Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 28



Category:Actors of Shortcut Productions

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * actors of shortcut productions


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't have a scheme for actors by studio or film company and I don't think starting one would be a good idea. It's a lot like "performer by performance" overcategorization. We do have, which I think itself is borderline overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Yep, classic WP:OC. It's also part of a little article/category network that was created about and around Shortcut Productions, which was speedily deleted yesterday. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not want an actors by production company schema.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2012 (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:Healthcare by country

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Healthcare by country to Category:Health by country

and all of the country-specific categories: Category:Healthcare in Afghanistan to Category:Health in Afghanistan
 * Category:Healthcare in Algeria to Category:Health in Algeria
 * Category:Healthcare in Argentina to Category:Health in Argentina


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't need both 'health by country' and 'healthcare by country' categories. If you look at how these categories and terms are currently used, it is not at all consistent - sometimes healthcare is used to refer specifically to medical service provision, other times health care is used in a broader sense to mean the broader health of the population, and sometimes health is used in this sense as well. Sometimes the health in X categories contain pages more focused on public health, whereas sometimes the healthcare in X categories contain pages around medical education, policy, and finance; sometimes the opposite is true. The country specific articles, which are more frequently titled "Health in X" vs "Health care in X" also show this confusion in the terminology, and in general, no matter what the article title, it has a redirect, showing that the authors have chosen to have a single article per country, in most cases. Thus, we should have a single category.


 * At the end of the day, the semantic difference between health and healthcare, while clearly important in its own right, does not gain the same utility as a category. When you scale this to hundreds of national categories for both health in X and health care in X, especially given that many articles (like obesity or HIV/AIDS) will clearly have public health and medical treatment aspects, the utility of this split becomes limited. There was a previous CfD on this, but I'd like to try this again and see if we can get a broader discussion going.Karl.brown (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the suggestion here is to merge all of the Healthcare in X categories to Health in X. I will give a few examples of why this distinction is not meaningful for the purposes of categorization:
 * health care and health have different meanings depending on the country. For example, in some countries, the word health care includes things which are sometimes in the US called public health; in other countries, the word health includes things which one might call health care in the US.
 * the categorizations are often arbitrary - for example, look at the following examples:
 * Category:Health_in_Bangladesh, Category:Healthcare_in_Bangladesh
 * Category:Health_in_Brazil, Category:Healthcare_in_Brazil
 * Category:Health in the United Kingdom, Category:Healthcare_in_the_United_Kingdom
 * If you look at the articles, there is not a clear defining characteristic per WP:CAT for when a given article might show up in the 'health' vs the 'healthcare' category. For example, academic institutions which provide training for medical professionals? Are those 'healthcare' or 'health'? What about government bodies in the health sector? Famous physicians? Associations of Nurses? The ministry of health? Tobacco and HIV? Because one can argue these distinctions endlessly, I would propose that we avoid the debate entirely, and just choose a single word to represent health and health care and medicine and wellness and public health and so on, per country, just for the purpose of categories. This will make it much easier for people to find relevant articles, which is the real point of categories. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A few quick responses to the previous 'oppose' arguments in the CfD:


 * 1) merge health into health care: The reason I proposed to merge health care into health is because health is more generic. If you're going to merge categories, you should generally get rid of the more specific one.
 * 2) healthcare is specifically for articles about treatments in the country: There doesn't seem to be any consistency on this point - look at the categories above, and you will see all sorts of different uses of these categories. In addition, health/health care cannot just be easily divided into 'treatment' and 'everything else' - the lines are a lot more fuzzy, and there are many topics which are neither purely about medical treatment nor purely about public health. For example, where should one place a cancer treatment center that also does public advocacy? Or a surgeon who invented an important cardiac surgery technique, but also was a leader in promoting anti-smoking legislation? Again, I'm not arguing that we should merge health into health care any more than we should merge religion into spirituality or belief, but we don't have categories at a national level for all of these distinctions (e.g. we have Category:Religion by country but not Category:Spirituality by country or Category:Belief by country). The result of having both Health by X and Healthcare by X categories is not necessarily more clarity; rather it is more confusion for the reader, who may be looking for a given article but isn't sure if it would fit into 'healthcare' or 'health'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment is this about the diseases and health of the people, or the care and systems of care delivery and funding? Those are two very different things. "health" would cover disease statistics, whereas "healthcare" would cover doctors per population quantum. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that health as a concept is different than health care, that is not under dispute. However, I proposed a merger because as high-level categories, this distinction becomes less relevant. If they are separate categories, it means we should have some standard way of distinguishing whether an article belongs in the 'healthcare' or 'health' category (or both). I gave several examples above of articles or categories that could be argued to be both. In addition, actual evidence from the use of these categories suggests there is no consistency amongst editors or sources. As a simple example, hospitals often end up under healthcare, but they just as frequently show up under health - the same applies for Ministry of Health, or disease X. Also, the contrast you provided of diseases and health of the people and care and systems of care delivery and financing are only some of the health topics that are present. After a quick peruse of Category:Health in the United Kingdom and Category:Healthcare_in_the_United_Kingdom, I found the following types of articles: health law, health charities, health/medical professional societies, advisory committees, medical research units, pharmaceutical-related entities, medical research databases, blood and tissue banks, longitudinal studies, health and medical portals, medical journals, water/sanitation, epidemiology, biological research, famous physicians, tobacco, HIV/AIDS, priority diseases, public health campaigns.... Any one of these, based on the particular slant of the article or the whim of the editor, could be said to be more about 'systems of care delivery' or more about 'health of the people'. My bottom line is, while a distinction between health and health care is useful for terminology discussions, the subjects of articles in the domain of health rarely fit clearly into one bucket or another, so having two categories is wasteful and confusing. Per WP:CAT, category membership should be based on defining characteristics: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" - but you are unlikely to find consistent sources that say article subject X is about 'healthcare' and not about 'health'. For example, one could likely find sources for all of the following: "HIV/AIDs is a public health issue", "HIV/AIDs is a health issue", "HIV/AIDS is a healthcare issue". Just saying all of these articles are about 'health' will be unambiguous and clear. --Karl.brown (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, one direction or the other. It is quite unclear where the boundary of one scheme ends and the other begins. The purpose of the category system is to provide clear guides for people to know where to place articles. In this case, the system fails. A rough parallel would be if we divided Category:Economics into Category:Supply and Category:Demand, and put Category:Goods only into the Supply category. People would say, "Goods are both bought and sold," so they need to go into both. Well, diseases are both suffered and cured, health law covers both sufferers and curers, and so on. If there's a clear line between what goes in where, it is not stated to the users of the categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I just added the CfM template to all of the sub-categories, so hopefully that will generate some more discussion. --Karl.brown (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment d'oh just found a few more - added the 6 'Healthcare by continent X' categories. I'm sure there are others that will crop up as well, such as the subregional ones like Category:Healthcare in Lancashire vs Category:Health in Cornwall but frankly I'm not motivated to go try and clean those up at this point. If we can fix national level and above that will be a good start...--Karl.brown (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2012 (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:Homosexuality and religion

 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Homosexuality and religion to Category:
 * Nominator's rationale: I would like to rename this category's subcats (Category:Homosexuality and Islam, Category:Homosexuality in mythology, Category:Homosexuality and Judaism, and Category:Homosexuality and Christianity) to "LGBT topics in/and." This is more consistent with our general categorization scheme of using "LGBT" and avoids an arbitrary distinction with bisexuality which is not present in the articles so categorized. (Category:Homosexuality and religion and Category:Homosexuality and Christianity would thus be upmerged to Category:LGBT topics and religion and Category:LGBT topics and Christianity respectively.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME "LGBT" is too inaccessible already and we shouldn't spread its use any further. It has a certain inclusive value, which justifies its use around the core topic. Once we're out into a domain like religion that's outside the core though, then we lose more in accessibility to other readers unfamiliar with the LGBT term than we gain from this inclusivity. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. Readers can always read the article LGBT if they are uncertain of its meaning. Tim! (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that they can't read LGBT, it's that they might not find LGBT - or in a list of religion sub topics, they might not realise that LGBT is where they ought to be looking. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See my response to JPL for why this renaming/upmerging actually aids navigation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep These categories are for articles that discuss homosexuality and these issues. That is the term that the religious groups would use and that is the issue discussed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "the term that the religious groups would use" because different religious groups use different terminology. It also creates completely redundant category trees - we can't put, say, "LGBT Christians" or "LGBT clergy" into a "homosexuality" category because some are bisexual, or transgender and heterosexual, so that forces us to maintain a higher-level category of "LGBT and religion," "LGBT and Christianity" etc. anyway. We may as well use those categories productively. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename Including bisexuality and transsexualism in the category is inaccurate. Mangoe (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are religious reactions to bi- and trans- issues too, and we'd surely place them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a separate category for transgender issues and religion but it's not separated by religion because there aren't enough articles at the moment to bother. As Johnpacklambert points out below, there's no meaningful difference in religious attitudes towards homosexuality and towards bisexuality, so why would we make this artificial distinction in our category name? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has a main article, and that article is titled Religion and homosexuality. Upon looking at the structure further I see that there is already an overarching Category:LGBT topics and religion, so we would be talking about a series of upmerges and renames; but that category is already rather split out, and the reason it is split out is that the articles are split out too. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of redundancy in the topic area and it's definitely not (or not all) because of a decision on the part of the community. For example, we have both Christianity and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity and have not yet got around to merging them - this doesn't indicate anything. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no merger to do because one of those is a redirect to the other, and in fact the article was moved from one to the other in two stages. The article has a big tag in it, but that's mostly because of the prominence given to John Boswell's decidedly minority view. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, Christianity and homosexuality and Christianity and sexual orientation are the two separate articles. Or I say "the," there may be other redundant sets of articles that I'm forgetting about. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that latter article is problematic exactly along the lines that we're arguing about here. Most of it is simply a fork of Christianity and homosexuality. The section on transgenderism recounts that the Catholic Church regards the sex of persons as an objective fact, and this could (and really should) be split into a separate article, because it doesn't have anything much to do with the material on homosexuality. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The homosexuality-transgender stuff can't be made entirely separate because of the way it intersects in some religions and jurisdictions (for instance, how the RCC's views on birth sex = gender affect its policy on marriage, or the way gay men in Iran are pressured to have sex change operations), but yes, it could be a separate article with a summary at the original article, as is the usual procedure with content forks. But here again you're largely making my point for me: yes, Christianity and sexual orientation is redundant to Christianity and homosexuality! Exactly! And having two separate articles makes it hard to find relevant material that's in one and not the other! In just the same way that the categories are redundant and make it difficult to find things! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The nominator's concern about the failure to adequately categorise LGBT issues and religion can be resolved by creating new LGBt categories where needed, with the existing homosexuality-and-foo categories as sub-categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment in the context of those who oppose homosexuality, bi-sexuality is not seen as an issue. Religious opposition is centered on actions, not centered on "orientation".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making my point for me - since the subjects don't have separate attitudes towards homosexuality and bisexuality, why should we separate them in our categorization scheme? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comment What I see going on here is something of a control issue: whether the LGBT side or the religious side gets to set out the topics. The correct solution seems to me to be the current categorization, which reflects the focus of religion on various specific issues; rolling them all up into a LGBT master category reflects their view of these issues as part of a whole. Eliminating the topical subcats obscures the specificity of religious interest and implies that (for instance) the Judaeo-Christian focus on particular acts is, well, wrong. In this wise the lack of interest in bisexuality is entirely to the point, as from an act-based view of morality there isn't anything distinctly interesting about bisexuality that isn't covered by homosexual and unfaithful acts. There are a series of articles on sexual orientation and religion, but Christianity and sexual orientation for instance begins with a whole series of discussions about sexual acts and fails to identify whether sexual orientation is even a meaningful category in the religion. The current pattern of article titles (if not all of the articles themselves) reflects a set of distinctions and variations in focus that is characteristic of the religious viewpoints involved; if people in the LGBTQ want to lump it all together, that lumping is already accomplished in the category structure; but their lumping shouldn't overrule the more fine-grained religious approach. Mangoe (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said to John, it's just plain incorrect to assert this as a question of the LGBT view vs. the religious view; plenty of religious views are not act-based and use "LGBT" terminology rather than "homosexual" terminology. However, that aside, I also don't see why this should have any implications for our category structure: the religious view that acts > orientation can be and is discussed in the articles, but making the distinction through category language is totally ambiguous, is at variance with Wikipedia practice, and creates a lot of redundancy. To phrase it as a question: what's wrong with keeping an article called "Christianity and homosexuality" but putting it in the category "LGBT topics and Christianity"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename Ain't Broke. Don't fix it. Especially with a name which inaccurately defines what most of the categorized articles are about.  BTW, many use "GLBT" - I suppose we would also properly use redirects for each new category . Collect (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 - I've explained why it's "broke," so just saying "nooooooooooo it isn't" doesn't really demonstrate any commitment to participating in the discussion. 2 - the fact that the current title doesn't accurately define most of the content is exactly why I nominated it for a rename, as I've already explained, since anything that is bisexuality-inclusive (like, oh, the 188-member Category:LGBT Christians and most of the content of Category:Homosexuality and Christianity) is excluded from this category scheme. 3 - if you think we should use "GLBT" rather than "LGBT," bring it up elsewhere since LGBT is our terminology across the encyclopedia, don't stonewall people who are actually interested in policy discussion and navigation with non-reasons. What a pointless comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. The religions were codified long before the term "LGBT" was created, so it's tautological to say that their texts don't refer to the broader grouping. But look at Romans 1:26-28, where Paul equally condemns lesbians and gays. That passage is used by modern anti-gay Christian theologians to lump all non-heterosexual relations together, for good or evil. Whether or not the category structure yet reflects this does not change that fact.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the condemnation of all homosexual activity still does not perse make any statements about bi-sexualism as a clear thing, and in fact is built around a rejection of the ideas of orientation. The current schema reflects how things actually are, the rename reflects an attempt by a certain lobby to force their world view on those who do not subscribe to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "homosexual agenda" card is getting really old. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment these religions have clear doctrines that are about homoseuality. They are not doctrines about "LGBT" issues.  Thus the proposed rename is will involve a false statement about the religions position and views.  It will lead to more confusion and incorrect impressions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * a) Treating a topic neutrally doesn't require taking everything one side of the issue says as fact - that's exactly the opposite of neutrality. b) as I said, it's just plain wrong that "religions," as a class, reject the idea of orientation or the term LGBT. Your bias is showing. Not that that's anything new, but Wikipedia categorization is based on policy, precedent, and common sense, not the personal anti-gay feelings of everyone with a keyboard. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Roselese, saying that the views of religious people are "just plain wrong" is very disturbing bias. It shows that this nomination is being driven by animus towards religios views.  This is a horrible basis on which to name categories that involve religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The comment exactly a reflection of the control issue I recounted above. There's not really anything "wrong" in the context of Wikipedia for religious discussions of the subject in declining to lump varieties of sexuality together, because we're supposed to be neutral about this. The current category structure is accurate both in reflecting the way that religions break these issues out, and in reflecting that the LGBT community tends to view them as a whole. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, JPL, do try to read people's comments before responding to them. You are wrong in claiming that all religions believe the same things about LGBT people and use the same terminology to discuss the issue. This is not an actionable reason to object to a rename because it is factually incorrect. Mangoe - as I said, we actually do run into lots of problems navigating because of the redundant structure. Are we to assume that gay Jews, for example, are not important to "homosexuality and Judaism"? Of course they're relevant - but we can't put them in the category because the same container category also holds bisexual Jews and the split would be arbitrary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the main subcategories of this category involve religions that clearly reject this notion of seeing the issue. You are trying to impose your world view plain and simple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * John, I don't think what you are saying is true. Not all Christians, for example, reject homosexual practices or the LGBT lifestyles as sinful. Many Christian churches ordain LGBT ministers, for instance. It's the same within the other major religions—some reject it, some embrace it, others are kind of indifferent to the issue. Some use the language of "homosexuality", whereas others use "LGBT". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They also contain religions and people that accept and affirm this terminology. At any rate, we don't suspend our normal modus operandi in order to accommodate particular pressure groups - you'll be suggesting next that we rename Category:Islam and other religions to Category:Islam and infidels. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, what's this "our"? The very reason there is a dispute here is that there isn't an "our"; there's the way the LGBT project wants things organized, but there are also people who don't organize things that way, and by golly, the people in many religions who talk about sexuality often do not think of it as one big issue. For instance, as I think we went over somewhere above, the Catholic Church reaction to transsexualism is based in ontology, not morality. The thing is that insofar as the religions frame the matter as several distinct issues, the categorization is more accurate; but it doesn't gain some other inaccuracy in the division. From what I can see, the only problem is that it offends one POV's desire to control the terms of the discussion. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The more you frame it as an "LGBTs vs. religious people" issue, the less informed you look and the less policy-based your argument sounds. If your underlying argument is "look at the homosexual agenda on Wikipedia," why should we listen to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and per Mike Selinker. I don't see a problem in using this terminology. Some religions may not like the terminology, but others embrace it, so it seems like pretty much a wash in that regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't dispute Mike Selinker's point, but that in this case, a relatively newish abbreviation/acronym would be inappropriate in this case - these religions existed in antiquity. Verifiable sources on "homosexuality and religion" existed long before even LGBT existed as a term, much less agreed upon by the world at large - Or is it? I still see GLBT used from time to time in the media. So this would actually seem to be an MoS issue. We on Wikipedia decided (for various reason) to unite the topic under this term. But like any "rule", exceptions exist. - In any case, I think everyone commenting here should probably read WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. - jc37 02:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't, in practice, consider anachronisms a problem. Consider the enormous number of articles tagged under "Judaism" (and in-text references to Judaism) on subjects that existed before Judaism was called Judaism. I'm also not sure what in the project guidelines you believe supports your point - if anything, the guidelines about categorizing people support not trying to shove bisexual people into homosexual categories, and so on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First, we're not "shoving" anyone anywhere. And the names of the categories say homosexuality, NOT homosexuals. Which, by the way, is another problem with using the acronym. It broadens the categories' inclusion criteria in a presumably unintended way. Homosexuality is (presumably) a topic of scholarly research and discussion. As an already broad topic, it may discuss homosexual persons, practices, concepts, etc. So if we were to change the name of the category, we would be changing the topic. Anyway, as I said above, using LGBT is merely an MoS choice here on Wikipedia. It can be a useful unifying term for many applications. However, not in this case.
 * As for the guideline, there's a lot there. But for just your comments to me, I'd suggest reading the part where: "we follow, not lead", and more importantly, point #1. "sexuality, not sexual identity". I believe it clearly supports what I'm trying to explain here. Noting that points 2 and 3 cover categorising people, not topics, and as I noted these categories are catgorising articles within the topic of homosexuality and NOT for strictly categorising people. And if any person is mis-categorised (for whatever reason not falling under the topic of homosexuality and religion"), then it's simple enough to editorially fix that, I presume. - jc37 20:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The acronym's effect is actually the opposite of what you say: it encompasses homosexuality (so it's good even if you assume that that's a distinct topic) without excluding bisexuality, etc. (to which many of the articles are relevant or even exclusively relevant). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many religions take different approaches to the various issues under the LGBT umbrella. For example, the Islamic authorities in Iran are deeply hostile to male homosexuality, but relatively relaxed about transsexualism. Lumping all these different issues together obscures the variety of perspectives and responses.
 * I'm not sure why the fact that not all religions are 100% hostile or 100% accepting is a reason for keeping a category structure that arbitrarily excludes relevant material and is inconsistent with our MOS. It seems rather that this ambivalence is a reason for keeping a broader category heading, in order to better categorize articles that cannot be artificially separated into one sub-issue or another. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I support creating LGBT parent categories, per the MOS. Once that is done, we can compare the relative strengths of the two categories and consider upmerging on a case-by-case basis. For example Category:Homosexuality and Christianity is a big category with several subcats, and there is no need to lose its specificity in a general Category:LGBT topics and Christianity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 14 April 2012 (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:Two-stroke petrol engines

 * 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. While ENGVAR applies, the parent and sibling categories both use the American term. The opposers can nominate Category:Gasoline engines, and if that changes, then this can too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Two-stroke petrol engines to Category:Two-stroke gasoline engines
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent category, Category:Gasoline engines and the only sibling category, Category:Gasoline engines by model. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I make this a "weak" support is that it renaming both Category:Gasoline engines and Category:Gasoline engines by model to "petrol engines" would achieve an equally good result. I prefer this one solely because it require fewer changes, which seems to fit more closely with WP:ENGVAR's don't-change approach. Whether the outcome prefers "petrol" or "gasoline", the other variant should be created as category redirect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose per WP:ENGVAR. MediaWiki categorization simply doesn't require pattern-matching across categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support for conformity with parent and sibling categories, except it shoud be Category:Two-stroke gasoline engines, no capital G, with a category redirect from "petrol". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Two-stroke gasoline engines. Pattern-matching categories are not required, of course, but they sure are helpful. Alternate names can become redirects, and if any country-specific names join the tree, they can use English appropriate to the particular country. But I believe these general categories should conform to each other in name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Yes, WP:ENGVAR applies, but pattern-matching across categs is helpful to both readers and editors.
 * The trouble with the 'gasoline-to-petrol' idea is that most American readers would be confused, as "petrol" is a nearly unknown term on this side of The Pond. Fully support a set of cat redirects though. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Category names should follow article names. This category has no explicit parent article, and the best I found is Petrol engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe not. In conflict is Gasoline, used over Petrol, and an unclear history of Petrol engine, Gasoline engine, Gasoline/Petrol engine & Internal combustion engine.  I'm thinking Petrol engine should be moved to Gasoline engine, in keeping with most other associated articles, and in keeping with the earliest verions of Petrol engines.  What to do with the edit history of Gasoline engine, I don't know.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why our policy is WP:ENGVAR, and to not even start these circular arguments over which way renames should be moving. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- As I Englishman I fill up my car with petrol, not gasolene. Only US calls it gasolene, the rest of the world calls it petrol; it is the article that should be moved.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A suggestion which goes against WP:ENGVAR itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "only the US" calls it gasoline, Peter. You'd also be hard pressed to find a Canadian that says "petrol". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What a mess - This is a broader situation that looks like it's in desperate need of an RfC to decide over all. (As an alternative, I almost want to suggest taking the whole kit and kaboodle to WP:MfD.) But anyway, Neutral per ENGVAR. - once the dust settles, please make sure cat redirects are in place as appropriate. - jc37 02:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is a mess. I don't think MfD will help.  I suggest taking the whole matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Automobiles, advising Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Energy, and trying to find a solution.  I suggest renaming everything "petrol" to "gasoline" for consistency with "gasoline".  Nearly everything here seems dependent on gasoline.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does ENGVAR require that the category tree use both forms of the eng-vars just because different people created them using the alternate forms - and thus mandate a confusing and unprofessional-looking tree? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, afaik, yes Bushranger. Which is why this should probably have a broader discussion than what we are doing here at CfD. SmokeyJoe's plan has some merit, and sounds like a decent idea. - jc37 04:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made the proposal to generally prefer "gasoline" over "petrol" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)  But not very successfully.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. On the "gasoline"/"petrol" division of usage, Petrol engine is an outlier, I therefore consider gasoline to be defining factor.  Do "category redirects" mean that any page preferring "petrol" can use the same categorisation with "petrol" substituted for "gasoline"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A category redirect allows a user to type in the category name that is redirected from in HotCat, and have it appear as the category name redirected to. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 8 April 2012 (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:User rue-0

 * 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: Already deleted as empty. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * user rue-0


 * Nominator's rationale: This user category groups users by the absence of a characteristic (knowledge of Rusyn) and is, therefore, a 'not'-based category (see 'Inappropriate types of user categories'). There is a long-standing consensus, as demonstrated here and at Babel, that 0-level user language categories should not exist. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2012 (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:Wikipedians who like The Wedding Date

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * wikipedians who like the wedding date


 * Nominator's rationale: This category is for users who like the 2005 film The Wedding Date. As such, any potential collaboration through this category is basically limited to one article and could just as easily be coordinated on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete we do not do like categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too narrow to assist collaboration. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (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:Wikipedians that hate France

 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * wikipedians that hate france


 * Nominator's rationale: This single-user category is divisive and groups users by a shared dislike or hatred (see 'Inappropriate types of user categories'). The category was created by another user in good faith to remove it from Special:WantedCategories but the best solution in this case is to remove the category code from the userbox (User:Seankieran/Ubx/france) or, better yet, to delete the userbox (a job for WP:MFD). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, also France is a lovely place no one should hate it :). Tim! (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as divisive, and per precedent. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete that and the infobox. Seriously, how are we even debating this? Pichpich (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The user is free to hate France all they like on their own time, but Wikipedian categories are created only for topics and groupings which specifically facilitate collaboration between Wikipedians on the maintenance and improvement of the encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not, under any circumstances, do hate categories. While like categories at least in theory bring together those who might work on the issue at hand, hate categories have no function.  What next Category:Wikipedian who hate Mormons?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. CSD#G10 even. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2012 (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:Wikipedians who like The Big Bounce

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * wikipedians who like the big bounce


 * Nominator's rationale: According to this, this category is for users who like the 1969 novel The Big Bounce and/or one or both film adaptations of it. This rather limits the scope of any collaboration to a handful of articles and is, therefore, overly narrow in scope. -- Black Falcon (talk)


 * Delete we do not do like category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too narrow to assist collaboration. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (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:Wikipedians who like The Matrix

 * 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) 09:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians who like The Matrix to Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series
 * Nominator's rationale: As demonstrated here, the sole user in the category is referring to the series as a whole. Therefore, the two categories have the same scope. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy merge as redundant. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete we do not do like categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. Too narrow to assist collaboration, better merged to the series. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/rename: Although it may seem like they are nearly the same, I know many people who liked the first movie, but not the sequels. If the current name does not reflect what I said, then it may need to be renamed. Allen (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment wikipedian categories are meant to reflect methods of collaboration, not to merely express whims. You can like something but not be willing to help in edit work related to it, and you can not like something but still edit stuff on it.  For example Category:Wikipedians who like slavery would not be a good way to start a category to get people working together on articles related to slavery.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment we should delete both of these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Did any of you really enjoy anything after the first movie?RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2012 (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:Binary star systems

 * 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 deleted by  under C1. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits?  12:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * binary star systems


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicates an existing category, Category:Binary stars which is the main category for binary star systems, which are also called binary stars. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment a category redirect would also be fine with me. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, although I'm fine with a soft redirect to Category:Binary stars. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge as redundant with a category redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Query possibly what was meant was "Binary star planetary systems"? Should there be such a category? Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC).


 * comment predicted abundances of binary stars and planetary systems would indicate that such systems should be relatively common. This would be a CategoryIntersect between binary stars and Category:planetary systems. But such a category would not be called "binary star system" which is established in scientific literature to be synonymous with "binary star" and "double star system". If we were to create such a beast it would probably be called Category:Planetary systems around binary stars or the lengthier Category:Planetary systems in binary star systems. But we don't have the supercategory Category:Planetary systems in multi-star systems/Category:Planetary systems around multiple stars/Category:Planetary systems in multiple star systems 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2012 (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:Images of Justin Bieber

 * 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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Images of Justin Bieber to Category:Justin Beiber album covers
 * Nominator's rationale: That's what it is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are not album covers, and they are appropriately included in the category. I have no objection to the creation of Category:Justin Beiber album covers in addition to this, though. On the flip side, File:Praysingle.jpg is an album cover but not an image of Bieber. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current name fits the content, the new name does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2012 (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:Lawn mower

 * 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:Lawn mowers and create Category:Lawn mower manufacturers. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lawn mower to Category:Lawn mowing
 * Nominator's rationale: This was proposed for pluralising at WP:CFDS, but objected, on the grounds that its status as a set category was questionable. Black Falcon stated that The category contains, in addition to articles about lawn mowers, articles about manufacturers and even one each about a museum and an engine. Perhaps Category:Lawn mowing, as a topic category, would be more representative. - and I agree, so I am nominating it as such. The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Lawn mowers and create Category:Lawn mower manufacturers. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Lawn mowers. The coverage here is about models, not techniques.
 * Create Category:Lawn mower manufacturers as and when the business hierarchy needs it. That doesn't appear, from looking at just this category, to be needed yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Lawn mowers. The plural noun will make a good category name, which can be split if need one, one day.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2012 (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.