans who support the change to "People educated at" willing to use that for American schools? I suspect not. Cjc13 (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You suspect wrong. I'd be fine with that, if it got us to a common standard across all nations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support change to the straightforward "People educated at xxx". (Americans apply the straightforward 'Foo alumni' consistently and have no reason to change anything.) Occuli (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Foo alumni" is straightforward as long as you know what alumni means. Why not allow other local variations then? Old Fooians seems a very straightforward form and is widely used. Cjc13 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When is Old Fooians ever used in Australia? I had never heard that term before the discussion about schools in the UK.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See the individual schools list in this discussion. It shows 15 Australian schools using that form. See also Category:Lists of Australian people by school affiliation for examples. Cjc13 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I have put up a notice at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in the hope of finding an uninvolved administrator to bring closure as none has so far passed by. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (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.

Electric Power in Italy

 * 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: speedy rename (criterion C2.A) - the category has been listed for more than 48 hours. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Electric Power in Italy to Category:Electric power in Italy
 * Nominator's rationale: Use lower-case "p" for power as for all other countries and usual rules Hugo999 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per convention of Category:Electric power by country (speedy criteria C2A and C2.C). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (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:Tracked tank destroyers

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Tracked tank destroyers to Category:Tank destroyers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Over-categorization. "Tank destroyer" is the common term, and they are implicitly tracked. Non-tracked tank destroyers may exist, but they are both rare, and usually already better described as armoured cars. The Tank destroyers category is long-established and populated, Tracked tank destroyers is a recent and under-populated addition that represent over-categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2011 (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:Rail lines in Utah

 * 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: [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting Category:Rail lines in Utah
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. All entries were re-categorized under Category:Rail infrastructure in Utah per other similar state categories. Plasma east (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and re-populate. Other countries have separate categs for railway lines (see Category:Railway lines by country), as a sub-cat of the infrastructure category, and this scheme should be extended to the USA. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "Lines" is not being used consistently here. In other countries, it is appears to be railroad companies, which is why Category:Railway companies of the United States is under Category:Railway lines by country. In contrast, "lines" in the US seem to be used for local spans of track. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2011 (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:Helmand basin
<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:Helmand River drainage basin. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Helmand basin to Category:Helmand River Drainage Basin
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to capitalize "Drainage Basin"? In other words, is "Helmand River Drainage Basin" a proper noun? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, so Category:Helmand River drainage basin should be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Rename to Category:Helmand River drainage basin. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-name to Category:Helmand river drainage basin. Unless it can be demonstrated that Helmand River is the name as opposed to the River Helmand. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The main article is at Helmand River. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2011 (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:Mount Marsabit
<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: Delete/Upmerge to Category:Marsabit. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * mount marsabit


 * Nominator's rationale: Only three articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- no reason not to do so, is there? Or can they be linked better by a navbox? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral : I wouldn't have created the cat with only 3 articles, but it's a conceptually sound grouping. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually only two since the Marsabit article does not discuss the mount it should not have been in there in the first place. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Marsabit. There are just 4 articles between the two categories, and small, eponymous categories for individual landforms generally are no help to navigation. Marsabit and Marsabit National Park are both easily accessible from the article about the mountain. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete – its 2 articles Mount Marsabit and Marsabit National Park are both adequately categorised without this. We have and  and the existence of the former (3 articles) is also tenuous. Occuli (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge per above comments. Does not seem to be necessary or helpful in navigation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Upmerge to Category:Marsabit per Black Falcon's suggestion.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2011 (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:Canadian athletes
<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: Merge with non-track and field athletes moved to Category:Canadian sportspeople or appropriate sub-category. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Canadian athletes to Category:Canadian track and field athletes
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. From the current category tree, it seems like the Canadian categories here are all "track and field athletes". I see no reason for both this category and its child,, to co-exist - they have idenical scope. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge – the ones (if any) who are not track and field should be upmerged to Category:Canadian sportspeople; List of Montreal athletes should be renamed to List of Montreal sportspeople. Occuli (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2011 (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.

Athletes of the United States
<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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming: Rationalle: Per WP:ENGVAR - these categories are about American people, so they should use American English. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Pan American Games athletes of the United States to Category:Pan American Games track and field athletes of the United States
 * Category:Maccabiah athletes of the United States to Category:Maccabiah track and field athletes of the United States


 * Rename per nom and per the parent Category:American track and field athletes. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or should we be following the 'athletes (track and field)' alternative per the discussion below? Occuli (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "athletes (track and field)" patern is a compromise between maintaining the current variety of Englis, and the need to disambiguate for the sake of Americans In the American categories, we don't retain the original variety - we use American English. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:48, 9 February 2011 (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:Church buildings and congregations by century established
<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:Church buildings by century consecrated.-Mike Selinker (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose splitting Category:Church buildings and congregations by century established to Category:Church buildings by century completed or (Category:Congregations by century established or Category:Church congregations by century established)
 * Nominator's rationale: Split. This category mixes buildings and congregations. These are better split into two categories rather then combining into one. While the congregation can be established in the same century the church is built, this is not always the case.  This gets messier as 20th century buildings are re purposed for new congregations in the 21st century. Going back in time, the congregation may be established well before the current church building. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Most of these articles are a bit on the congregation & a bit on the building(s) - & pretty skimpy on both. That is why this untidy name was agreed in the first place, after a discussion here as I recall.  Who exactly is going to split them? Many if not most should probably end up in both trees. Dates by building completion are an unecessary quagmire - most European medieval cathedrals and churches have been "completed" several times, & Cologne Cathedral, one of the most famous, was begun "in 1248 and took, with interruptions, until 1880 to complete", all to the same design.  Just don't lets go there!  In fact most dates are of the completion of something, but I see only trouble in spelling it out.  If there are two buildings, and both are given enough coverage, the article can just go in two date cats.  Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to, perhaps? Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably an acceptable compromise. Established is wrong for the completion of construction so any change is likely an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. This discussion seems to be about some of the issues here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2011 (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:Church buildings established in the 10th century
<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:Church buildings consecrated in the 10th century.-Mike Selinker (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 10th century to Category:Church buildings completed in the 10th century
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ran into this one which is probably in more places. Buildings are not established, they are built.  Congregations are established.  So a rename is probably in order to reflect this difference.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Buildings are certainly not established. But to be honest, I'm not happy with these categories at all. A church initially completed in the 10th century is likely to have been modified and rebuilt in every century since. Public buildings are never truly "completed". -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Building are completed when they are built. Then they may be demolished, remodeled, new facades added, additions made and so on.  The question there is what of those changes is significant? Then you have the case where exterior shells are finished and after the building is in use, the unfinished interior floors are completed over time as needed.  Does this change the date the building was completed in?  If we are looking for a definition, here I'd say when the exterior look of the building is completed.  Further if at initial completion there are no plans for expansion that building would be considered complete?  The fact that in later years an addition is made does not rewrite history.  Yes, it can be messy, but if we use the first completion, it can be a reasonable definition. The other choice is to simply return the entire mess unsorted back into the architecture categories which are even more ambiguous as to subject and years. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The exterior look of the building? Well that's not a very good definition. How about a building that started with a Gothic facade, then had it changed to a Baroque facade, then a Neo-Classical facade? Happens all the time. When was that completed? Many churches and other major buildings look utterly different now from how they did when first "completed". How about a building that has been completely rebuilt so that it's not really the same building any more? Also quite common. It may not happen so much now, but it certainly has done frequently in history. That's why I dislike the wording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the nom above, which this should have been combined with. Necrothesp's points are well-made. Vegas, have you set up many more like Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 10th century of yesterday? This is emphatically not the way to go. At that date even for important buildings we typically only know when the building was begun, and probably when it was dedicated (usually half-built, but partly useable, enough to get a congregation in somewhere), but that's it. Many buildings begun in the 10th century in that style may have been finished in the 11th century in the same style, so the rename would actually turn a correct classification into an incorrect one. For buildings with significant 10th century elements remaining, we could just have Category:10th century churches and monasteries as a sub-cat of Category:10th-century architecture, with a note.  I agree it's all a mess; Carlaude did not really understand what he was getting into when he started these, for older periods anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to . Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's a better title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is better than that proposed, but still not an improvement imo. For example All Saints' Church, Earls Barton is typical in that the only evidence for date (though generally accepted) is architectural style. Only cathedrals & monasteries with later chronicles are likely to actually have records of specific dates at this period. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Church buildings consecrated in the 10th century could work. I have noticed that some structure types could also use opened so that Category:Buildings and structures opened in the 10th century would be an option.  But that probably works best as a subcategory since we don't usually refer to the date a house was completed as opened. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (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:Olympic athletes
<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.. As an implementation note, I'm going to do the by-year categories manually to make an audit to ensure other sports competitors were not thrown in here. This may take a few days.  Courcelles 13:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming:


 * Category:Olympic athletes to Category:Olympic athletes (track and field)
 * Category:Olympic athletes by country to Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by country
 * Category:Olympic athletes by year to Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by year


 * Category:Athletes at the 1896 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1896 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1900 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1904 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1904 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1906 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1906 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1908 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1908 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1912 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1912 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1920 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1920 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1924 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1924 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1928 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1928 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1932 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1932 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1936 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1936 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1948 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1948 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1952 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1952 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1956 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1956 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1960 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1960 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1964 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1964 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1968 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1968 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1972 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1976 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1976 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1980 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1980 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1984 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1984 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1988 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1988 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1992 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1992 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 1996 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1996 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 2000 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 2004 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Athletes at the 2008 Summer Olympics to Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 2008 Summer Olympics


 * Rationalle: Per Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 18 and Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 8 - -as pointed out by the nominator at the 2008 discussion, the word "Athlete" is ambiguous. The method of dealing with this ambiguation which I'm proposing is what was decided there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Seems pretty clear that this should be in line with the rest of the Athletics categories. Only possible concern may be that some Olympic Athletes (here read not competing in Athletics) were added to the category and not the category of the sport they competed in.  I couldn't find any at first glance, but may be something to watch out for. Ravendrop 08:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – and remove any non-T&F to the appropriate subcat of . Occuli (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and there's also a need to fix the hockey categories, since Olympic "hockey" categories are used for field hockey, while in North America, hockey means ice hockey. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think so, feel free to nominat them yourself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since this nomination the Athletes category has been cleaned up and rationalised. Athletics is a sport that has track and field as a subset, and also includes long distance running, (such as marathons) and racewalking, which are not track and field events. It is inappropriate to group marathon and walking athletes under track and field. It would be like trying to group pears under Category:Apples, rather than Category:Maleae.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to have the track and field categories, though as a subset of athletics rather than a replacement.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. "Athletes" is ambiguous, the recent creations of SilkTork notwithstanding. Many Americans interpret the word to refer to any sportsperson. We therefore definitely need to revisit and, since they have recently been re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2011 (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.

Bias categories
<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: Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Ageism
 * Category:Anti-Ahmadiyya
 * Category:Anti-Arabism
 * Category:Anti-Buddhism
 * Category:Anti-Catholicism
 * Category:Anti-Hinduism
 * Category:Anti-Islam sentiment
 * Category:Anti-Protestantism
 * Category:Antisemitism
 * Category:Homophobia
 * Category:Misandry
 * Category:Racism
 * Category:Sexism
 * (And so on, and so forth - with these, we should be able to get enough of a consensus to apply to other problem categories not specifically named here. See also various subcats, including geographical and publication subcats, of these.)


 * Nominator's rationale: All of these categories about prejudices contain at least one person or organization that is there because they harbor that prejudice. This discussion about Category:Homophobia seemed to set a new policy with regard to keeping "people, organizations, [and] media" out of categories related to bias; this discussion about Category:Antisemitic organizations confirmed that we can't label organizations as biased. Category:Antisemitic people also used to exist and was deleted by consensus, but the problem was not solved because, apparently, all its contents were just upmerged.


 * I'd like to establish a community-wide consensus for these sorts of categories. Is it acceptable to label people and organizations as antisemitic? You could make that case. Is it unacceptable to label people and organizations as homophobic? You could also make that case. But according to the current state of affairs, it's okay to say that Warith Deen Umar is antisemitic, but not that Pat Robertson, let alone Fred Phelps, is homophobic. You've got to pick one standard or another.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unified approach: I agree there is an inconsistent policy. (Note that Sexism is not included but that's only because no crusading feminists have run around including dozens of individuals/organizations that would qualify from existing refs or easily added ones. But with the new emphasis on ending sexism/gender gap on wikipedia, who knows what might happen.) However, I oppose putting individuals and organizations in these categories. I believe that in one or more of these categories individuals and organizations are put in the category so that people looking at the listing of categories on their page, which may mention one minor incident where they are accused of bigotry, will say "That's a bigot!" The canned response is: "Oh, there are all sorts of anti-bigotry groups/individuals listed under that category too." But of course those articles are all about how those groups are anti-bigotry. There has to be a policy across all these categories - announced with a nice big template on top - that individuals and organizations, no matter how disreputable, will not be listed. Their articles should more than adequately make the point. This policy would protect organizations and individuals who make minor mistakes and/or are labeled bigoted by crusading advocacy groups that are good at getting publicity in the more sensationalism-driven WP:reliable sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Better late than never let me note that I don't know if this is the best forum for getting consensus on a unified approach.
 * But from comments, it looks like a range of opinion, with slight preference for unified approach. Perhaps a specific proposal just to not list individuals in these general bigotry categories would get wider support, per WP:BLP. There is no doubt some organizations and publications clearly are bigoted and their writings and actions prove it over and over again. Other relevant forums are Categorization_of_people and Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be (I repeat might) able to be convinced of that as a reconcealiation if (and only if) we could fight to have people put on there later. I still believe that extremeist should be listed but I do see what you are talking about. Try and convince me. I'm extremly stubborn but once I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong (which right now I'm not since its about opinion). My stance right now is that yes some people are falsely labeled or exaggerated but for the sake of real extremist bigots it is outweighed but I'm open to suggestions.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do however wish that you guys would consider my suggestion below of just makeing it vandalism to call someone racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic etc. without sources. I'm terrible at reconceiling and I felt pretty proud of myself.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Such unsourced info can be and is regularly removed from biographies. Do you mean putting them in the category? That's sort of what some are saying, that individuals (and organizations, thought that more debateable) not ever put under these broad categories of bigotry. Just policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No I'm saying make it vandalism to put them in those categories unless the article clearly addresses there prejudice and is well sourced. This will not completely solve the problem as nothing really will but it will make it better while still satisfying some of the people who are arguing on here. Check out my Walt Disney and Henry Ford example below. Henry Ford played a huge role in the history of antisemitism and its impossible to talk about the history of antisemitism in the United States without addressing him. On the other hand Walt Disney dosn't have a whole lot of sources saying he was antisemitic. He might well have been but there is little more evidence then heresy. I believe people like Henry Ford, Fred Phelps, Adolf Hitler etc. or essential to the discussions on there topics and should be put in the category. Now if someone adds Walt Disney to the antisemitism category with no sources then it should be considered vandalism to both the category page and the Walt Disney page and after several repeated offenses the editor who does it should be banned. Note: I have not actually checked out the Walt Disney page to see if there are sources about whether or not he was antisemitic he was just kinda a Mary Sue.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unified approach. I would support an approach whereby we kept these categories but agreed not to categorize articles about people or organizations or media into them. This would be consistent with how has been treated, after a number of CFDs arrived at that position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unified approach. However if you will read what I said in the discussion This discussion about Category:Homophobia referred to by the proposer it was mostly specific to homophobia in that it was an unverifiable category and the subjects in the main had no citations. I was proposing a change to calling it anti-homosexuality like the other categories here which is something that can be verified. I did want people removed, but I was happy for a category of people convicted of anti-homosexual crimes. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support case-by-case basis, oppose broad-spectrum unified approach Some of these categories may have been created to group biased subjects; others clearly group pro- and con- subjects together. Address each one individually. And yes, if a category covers a topic, it should contain articlesabout which that topic is a key discussion, whether pro or con. That is the very nature of categorization. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, for example, would you support adding Fred Phelps to Category:Homophobia? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And he'd support adding about 2,000 male biographies to sexism too? (Over time lots of sexists not yet identified thusly yet could be added. I've got about 25 in mind off top of my head.) What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think a lot of women would be really ticked if one kind of bigotry category was added to some pages but a bunch of guys flocked to category sexism to demand it not be allowed to be added to well known sexists ala sufficient numbers of WP:RS. It might get (more) national media attention. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, I think you should be able to add sexist people to the category if (and only if) they have literally advocated sexist beliefs. Just being sexist is not a reason to get them on the list but if they wrote books whose entire thesis was about why women shouldn't be allowed to work then of course they should be on the list. Be careful though not to include controversial ones for example someone who opposes abortion as this is still a controversial subject over whether it is a Women's rights issue or a fetus rights issue. And if you really think that many people will be put in there then why not make it a subcategory. Also you would have to put in women who advocated sexist beliefs both againist themselves and men. So think about it. If you know someone who is as misogynist as Fred Phelps is homophobic or Hitler was racist they should be included in that category.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Controversial isn't nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think. People who argue that women shouldn't be allowed to work, and that they should be subordinate to men, don't always think of themselves as sexist, in the same way that people who oppose the right to abortion don't always think of themselves as sexist - the former might subscribe to the theory of complementarianism, which holds that women are totally equal we promise! but they shouldn't work or have any power because God created them to be subservient to men. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats not what I'm saying. In the case of abortion whether or not it is sexism is controversial because it could (dosn't necessarily mean I agree with it) be considered a matter of fetus rights therefore making every feminists who advocated for it an ageist. It can also be seen as discrimiantive if the women refuses to listen to the father's input if the female want's the baby aborted but the father dosn't. See the problem? But for example many Middle Eastern Politicians are fearcely explicitly sexist and should be mentioned in the category.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I understand what you're saying - I'm just trying to point out that people who advocate sexist policies often justify them without saying that women are inferior to men. You gave abortion as an example where it's supposedly more complicated, but my example was meant to show that plenty of groups advocate the very same sexist policies you used as your first example while using reasoning that some people would say is not sexist. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether or not they can say its not sexist. Anyone can say anything is not discrimination. I used abortion because it can fit into both categories of sexism and ageism. Therefore both are discriminatory. Not allowing women to work is either discriminatory or not but if we allow women to work it will not discriminate againist another group. If you still don't understand or wish to discuss some more you should probably move it to my talk page so we don't pollute this article. I simply disagree that certain people and organizations should not be listed.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the end it's about what WP:RS say is sexist, and obviously you will find more WP:RS saying it's more sexist to prevent women from having abortions than to allow it. So in any category it's a battle of sources, and sometimes a battle of who has paid the most people to write things that end up being considered WP:RS and therefore quotable in Wikipedia, and a battle of who has the most editors on wikipedia who will allow categories to list people and who won't. So even though just about every American leader until the 1950s or 60s probably made quotable racist statements, and have since been quoted as racists, you probably won't find Category:Racism on any of their articles. Of course, if 50,000 Arabs and Muslims started editing wikipedia over the next 10 years, you'd find hundreds of people suddenly being quoted for anti-Arab Muslim statements and labeled in Category:Anti-Arabism and/or Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I will try to make this clear one more time. First, this is not about Muslims or Arabs. On certain issues like Abortion people advocating for and againist should not be able to be listed because on the side that says its okay you could find several sources saying it is sexist, on the side that says its not okay it would be ageist. Therefore if you do work in the field of abortion you have the potential to be labeled for either category depending on whether you do or don't advocate it. Therefore then, everyone who believes strongly for or againist abortion would be able to be labeled as discriminative. So neither view should be allowed to be listed in either category. Get it!!!! Anther example is the Arab-Israeli conflict. One the one side you can argue that Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism is on one side and Anti-Palestinian sentiment is on the other. Therefore you could argue that everyone who is pro-Israel would be anti-Palestinian and everyone who is anti-Israel would of course be anti-semitic and anti-zionist. So neither view should be allowed to be listed in either category or everyone who deals heavily within either issue can be labeled. Get It!!!! Its a lose-lose situation. Therefore neither area should be allowed. However for issues that are clearly discriminative in one way. Like someone who advocates that women shouldn't be allowed to work than that is not a conflict of two bias categories. Therefore people can only be listed as Pro-Women or Anti-Women not (for example Pro-Women and Anti-Baby or Pro-Baby and Anti-Women) like you would be labeled on the issue of abortion. It is clear that we need rules but I don't think that we actually have to just flat out say no people or organizations listed under bias categories. It should be continued to be looked at on a case by case basis. Read below for my solution.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [devil's advocate] But women working also involves a conflict of rights. Children need to be raised by their mothers, and leaving them in the care of the state or of a babysitter is tantamount to child abuse. [/devil's advocate]
 * It really, really isn't as easy as you say it is. For every thing you can find that's obviously sexist, someone is going to pop up with an ostensible justification. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all The issue is not bias. If an organization is anti-whatever, and such is clearly sourced, either from this organization's own statues or from reliable third-party sources, then there is no reason we shouldn't say so. And accordingly there is no reason not to have a category for it. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is suggestion deletion, Debresser. The issue is whether we are going to use the categories to categorize people and organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What G O'F said - I don't think these should be deleted, this is a discussion for purposes of determining a unified set of criteria for how these should be applied. Currently the status-quo allows for a Category:Antisemitism filled with articles on people who made a few antisemitic remarks in an otherwise productive life, but absolutely bans from appearing in Category:Homophobia people who make their life's work the denial of rights to gays and whose notability is based entirely on their attempts to deny rights to gays. This is a rather inconsistent policy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite prejudicial, in fact, and at some point, for example, gay groups could start writing about it as evidence of homophobia on Wikipedia. So we need a consistent policy, whatever it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unified approach. Seems sensible to me. We shouldn't have different standards for different biases. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All Ok, listen the fact of the matter is that some people like Adolf Hitler, Fred Phelps, etc. are prejudice. Now when someone marks someone as prejudiced when they are known not to be or when they have no sourced evidence this should be considered vandalism to the said persons page. But seriously the fact of the matter is that the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and most neo-nazi organizations are prejudice and discriminatory. So I say just make it vandalism to include it in these without sources. It would technically be defemation if it were untrue. Also remember though some people and organizations like Westboro Baptist Church like be called homophobic or other bias because they think it will help their cause.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of sources would you consider sufficient for this purpose? The Catholic League, to choose one example, is fond of labeling things anti-Catholic, but it would certainly present a POV problem to take their designations at face value. In general, advocacy groups are going to do some labeling that the labeled people or organizations won't agree with - whose word do we take? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And the problem with using Adolf Hitler and Fred Phelps as examples is that they are extreme cases. OK—most everyone can agree that Hitler was antisemitic, and most people would say that Fred Phelps is homophobic. But things aren't as clear cut for the vast majority of organizations and people that get added to these categories. Often, it is done as a way of attacking the person or organization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, let the articles' sources make the case, but don't bring questionable cases into categories where people will jump to the worst assumptions (including about people who in fact are anti-biogtry activists). CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that if we make it so we can't label organizations suddenly we won't be able to put the KKK under racism or Westboro Baptist Church under homophobia. It should be the job of the editors on wikipedia to check whether or not organizations should really be in the category. For example, should Henry Ford be in a category about Antisemitism? Well, he did write a whole book attacking Jewish people and was praised by Hitler who had a copy of that book in his desk and a picture of Henry Ford on the wall so probably. The book btw is called "The International Jew" if you don't believe me. On the other hand should Walt Disney be in that same category? Well he was accused of antisemitism and may have been antisemitic but I don't know of any sources so no. Now if I do advocate that he is without sources it should be changed and I should be charged (with wikipedias standards) with vandalism. That would stop people from falsely labeling people as discriminative without evidence.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd have to study WP:Vandalism and see if it can be used that way. I don't really know. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the stated requirement for sources hasn't and doesn't stop users from misusing the categories. And we have further problems that the sources themselves in cases like this are rarely neutral. So it is easy to solve the problem by just excluding people and organizations from these categories; hence this nomination. This has nothing to do with stopping a discussion of racism or homophobia in a Wikipedia article—it just means we won't use the blunt tool of categorization where the delicate, refined tool of sourced statements from reliable sources is needed. (I'm also not sure that you are correct to categorize this as a "sudden" change that would result—Westboro Baptist Church has not been categorized in for ages now, nor have any people or organizations. Ku Klux Klan should not be in  because  was deleted. The point of this nom is just to standardize the approaches, not to introduce anything radically new.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But notice Ku Klux Klan does appear in the racism category. Check it out.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because there is no unified position on this right now. The only one that has reached consensus up to this point is . Extending this to other categories is what this conversation is about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your policy won't stop it either. People will still do it. If you make it vandalism you can eventually get kicked off if you continue to do it. If you just make it so you can't add people or organizations then people will still add people and organizations that are they will just be deleted much in the same way as is happening now. Therefore its not doing anything. If I may I will make a comparison on Marijuana laws. Like this they are very controversial. People will always smoke Marijuana so we can't stop that. If we wish to make a law than the things we have to look at are is it as safe as legal drugs (cigarettes and alchohol) and whether or not such anti-marijuana laws are even effective. Same here. I don't believe we should change the policy as of now. If its a matter of consistency open up Category: Homophobia.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it has worked just fine for . No problems in the past year, from what I have heard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the problem is so big we need to downright ban people from listing people organizations and media. As I have said Fred Phelps would be proud to have his name under homophobia. It is nearly impossible to have an intellectual conversation about Fred Phelps without talking about his homophobic activism. That is what he is famous for. I will gladly help you check and take down articles that do not mention that the person is biased if thats what you want. However, wikipedia is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. What is really wrong with a case by case basis? Remember, it is your job to convince us. Not our job to convince you. If you really feel its that big of a deal then go out and research if they are biased.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is we don't need inclusion in a category to have these issues discussed in any article. It's not "my job" to do anything, I'm just expressing my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I was attacking the person who proposed this not you Good Ol Factory. I see how I was interpreted that way though and almost anyone would. I apologize. Now back to the subject, in the Homophobia category there is a book called "The Pink Swastika" This is media and if you have read it is clearly homophobic and should (I repeat should) be there-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally try to avoid performing original research for Wikipedia purposes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (which is a homophobic organization) and The Pink Swastika (a homophobic book) are listed under homophobia so clearly it is NOT working.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is working well when compared to how it used to be. Before there was a fight every two weeks about an article about a person being placed in the category. That has been significantly reduced. It's impossible to put a lock on all articles which makes it impossible for users to add a specific category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unified approach. I would support an approach whereby we kept these categories but agreed not to categorize articles about people or organizations or media into them. --Dezidor (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose surely if a policy is seen to have shifted or needs to have a clarification of inclusion limitations/definitins then a discussion should take place on the policy talk page. IMHO if something/someone defines themselves as Anti-Foo then they should be in such a category because such a grouping is one which researchers use... and its a notable trait they have in common, I'd suspect(havent researched) that for many of the organisations, people within those catergories its the basis for thier notibility..... I what then should happen is get a clear definition of the policy then address each category individually dont just lump such significantly different categories and thier subcategories into a discussion process that is ineffective in dealing wiht the real issues Gnangarra 13:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If there were lots of WP:RS saying people or organizations openly called themselves "homophobic" or "sexist" or "antisemitic," you'd be right. But of course they don't and usually deny it, which is what leads to BLP problems. For example calling themselves racialists and denying they are racists, even if their publications openly mock people of color. What we see is mostly others accusations, often from advocacy groups whose fundraising profits from always finding new bigots to expose, and mainstream media that repeat their exaggerated charges. (If WP:RS actually do their own research using journalistic/academic standards, that's far more credible, of course.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * you dont throw the baby out because the water is dirty.......if inclusion is a BLP issue then deal with the BLP issue as a BLP issue, the categories themselves are valid categorisations. Gnangarra 07:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that the categories get deleted, or "thrown out", as you say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally having found the main page Categories_for_discussion, it is obvious this is all about deletion and chanaging names. A good place to start for getting opinions, but if we want a policy change we may have to go to Village_pump_(policy), probably one that says general bigotry categories definitely should not list individuals. And then throw up organizations and media for discussion. Thoughts? Announce it here if you do there or where can best effect change. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea to post something there, Carol. This may not be the best forum to maximize participation in a way that will result in a broad-based discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest cross posting a notice to WP:BLP talk page indicating where the discussion is so that you get more eyes as well Gnangarra 13:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Past WP:BLP discussion on this: Thanks for reminding me BLP is place this should be. I did bring up the general issue in August - here in archive - and a specifically worded proposal to add to current proposal (which was not as definitive as the one evolving here) and which was shot down. Please read that and then see what we might propose there that would answer those concerns. (Except those hell bent on being able to put people in such categories.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose this proposal, whether it's to delete the categories, or impose what is being done on in one category on others. These categories should be used to groups articles relevant to a specific topic; thus, if an article discusses "Homophobia" or "Antisemitism", the category should be placed on that article (or the article in that category). If someone is using the category to indicate that they think a specific individual is Homophobic, but the article doesn't discuss Homophobia, then that's an issue, but it's resolved by removing the category from that article, not by making some rule that no articles about individuals can be placed in a specific category. There's absolutely no reason why one should not, for example, add Category:Antisemitism to Jan Gotlib Bloch or Category:Antisemitism in the United States to Uriah P. Levy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see part of your point, but I don't really understand your resistance to having a consistent standard across all of these categories (even if that standard is "it's okay to have individuals and organizations in prejudice categories"). That, to me, hints at "I want to be allowed to label someone who makes a one-off comment as antisemitic, but people who want gays to be executed and who make laws to this end aren't homophobic because God says so." (I don't mean that you personally hold this belief - I'm just having trouble thinking of a reason not to have a consistent standard, whatever that standard is, beyond individual editors wanting Wikipedia to support their personal prejudices.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think almost everyone on here supports a unified approach but now we must state which unified approach is best. Originally support a unified approach meant to keep people and organizations out (whether that was the proper way of using it or not) but now it has been used by someone to go the opposite direction. It is quite clear we are not voting properly.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support a unified approach Categories are unique within Wikipedia, as most editors experience them they are unreferenced and unexplained. Opening the category itself may provide a description and even references, for the most part, readers don't (I believe) see the categories in that context, primarily they see them in the context of notes at the bottom of articles--articles which are sometimes biographies of living people. Consistency of category policy with respect to inclusion and naming are essential to readers getting a fair view of the information we're providing, particularly on sensitive topics.  --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 01:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that consistency may take many forms, and I have not expressed a preference for which form of consistency we achieve. I feel that there is no a priori reason why we can not have categories for 'ageist activists", "anti-LGBT activists", etc., what is required for consistency here is that we have a uniform policy about whether the individuals that might fall into either category belong in a more generic category such as ageism or homophobia.  That is a much different question.  --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 02:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical Approach. It would be very convenient to be able to list 19th century antisemitic politicians, say, and have Georg Schoenerer and Roman Dmowski, say, in one place. But I could see the issue with someone trying to use that for living individuals, or politically controversial contemporary organizations. Perhaps the same issues come up with other forms of bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the bottom line is because some people have one or two categories that they want to add people/organizations to. So maybe the unified approach should be to let it happen until somehow there's a community consensus to stop it. I don't see any reason not to put people in homophobic if at least a couple WP:RS say they are. If adding a bunch of people who can be verified to be Sexist or Homophobic/Anti-homosexual or Anti-Islam sentiment does it, fine; if no, so be it. And we'll just have to fight it out article by article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This conversation has gone quiet for a while so I suggest we take down the rules on homophobia and just open it up and delete people/organizations on an article-to-article basis.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's let the closer rather than a vocal participant determine what the consensus is for, shall we? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unified and ban all the categories. This probably involves BLP even when organizations are to be categorized (if this involves libel for individuals, by naming an organization their board and CEO would be subject to libel). The only workable standard is that a person says, e.g., "I'm a sexist and proud of it" and has an adult life-long career consistently supporting it, and that's rare. Notable people tend to widen their reach and so tend to speak in multiple directions to multiple audiences; those who don't tend not to be notable. A woman has described herself as a feminist who did not, to my knowledge, take a single feminist position, but she did keep herself busy attacking feminism (and, in the way she did it, consistent with men's sexism) under the rubric of her being a feminist. If someone finds a source by Hitler's own staff quoting him one day as that he's not against Jews, just the ones in Germany (and that would be plausible since he may have offered to encourage Jews to leave Germany but was turned down by one or more other nations) then (putting aside that he's dead) we'd have a problem. Meseems any article that fits the Sexism category would also fit another category, such as one of those on feminism, or would fit the omission of the latter category (if someone deserves the Sexism category but assigning it would a BLP issue, the nonassigning of a Feminism category would not be a BLP issue), so I'm not sure the Sexism category isn't redundant. If the same is true for all the other categories we're discussing, then let's make them all go away, and have a policy precluding new ones of like ilk. And we should also preclude categories of the kind Category:Islam (Pro/Con) because it'll become populated almost entirely by the cons, since the pros would already fit other categories, making a pro-con combo mostly a mere proxy for Anti-Islam. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, this discussion is getting hot and heavy just from my adding Category:Sexism just to the Wife selling article. imagine when someone tries to add it to Hugh Hefner. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hugh Hefner was not necessarilly sexists. Just because someone works in porn that does not make them sexists. Did you know that according to many studies that anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the pornographic industry in gay. Does that mean under the same standard that gay porn is discriminative againist men, not to mention gay men. And if this were so wouldn't pornography be sexist againist everyone. I agree one hundred percent with your wife selling article being added to Category: Sexism but there are people out there who really are sexist and you are probably unintentionally, being a little too liberal with your definition of sexism. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice againist women because they are women or the belief that one sex/gender is superior to another sex/gender. Many things like forced marriages, employment discrimination, military discrimination (did you know that women can't go into combat?), forced abortions, many forms of rape, many forms of domestic violence could all be considered very misogynist and in some cases also misandrist. Just try to think about what you post first. Sexism is everywhere and we should fight it. If you desire to create a list that does not include people essential to sexism I suggest after this discussion is over you create a category exclusively for listing sexist or controversially sexist people. The category does not need to become gigantic to get your point across that there are sexist people.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove all these judgment-laden categories. Categories are supposed to be simple ways to label something. Nothing about these categories is simple. They enforce a 21st century western view--and very often an individual editor's view--of what an entire article is about. Where an article has room to explain experts' opinions on something that experts consider to have been racist or sexist, a category unequivocally declares it without any sources. These categories do nothing but set the stage for dozens of arguments that are resolved by source material that should be in the article space. These categories allow editors who have never cracked a book on a topic to declare that they think a person or event is/was racist or sexist. It's not neutral in any way. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support a unified approach consistent with policy and precedent. I have read the full discussion, but broadly agree with the issues raised by Nick Levinson and Moni3. One unified option is to ban/delete these categories, but if that is unrealistic, then their use needs to be substantially curtailed and very well regulated. We have deleted Category:Antisemitic organizations and do not have Category:Sexists because we don't use categories to label in this way: this is consistent with the use of labels in articles, where we generally insist on in-text attribution to reliable secondary sources.
 * In defense of these categories, there is a role for them: racism, ageism, sexism et al., are significant topics of discourse, and it may be helpful to the reader to have categories which help them navigate this discourse. However, these categories are all abstract nouns, not labels, and they only belong on articles whose content contributes significantly to such discourse: we do not, for example, add Helen of Troy to Category:Beauty or any of its subcategories.
 * The proposal not to tag any people or organizations is a dumbed-down version of good use of these categories. I note for example that Category:Ageism includes people who have campaigned against ageism. It might also include people who have campaigned in favor of ageism, but it should not include people simply because they have been regarded as "ageist". That which applies to people or organizations applies to all articles: we do not and should not categorize Marriage as sexism, nor Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire as racism.
 * In short, these categories have great potential to cause harm to the encyclopedia (such as biased editorial labeling), and should only be allowed if (1) they provide a benefit, and (2) mechanisms are in place to prevent such harm.
 * Even more briefly: categories are not for editors, they are for readers. Geometry guy 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove them all, per Moni3, and to some extent per Geometry guy's comments, because this is Wikipedia-- there is no such thing as "support unified approach". It won't happen, these judgment categories are already being used in a WP:POINTy manner, and it's unlikely that will change to the standards mentioned by Geometry guy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I already opposed these categories and here are two more reasons:
 * One of these categories (and many of them) likely apply to a huge number of article subjects, maybe many thousands. If restrictions are not adopted and stated, and someone is inclined to categorize, the populated categories will quickly grow to multiple pages, and multiple-page categories probably get far fewer scans by users, just as Google results are most valuable when they're on page 1, less so on p. 2, and less and less so the bigger the page number. I understand that Google does not permit searching beyond p. 99 (for an unrelated reason) and this categorization could exceed that. This would require subcategories, which does not alleviate the fundamental problem but may create new ones of definitional boundaries.
 * Category:Sexism has three subcategories, which are not much more helpful. Clearly Misogyny and Misandry are distinct, but of the (perhaps) many thousands of articles otherwise categorizable in Sexism most would go into Misogyny and most of the rest into Misandry. I don't think those two are any better. The only other subcategory is Sex Segregation, which has its own subcategories, and I can't tell if that's any better; perhaps it should be renamed or a membership restriction specified in it.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deletion - Certain categories should be used only when talking about someone who has repeatedly made remarks of that nature. I.E. [a certain person] saying he loved hitler.--Jack Cox (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC) (A living person's name replaced by bracketed insertion by me, not by the original editor (see the reply immediately below): Nick Levinson (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I edited out the person's name because they're alive and they've denied the accusation (through an attorney), thus bringing this under the BLP policy. But, while I support deletion of the categories, if they're kept the poster's point, when applied to any such person, is well-taken. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (Clarified that I oppose retaining the categories: 04:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Ok here is what it comes down to. Wikipedia is a place of education and knowledge. When someone goes into study something like homophobia learning about people like Fred Phelps could be very helpful. Why? It should be obvious. Fred Phelps is a religious extremeist who denies certain people their rights because of something they can't control. For Antisemitism Hitler or Henry Ford would be great examples. But this is beyond the point. We need to think beyond wikipedia and what THE READERS not THE SUBJECTS think. Wikipedia is not written to make the subjects look good it is made to portray what the subject is. Readers will already have in their head whether homophobia, antisemitism etc. is good or bad. But to blanketly say no people, or organizations let alone media would be rediculous. Also has anyone here actually read The International Jew by Henry Ford or The Pink Swastika. You can disagree that antisemitism and homophobia are bad but you can't deny this MEDIA is discriminative. Power to the readers.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, other than that I support deleting the categories, if they're kept I largely agree, with the exception that Wikipedia has a policy respecting living people (BLP) requiring that contentious material, not just libelous material, be edited out promptly, and organizations may present the same need. The policy helps protect the Wikimedia Foundation's ability to continue Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (Clarified that I oppose retaining the categories: 04:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC))
 * So then why don't we stop calling bank robbers bank robbers, or calling pedophiles pedophiles. Obviously we need to protect living people. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't a murderer he was just a guy. Osama Bin Laden wasn't a terrorist. No matter what anyone does no one can be labeled with things. The Green River Killer is alive but hey look he has Killer in his name. Why because its not based on what you want but what you do. Fred Phelps has earned his title as a homophobe. Hitler has earned his title as an antisemite. Osama Bin Laden earned his title as a terrorist. I just read the Biographies of living persons and although I might be mistaken it says nothing about labeling. If you find something in there about it please send me another message. Power to the readers.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relative to BLP, there's no substantive difference between a statement in the main text and a categorization based on such a statement, so that if the statement is not in the main text but is implied in a categorization then it is subject to the BLP policy. So, if the Jim Smith article (for a hypothetical living person) says nothing whatsoever about his being a child rapist but we categorize him as such, that violates BLP, since the categorization is contentious information without a source. If you argue that he could be in Category:Child Rapists because he never raped a child, the ensuing misunderstanding could cause potentially serious legal consequences. That's especially the case because categorization itself does not allow adding sourcing; to solve that, you have to supply main text with sourcing and then assign relevant categories.
 * Dead people are outside of BLP.
 * Crimes are reportable for living people if convictions were obtained; otherwise, the limits are more stringent.
 * Clear-cut cases are easy. The problem is with marginal cases, and more cases are marginal. In a main text editors can write with some subtlety, but a category is a yes-or-no affair. Assigning a category in a marginal case can turn information contentious. One Jew wrote of being welcomed into a Muslim nation but she understood that if she went she would be forced to convert to Islam or could look forward to something like torture, so she declined the friendly invitation. Could her hosts correctly claim that they were not anti-Jewish since they were offering a Jew something good? The sentence I wrote here about "[o]ne Jew" if sourced could go into an article about her hosts but a category name could not convey the same thing.
 * The case of people who are identified only by what is contentious about them so that their real names are unknown, as may be the case with some notorious murderers not yet named by real names, is a special case. I don't know how BLP handles that and maybe that needs discussing there.
 * If you want to challenge BLP policy, the BLP talk page is the place to check, not here; I think it's already been discussed, but if you have a new argument, try there.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrected markup, added need for sourcing, & corrected singular to plural for consistency: 08:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)) (In last edit, also clarified that the article re a Jew would be about her hosts: 08:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC))
 * You have still not provided me with where in the Biographies of Living Persons policy it states that well sourced labels can not be used. I'm not challenging something in the policy. I'm stating it's not there. If you can source that so-and-so has done things to discriminate againist people esp. if that is what he/she is notorious for then they should be categorized as discriminative. Your other argument is that there are some people who are categorized without sources. That is definatly a problem and we should find a way to solve it. But you are not arguing to stop people from categorizing them alone but from categorizing all people even if they are notorious for such discriminative behaviour. What we need to do is attempt to reconcile. There are very heated people on both sides. So what we need to do is brainstorm how to prevent people from mislabeling people. I still suggest making is vandalism. But just because that some stupid person labels Joe Diary (fake name) as a racist/sexist/homophobe etc. without evidence that dosn't mean that Hitler and Fred Phelps should not be labeled as such. If Fred Phelps wasn't famous for his Homophobic and Anti-American activity what would he be famous for?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP allows labeling for having the most horrible characteristics and simply sets a standard for sourcing to make it noncontentious; a murderer who's alive and convicted is described for the murder in Wikipedia. The problem with categories is that a category doesn't refer to sourcing and subtle distinctions are impossible except by creating more categories, and I doubt that'll happen. Category:Antisemitism presumably can include both Hitler and the Anti-Defamation League because both are strongly connected to the category's title but in opposite directions. Beyond that, it would be easy to categorize Hitler as anti-Jewish even if his partisans deny his acts; the citable evidence is huge. It's fairly likely that Fred Phelps wouldn't deny being personally antigay. But what about other religious leaders who say they love gays, only opposing what they do and their flaunting of it, and that they'd be happy to counsel gays to go straight? That's antigay but in most cases can we find enough sourcing to overcome their denials that they're antigay? There is a biography of someone Jewish who organizes against Muslims building a center near the World Trade Center; she says she's not against Muslims but some people say she supports Islam only if it's secular but is not secular herself as a Jew. She says calling her anti-Islam is slander (misunderstanding law, but let's assume she means libel). We can explain all this and more in the article. But what category should we put her into? Category:Anti-Islamist But Not Anti-Secular Islam, Category:Has a View About Islamists, and Category:Against Something To Do With Islam But Sources Disagree on Exactly What aren't likely to be created on Wikipedia. I suspect many Muslims of Sunni Islam would happily categorize Shia Muslims into Category:Anti-Islam and that many Muslims of Shia Islam would just as happily categorize Sunni Muslims into Category:Anti-Islam. Pretty soon every Muslim would qualify as anti-Muslim. Policing these categories would become very burdensome, because we'd have to rely on article editors and also on category editors, and while the latter could monitor more consistently they'd have to read a lot of articles to see how well categorizations are supported, and that eats up time. The standards having to be tough, if they are tough and the monitoring works, the result would be very few people in any such category (some of those categories have only a few people now but that's likely because many editors skip categorizing even in clear cases), and that means constant tussles as editors add categories, other editors take them out, editors re-adding them get blocked, and disputes crop up on talk pages. By the way, if the categories survive this deletion attempt, I expect to use them, within whatever category-specific limits or definitions may be prescribed. But the BLP issue of defamation damage risks is important legally, organizations, especially small ones closely identified with just a few known individuals (media being organizations), provide a similar risk of libel suit as individuals do, and so policing becomes important, and if we can't regulate this type of categorizing for its BLP risk then we should abolish the categories even though having them would be informative for readers. I don't think the Foundation should pay the financial burden if we can't do enough monitoring to keep the risk cheap. If damages are expensive, that could threaten Wikipedia's existence, leaving readers nothing. If that risk is minor now and we needn't be concerned, that's why we're having this discussion, so anyone can make that case. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2011 (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:Global network shows
<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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Global network shows to Category:Global Television Network shows
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent article Global Television Network and fix capitalization. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:11, 9 February 2011 (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:FAW
<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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:FAW to Category:FAW Group
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article, FAW Group. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per main article and for dab.- choster (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2011 (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:Sisters of Charity
<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: This one's a mess but the best solution appears to be a little of almost everything so Upmerge entries to Category:Roman Catholic nuns to ensure none are missed, delete category and recreate as a disambiguation category. Separate categories can then be created afterwards. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sisters of charity


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are dozens of organizations known as the Sisters of Charity, and for the most part they are unrelated to one another. No particular congregation dominates these listings, which are few, so I see no immediate need to retain the category nor any obvious rename destination.- choster (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Roman Catholic nuns. I originally created the category as part of a categorisation scheme for Roman Catholic religious, who were hopelessly poorly categorised. There weren't enough articles for separate categories for each individual order, so I just created a general category in order to avoid having articles directly under the higher category. But I do see the nominator's point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but Disambiguate to Category:Sisters of Charity (Roman catholic), put instructions at the top of the page Sisters of Charity is shortened title for over 60 different orders across various religions, this category is for those of the Roman Catholic church, for Anglican see Category:Sisters of Charity (Anglican) for.......this category shouldnt contain any articles please put articles at the orders full name ie Category:Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Gnangarra 07:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Category:Sisters of Charity (Roman Catholic) is meaningless. Possibly, a number of these groups could be categorized together under something like Category:Vincentian Family, but the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary has nothing to do with the Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary has nothing to do with the Sisters of Charity of Our Lady of Mercy. This is basically WP:OC.- choster (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise they arent related but it becomes a disambiguation/soft redirect to full names.... Gnangarra 13:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What a mess! Note the previously unconnected Category:Sisters of Charity Federation, which does seem to know what it is about (namely Sisters of Charity Federation in the Vincentian-Setonian Tradition). I'm not sure that the category is not salvageable if articles were actually added to it from Sisters of Charity.  Maybe rename as Catholic. Some biog articles should be moved to Category:Sisters of Charity Federation. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If there are 60 orders using the name, we need to keep this as a sort of dab-category, whose subcategories would be the individsual orders. I see no reason to split them by denomination.  The category should be kept empty of articles in the same way that a category redirect is.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (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.