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

The result of the debate was merge all to Category:Latter-day Saint musicians. the wub "?!" 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Latter-day Saint singers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Latter-day Saint musicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Latter-day Saint musical groups ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mormon composers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over categorization intersection. Vegaswikian 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as overcategorization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above (otherwise suggest it'd need renaming). David Kernow (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Latter-day Saint musicians and then remove any non-applicable names.-- T. Anthony 08:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Or Delete Category:Latter-day Saint musicians, Category:Mormon composers and Category:Latter-day Saint musical groups for the same reason. Will tag the above. Vegaswikian 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In that case I switch to Keep all as we've had Category:Musicians by religion for over two years and because of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 13#Category:Mormon composers. Music and musicians are important to many faiths.-- T. Anthony 09:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • On consideration I'm going back to what was essentially my first position. Namely Merge the three subcats into Category:Latter-day Saint musicians.-- T. Anthony 12:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Appears to be a valid subcategory of Category:Musicians by religion. So long as that parent is kept in place, this subcategory makes sense in that context. Dugwiki 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Is religion a defining characteristic for a musician? While religion may influence the type of music they are involved with, does it mean something in the way they perform that music? Is the abilty to play better in one religion rather then another? So maybe we need to nominate the parent also. Vegaswikian 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In that we have a Category:Latter Day Saint music it seems sensible to have a category on those who perform it.-- T. Anthony 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge the first three into Category:Latter-day Saint musicians. Overcategorization. Aren't singers and groups musicians? Xiner 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge three children into parent (which keep) per obvious enlightened compromise. Alai 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 09:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians Against Abortion

Category:Pro-Choice Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians For Legal Abortion

• Rename, Pro-life is a loaded term, as is pro-choice. Wikipedia should not be a place for politicking, and divisive/explosive categories such as these should not carry controversial terms. As it stands these two categories violate rule #8 of the guidelines, namely by being controversial and POV. They probably don't belong in Wikipedia, but if they must, they should state what they are, and no more. Xiner 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Do not rename. "Pro-choice" does not mean "for abortion" it means "for reproductive rights." There are lots of people who are pro-choice who do not like abortion but feel that outlawing it only makes problems worse. If these categories shouldn't be named as they aren, there's probably no better name for them. I'm voting keep as well because I disagree with the notion that we should not be allowed to categorize ourselves as we see fit. The old T2 destruction of userboxes was a fiasco that should never be repeated. —  coelacan talk — 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  Rights is itself a loaded term. For vs. Against is the best I can come up with now. My userbox was T1 deleted, and since these categories had inspired me to create it in the first place, I think we should rename them. Xiner 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well you'll have to come up with something better. "For abortion" is factually inaccurate, and worse than the current names, which are at least each embraced by their respective sides. —  coelacan talk — 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ha! Your userbox is clever though, I might have to borrow it for myself. —  coelacan talk — 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Acceptance by the respective groups is not the issue here. There are people in this world who'd support the category "Death to Infidels" or "Death to Abortionists". Xiner 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is not a controversial or loaded term. Just another English term that can be used as a category RaveenS 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Update. I've updated this nomination per Coelacan. Xiner 22:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak rename. That's much better. I might drop the "s" on abortions though. The debate itself is usually just termed "abortion". —  coelacan talk — 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Do not rename. The categories are very clear for meaning pertaining to user-belief with the current titles. I am against all abortions, legal or illegal (except in cases where the mother could die). So the wording now is correct. Therefore, keep as-is. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  I understand your point, but like I said, pro-life is POV. Xiner 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Update. I've updated this nomination per JungleCat. You people are hard to please. Xiner 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Does no one else see the gigantic red notice at the top of the page that this discussion belongs at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion? But while I'm here, "pro-life" is not as simplistic as "anti-abortion" either. Most people I know who would describe themselves as pro-life would consider it shorthand for "pro-life from conception to natural death". Generally, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the most succinct terms to use and these names have been retained in previous CfDs.- choster 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  Please look at the relevant section in Pro-life. It is generally agreed that pro-life and pro-choice are loaded terms. Just because they were left alone undeleted doesn't mean I don't have a valid case. Xiner 23:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, it can be difficult to "aim at a moving target". If you keep changing the objective, you need to withdraw this and start over. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You're right. The net effect so far is one word, though, so I'm reluctant to delete what has been a productive debate. Xiner 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• No vote. Now the names enforce a false dichotomy. As I noted before, there are pro-choice people who do not like abortion, who are indeed "against abortion" but who feel that law enforcement is the wrong approach and makes things worse. So there are actually people who are "against abortion" and "for legal abortion", just like there are people who oppose both alcohol and prohibition. I really don't feel that this is a minor quibble, as this view is quite common in the pro-choice movement. —  coelacan talk — 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  To me that's great news. Try to look at it this way...you can now proclaim your views more accurately. Proudly include both cats on your user page. Xiner 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• My first preference is delete because all associations of Wikipedians by POV are damaging. However, if that's not accepted, do not rename. Present names are simpler and more user-friendly. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  I don't find the current names user-friendly. I'm not anti-life. Xiner 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  I don't find that it calls you that. The issue in regards to abortion are two competing principles: 1) that life should be preserved, 2) that people should be able to choose what happens with their own bodies. If you think 1) is more important, you're pro-life; doesn't mean you're anti-choice, just that you think that preserving life is more important in this case. And vice-versa. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  Funny, you're using the term life the way I am objecting to. Xiner 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  I can appreciate that opinions do differ on this issue, but I don't think they differ among those who would put themselves in the category. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  The only reason anyone'd put themselves in any category is that they ID themselves with it. That doesn't remove my POV objection, and in fact is one of the main reasons that led to it. Xiner 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

While I'm not wild about the exact proposed renaming, I think Xiner's got a point that the current names are inherently POV. The proposal is preferable to the originals, although the enforced false dichotomy still bugs me. The argument that it's not a false dichotomy because one can choose to take both categories may have merit, although it smells funny, like a post-hoc rationalizaton. —  coelacan talk — 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

If it smells like a post-hoc rationalizaton, it is a post-hoc rationalizaton. I admit it. I hope, however, that the dichotomy that already exists will be bridged somewhat by the proposal, which at least allows users like you to state your principle without being obligated to ride it over others. Xiner 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Wikipedians with strong feelings about abortion, then everyone can have a userbox that says whatever they need it to without overcategorization ( Category:Wikipedians against legal abortion without parental consent and only in the first trimester), wordsmithing, or post-hoc rationalization. ~ BigrTex 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  No matter what disagreement I have with a fellow editor, Wikipedia has a way to pleasantly surprise me and restore my faith in the community. This is a great proposal and I'm changing my vote. Xiner 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  Can people add their opinions to this discussion again? We need consensus on this new proposal. Xiner 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

My opinion about the "strong feelings" bit is that I don't have any strong feelings on the matter, but I am covered by one of the current categories. So I'd be left out by this proposed change. In any case if you have changed your proposal so many times, and you are not happy with your original or the second or third revision, it's time to withdraw this CfD because the earlier votes are becoming rather meaningless. I doubt that anyone else is going to weigh in on a fourth version when the debate has been shifted so many times. —  coelacan talk — 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Withdrawing nominations Alright, I'll reconsider all the arguments here. Stay tuned. Xiner 19:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Remakes - Holds two disparate subcategories: Computer-related remakes and Film remakes. Both are already sub-categorised elsewhere, more appropriately. - jc37 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like a necessary parent category. Dugwiki 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Otherwise there could be a Originals and Remakes. Xiner 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-Islam writers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article name is inherently POV. Stong potential for writers who should simply be listed at Category:Critics of Islam to be listed here. I would have suggested merge, but at this time all the entries in the category are already in Category:Critics of Islam. —  coelacan talk — 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. For very real safety reasons, Wikipedia shouldn't host what can amount to a hit list compiled by editors. Terrorists and radicals can just look at the list and be saved a lot of time. If the safety concerns weren't a real problem it would be a very different matter. If this sounds paranoid or crazy, stop and think about who we are dealing with -- people who are not acting normally, but who do target any public critics they can get an eye on, and Wikipedia shouldn't make it easy for them. -- Fyslee 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. That's a good point. Should we request then that the category cannot be recreated? —  coelacan talk — 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Probably so. There is nothing in the foreseeable future that indicates a whole generation of discontented young men and women with radical tendencies are going to suddenly change their minds. It's a sad situation all around. In this case we need to see realities in the eye and not do anything that can endanger anyone. -- Fyslee 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete It's vague and inflammatory. There's already a clear and NPOV category Category:Critics of Islam.-- Lee Hunter 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Critics of Islam. RaveenS 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

There's nothing to merge. Everyone in this category is already in Category:Critics of Islam. That was stated clearly in the nomination. —  coelacan talk — 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete I don't see any reason to delay this nom. Someone should propose it for speedy deletion, if it's not already. Xiner 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

How does one propose something for speedy deletion? —  coelacan talk — 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Under what criteria of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion? Vegaswikian 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

General criteria #10 (#9 would be overkill). Xiner 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It's not particularly an attack page. It may have some people inappropriately listed but (as I mention below) some of the people do identify as anti-Islam. gren グレン 01:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You're right. Upon further investigation of some of the subjects included in the category, I am changing my vote to Delete per gren. Xiner 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment, it inflammatory but it's not exactly 'wrong' to put some people in this. Some of the people in this category have identified themselves as anti-Islamic explicitly. So, to call it a hit list is silly. But, I will agree this is as worthless as Category:Critics of Islam. Because it's vague and we don't really have any set criteria for inclusion. gren グレン 01:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 02:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, POV issues. Dugwiki 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is a topic area full of shades of grey, but this category is black and white, so it is not appropriate. Hawkestone 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete-- CltFn 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This category is inherently vague is bound to be a perennial subject of disputes. Beit Or 20:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Catholic footballers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category has serious POV and OR issues. It's added wholesale to football players that are from certain countries without any references, and I don't see how it's useful. Amoruso 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per my nom. Amoruso 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete although I was sorely tempted to forget WP:POINT for a while and add Pope John Paul II to the category. Unless the footballers have been prominently identified as Catholics (and they haven't), the category is pointless. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and fys. —  coelacan talk — 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• and protect: as ProveIt has pointed out this is largely equivalent to Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople which has already been salted, recommend salting this as well. —  coelacan talk — 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep There are many Famous catholics players and who has been added to this category are known catholics and Theyre into religion, and I don't see any problem with this category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino777 ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 December 2006
• Delete, religion seems an unusual way to subdivide football players; I couldn't find any mentions of it in any article at FIFA's website, for example. - choster 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Can't you just categorize the footballers as Catholic (or Buddhist, for say the Divine Ponytail)? Xiner 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as repost of Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Many of these players are religious like Luis figo, Javier Zanetti, Ze Roberto, Lilian Thuram, Kaka, lucio and also Diego Maradona is a known catholic ronaldinho also and sirgeo ramos and all of these players have relation to religion theyre not just a "football players" and why the objection only comes from jewish and atheists??? if you want to delete the Christians Category So I offeror to delete also the Categorys of all jewish and muslims and atheists people.

89.139.246.65 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)}} reply

• Actually, most people are religious. That's why I said what I said above. Xiner 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as overly specific. Besides the place seems to be moving against any mixing of athletics with religion. Whether that's right or wrong I'm not sure, but it's the way the game is going now.-- T. Anthony 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as irrelevant intersection. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 11:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I dont see any reason to delete this category. It’s a fact, For example, The Brazilian footballer Kaká who is regarded by many as the best footballer in the world, Is a strongly religious and he tithed his income from football to his Church † The Guest 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)}} reply

  This is an unnecessarily divisive categorization that can be easily avoided with the Catholic category. I don't want to see Buddhist Footballer spring up next. Xiner 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Irrelevant to on field achievements. Hoylake 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Categories should only be used for characteristics that are nearly always significant to the people involved, not for characteristics such as this one which are only significant in a minority of cases. Hawkestone 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • See also discussion of Sportspeople by religion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are categories for Catholics of other professions BobbyAFC 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That doesn't mean any of them belongs here. Xiner 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If that's the case why are the categories for "America atheists", "Buddhists", "Converts to Islam", ect.? What makes them any different than Catholics? BobbyAFC 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Your examples are not analogous. Please read the comments above first. Xiner 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Immigrants to England ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Survived a group nomination in July but I want to consider this one individually. Firstly, why have England separately? Someone has added Tony Blair to the category on the grounds that he was born in Scotland, which is stretching a point too far. Secondly, what counts as an 'immigrant'? Paddy Ashdown is in the category, because he was born in India, but he was born to an English family. Spike Milligan is also there, again born in India, but he was very much conscious about his Irish ancestry. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete but if kept rename to Category:Non-British immigrants to England per Fys's comments. Osomec 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename and keep per Fys comments RaveenS 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, the category Category:Immigrants to the United Kingdom should be used instead. Philip Stevens 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - but I think that Category:Immigrants to the United Kingdom is broad to the point of being useless. Guettarda 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete We're all dying. Need I say anymore?-- Zleitzen 16:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep- the nomination fails to state a valid reason for deletion. Most of us have not been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Such a diagnosis marks a significant milestone in an individual's life and it should be recorded as such. It's also not all that difficult to find verifiable sources for such a diagnosis. A category grouping for these individuals allows readers to quickly identify living people with a terminal diagnosis and thereby track notable people quickly. I suspect that this category would be highly useful to journalists, researchers, and friends. Rklawton 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to something like Category:People diagnosed with a terminal illness or Category:Terminally ill people or something better if you have it. The cat mey be useful but the name is not. Otto4711 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I fail to see an encyclopedic value which justifies having this category. I could potentially support a rename as suggested by Otto4711. BruceHallman 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:People diagnosed with a terminal illness I support that rename suggested by Otto. FYI, I also made this category a subcategory of Category:People by medical or psychological condition, as it seemed like a natural parent. I'm not sure the category needs to be deleted, though. The only problem I see with it would be maintainence, since it can theoretically be added to any biography if and when they become teriminally ill. Dugwiki 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I should add that the key question that needs to be answered is which of two schemes are more useful. The first scheme is to include only living people with terminal illnesses and, when the person dies, remove the category from the article. In that case, I'd suggest renaming it to something like "Category:Terminally ill living people" or "Category:Terminally ill people". The other scheme is to include people both living and dead who, at some point, were diagnosed with a terminal illness. The advantage to that scheme is that once the category is added, it always applies. So from a maintainence standpoint, once someone is diagnosed with terminal cancer, for example, you can add this category and don't have to worry about revisiting the article after the person dies. If this scheme were adopted, I'd suggest the name Category:People by medical or psychological condition. Dugwiki 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I think renaming is fine, so long as it's clear that the subject is currently alive but diagnosed as terminal. Rklawton 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - As far as encyclopedic value goes, this category provides a quick index using information that's already contained within biographical articles. I can think of a lot of uses for such a category: media researchers, celebrity fans, prayer groups, etc. Rklawton 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This category is not related to individuals' encyclopedic achievements. Osomec 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Most categories do not relate to encyclopedic achievements. Think about birth years, death years, persons still living, religion, nationality, etc. Rklawton 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Agree with Rklawton. Categorization is normally based on whether the category represents something notable and important about the article and that places it in a similar category with other like articles. It doesn't have to be an "achievement", but can also be a vital trait such as whether or not the person is living or dead. In this case, I think you can reasonably argue that whether or not a person is terminally ill is an important, vital characteristic. So other problems of maintainence aside, I think this category does have encyclopedic value. Dugwiki 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, I think the concept is problematic as whether a chronic condition is "terminal" or not may be disputable. For one, "terminal" in the sense of malignant cancer that will kill you in 6 months is quite a different thing from "terminal" in the sense of a neurodegenerative condition that will kill you in 10 years. For another, the lethality of a particular condition may change as medical science advances. "Consumption" was a death sentence before antibiotics, but non-MDR-TB tuberculosis is not feared in the industrialized world; an HIV-positive person in 2006 can potentially live for decades with treatment— perhaps longer than the average person in some parts of the world. We all eventually die of something.- choster 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comments - this is no more problematic than any other fact about a person's life. As editors, We don't make the diagnosis (for the very reasons you point out). We either find a verifiable source that makes that specific prognosis (terminal), or we don't apply the category. Take Patricia C. Dunn for example. I found a lot of sources that say she's got stage IV ovarian cancer (about as bad as it gets), but I could find no source willing to say she was "terminal", so I wouldn't recommend adding this category to her article. It's all about WP:V. Maintenance really isn't a problem, either. When a notable person passes away, we're already in the habit of adding this date to their biography. We just remove the category at the same time. Since we include birth/death dates in a biography's first line anyway, scanning through biographies within this category to make certain the person still belongs would really be quite simple. Rklawton 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per User:Otto4711. Thanks RaveenS
• Delete per choster. Compromise would be rename to specific diseases. Xiner 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per choster. —  coelacan talk — 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per choster. If kept, rename, because the category isn't for the act or process of dying, it's for people who suffer from terminal illnesses. - Sean Curtin 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete inappropriate and undefined category. We are ALL dying. Doczilla 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we may be all dying, but few of us have received such a diagnosis from our doctors. Rklawton 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete inappropriate and undefined category. Tasteless as well.... People Suffering from Terminal Illnesses would be a better name, but I find that unnecessary as well. - RiverHockey 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - unnecessary, too prone to incorrect use. Many who are dying do not announce such in advance. -- Beardo 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - this category (or one renamed but with a similar purpose) would also be highly useful for Wikipedia editors. It places them on notice that a specific biography is about to get significant media attention. Such advanced notice could save Wikipedia from considerable embarrassment by providing us a shot at cleaning up an article before the subject passes away. Maintenance isn't a big deal since the editor adding the subject's death date can remove the category at the same time. Lastly, but it bears repeating, this category, like many other categories, should not be applied unless properly sourced. Rklawton 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Since it is unlikely that people would be added to this category unless they were already getting signficant media attention no such gain would accrue. Given the low level of notability applied by wikipedia, a high fraction of the living people it has articles about will pass with little notice. Greg Grahame 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This doesn't help people to use Wikipedia as a reference resource. Greg Grahame 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to the more general Category:Vehicle braking technologies-- Hooperbloob 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. the wub "?!" 09:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:American Roman Catholic bishops, which contains only 59 members. See discussions of December 6th and December 7th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge for now. No need to get this specific if the parent category is so sparsely populated at this time. —  coelacan talk — 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge for now, per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 11:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge following precedent - Dr. Submillimeter 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Please see additional comments to this discussion. There are others who see this as a valid topic. You rushed too quickly to make this decision. Craig.borchardt 25 December 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete based on vote numbers and reasoning. I have now ducked, covered, and hidden. — P ilotguy ( ptt) 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Relisting from November 30 CfD. Previous discussion:

The following three options suggested by Loxlie 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Quackery to Category:Medical Pseudoscience

Rename - The term (and even the definition in the Wiki article) is controversial. Its been subject to a deletion discussion before, and, under the current name, causes silly and endless POV wars in many controversial subjects (see talk:homeopathy). Its an archaic and unspecific term, which only serves to further entrench already entrenched opinions.
If Category:Medical Pseudoscience is accepted, it could become a subcategory of category:pseudoscience, which would be subject to a separate discussion'.
or...

• Category:Quackery into Category:Alternative medicine

Merge - Much as I personally agree, such a merger would inevitably be controversial, and therefore not helpful...
or...

• Category:Quackery into Category:Pseudoscience

Merge - If anyone agrees there's no need to have seperate category ...

• Comment wouldn't Category:Medical pseudoscience be the correct capitalization for the first option? Mairi 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Medical pseudoscience per Loxlie and Mairi. I just noticed that Category:Quackery is a subcat of Category:Fraud. I think that Category:Medical pseudoscience should not be listed under "fraud", because not all pseudosciences are deliberate frauds; some are delusions or simply obsolete. OTOH, all quacks are frauds, by definition. Therefore, I'm changing my vote to Keep, with a second choice of rename per Mairi and remove from the "Fraud" supercat. -- Quuxplusone 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is now removed from the Fraud category. (Someone didn't understand what they were doing.) You are quite right. While they are often related, most quackery is probably practiced by innocents, ignorants, or true believers who aren't intent on defrauding anyone. BTW, not all quacks are frauds, at least not by intent. -- Fyslee 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Medical protoscience a subcategory of Category:Protoscience My second choice would be Category:Medical pseudoscience (I've changed my vote based on the concerns raised by Leifern below.) -- Lee Hunter 14:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The material here isn't protoscience, its pseudoscience at best. JoshuaZ 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this would also cause revert wars sooner or later down the road. I think the point we are trying to make is that there are varying levels of controversy about certain practices that claim to have medical benefits, ranging from virtually undisputed (antibiotics for pneumonia) to overwhelmingly disputed (I don't know, voodoo) with lots of stuff in between. We run into all kinds of problems here - we might be accused of ethnocentrism if we slap a derogatory category on aryuvedic and chinese herbal medicine, people who are convinced that their particular practice really helps them, and then the whole issue of protoscience. I'd like to find a solution that forestalls another round on another term at some future date, as more and more editors get involved in Wikipedia. I have to consider this a while longer before I come up with a solution, but I'd recommend that we not just jump to another category. -- Leifern 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Medical pseudoscience. - Sean Curtin 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Medical pseudoscience is just a euphemism; there would also be revert wars as true-believers crawl out of the woodwork to babysit the articles about their favorite schemes and scams. The category is useful and its title is the common word for its contents. Bkalafut 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Rename Bordering on keep Medical pseudoscience is reasonable. Aside from reasons already discussed, quakery is simply not that common a term. However, Bk is correct that renaming won't stop the POV warriors. JoshuaZ 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree that medical pseudoscience is simply a euphamism. Renaming would be weasel wording. Jefffire 10:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment Just wanted to note that just about all of the people who have voted here (including myself) have been involved in a revert war regarding the use of the Quackery cat on the homeopathy article. It would be nice to hear from disinterested parties.-- Lee Hunter 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Rename (see below). This won't solve the problems, but the suggested solutions won't either. The conflicts will first end when editors accept the category for what it is, which is not a declaration that something actually is quackery, but that it is considered to be so by scientific critics and skeptics. That's in keeping with the NPOV policy here, and therefore any objections to its use are policy violations based on POV suppression. Category tags are only aids to help people find related topics. The category already contains subjects that are obviously not quackery (in fact anti-quackery), but that are related to the subject. A better solution would be a disclaimer automatically added to all category pages explaining the nature of categories: "Inclusion in this category is only an aid to finding subjects possibly related to the category topic. In some cases the relationship may only be peripheral. Bla, bla, bla....or something like that." Thereafter the only discussions would be if there was a relationship or not. -- Fyslee 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename. The problem here is that POW warriors would probably want to include each and every article under the category Alternative Medicine under the Category Quackery. So what is then the point with this category? To add a few anti-quack entries to a long list of everything alternative? Another comment: As the term Quackery is derogatory it should require more than just that some party claims that X is quackery for inclusion in a list such as this one. The disclaimer in the beginning is easily missed and a sloppy reader will be misled into believing that all the entries in the list are quackery. A better way is to add relevant entries from this category to the list “List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts”. A new list with Medical Pseudoscience can be created. In this way each entry has to be justified. The five(?) anti-qauck entries in the Quackery Category can easily be cross-referenced by links in each article. MaxPont 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If "Quackery" too derogatory, "Medical pseudoscience" still judgemental, but "Alternative medicine" confusing and/or too tame, how about Non-scientific medicine (plus brief explanation on category page indicating that these other names used depending on POV)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I was thinking along similar lines. I don't think the science-minded would like the term "Non-scientific medicine", however, for it'd confer the cat medicine to the "quackery". How about "Practices not accepted by peer-reviewed science"? Xiner 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Question Are there any other WP categories that are equally pejorative, POV and ambiguous? I've been looking for a while now and I can't find any. The guidelines for categorization are clear "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Quackery is obviously not self-evident to many people and it is highly controversial. -- Lee Hunter 14:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete or, if kept, oppose rename Based on the above discussion and previous discussions, my opinion is that the category probably should be deleted due to POV problems. One scientist's quackery might be another scientist's legitimate area of study. However, if kept, I don't like the proposed rename based on comments in the discussions that indicate that the terms "quackery" and "pseudoscience" refer to slightly different things (the difference appears to be related to a level of consensus among mainstream scientists as to the invalidity of that particular area of study. If something is generally considered slightly possible, but not verified, it's "pseudoscience". If it's considered virtually impossible or even fraudulent, it's "quackery".) Dugwiki 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Just about everything currently in the Quackery category (including the article which spawned this, in my opinion bad-faith, request for deletion), is not really subject to dispute between real scientists. That, (e.g.) homeopathic remedies are mere placebos given fancy names and dressed up with a theory any informed modern layman can recognize as bogus is not a matter of scientific controversy. 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)~

• Delete - I nominated this cat for deletion in May, but there was no consensus. Nothing I have read since has changed my mind. It is basically an "attack category". -- Mais oui! 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Attack? No, it's a descriptor. Visit the category, have a look at the clarifying changes. Bkalafut 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

*Rename to Quackery-related subjects. The description is now changed to make it a useful aid to study. It already is intended to be so, as it includes articles that are obviously not meant to be understood as quackery. This new title, and the new description, gives this category great potential for usefulness. -- Fyslee 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Why keep such a opinion-driven inflamatory label? What purpose does it serve other than allowing skeptics to name-call something which they don't like. It is one thing if someone is knowingly commiting fraud, but if it is a case where someone belives in what they are doing and someone does not, then we are dealing with a POV label. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to choose one side or another when it comes to such labels. This is tantamount to having a category entitled "Liar" and putting a political party in there. Levine2112 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No, it is not, because the criteria for being quackery are rooted in scientific merit, which is objective. Whether or not a practice is quackery is not a matter of journalistic opinion. Bkalafut 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree. But too often on Wikipedia it is used as such. And much of the edit wars and debate occur over items which some are so sure are quackery and others are sure of just the opposite. What to do when both camps have scientific evidence supporting their side? Levine2112 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Don't merge, because quackery and pseudoscience are two different (though related) concepts. Keep is OK or, if it were to be renamed because of POV concerns, the appropriate name would be something like Category:Alleged quackery, by analogy to Category:Accused Soviet spies. These are much more specific than a useless category for every person or entity accused of lying. The description of Category:Alleged quackery, if that name is used, should limit the category to what's considered quackery by the scientific community. A couple of nutjobs who allege that vaccination is "quackery" wouldn't put Vaccine in the category. It's NPOV to report the scientific community's nonacceptance of things like homeopathy. JamesMLane  t  c 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• After thinking this through I think "alleged quackery" may make the most sense. In any event, deletion is unnacceptable and indeed could be viewed as almost be nature leading to undue weight problems. JoshuaZ 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Alleged quackery. Quackery is a useful category, and if "alleged" is what will get the true believers in the various forms of hucksterism to leave it alone, then let's add it. Bkalafut 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep it is a neutral term not an attack term and is encyclopedic to keep as such RaveenS 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Alleged quackery per Bkalafut. This may be workable as it is an NPOV title. The category description would need to be more specific again, and not as broad as it is now. When in use, removal of the category would then be a clear POV violation in the form of suppression of opposing POV. -- Fyslee 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Another suggestion, avoiding that judgemental/emotive word "quackery": Unorthodox medicine...?   David Kernow (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  Unorthodox is fashionable right now. Too nice. Xiner 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be nice? We need to be NPOV. We don't need to be mean. - Will Beback · † · 06:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Perjorative. Quackery means fraud. There are some people trying to change the definition to serve their own purposes, but the standard, time-honored definition implies fraud. This is a horribly ignorant category which belittles any encyclopedia of knowledge. TheDoctorIsIn 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree with Levine2112 & TheDoctorIsIn, negative opinion driven, frequently pushing a reactionary POV, especially science v medicine cases, since paradigm shifting science often leads medicine by several generations. Considering how often "mainstream medicine" does polar flip-flops, one could make a case that the category is also somewhat redundant. Oppose "alleged quackery" even more as expanding the POV attack problem. Already have several overlapping categories for a number of shades of doubt. One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.-Robert A. Heinlein-- TheNautilus 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete We don't need a category for everything and this one is too subjective with built in pejorative meaning. As this category only serves the purpose of harrassing perfectly good editors who are trying to create good articles, it is only counterproductive and leads to the loss of experts in fields that we need to have quality articles written. The concept can well be discussed within the article without labeling at the bottom of the page. We will have the same discussion with medical pseudoscience as it too is subjective. -- Dematt 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete or possibly Rename to Alleged Quackery. I changed my mind after reading more postings here. The arguments for deleting are viable. Quackery is an attack category. Don't forget that the quackbusters often make a logical fallacy. Claiming that "there is no scientific proof for method X" is not equal to "it is scientifically proven that method X never never works". MaxPont 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• That's a straw man situation, and not a good example of a logical fallacy. What you are expecting in the last phrase is a logical fallacy, and one a scientist wouldn't usually state or believe. You're asking for proof of a negative. The burden of proof is on those making unusual claims. In the face of unusual claims that go against all known scientific knowledge of how things work, skepticism is the correct position to take. Watch and wait. If the claimant can prove their point, then skepticism gives way to acceptance. That's how science works. In practice, quackbusters are dealing not only with unusual claims that are not adequately backed by verifiable proof, they are dealing with commercial interests exploiting these dubious claims for a profit at the expense of the lives and well-being of desperately ill people. -- Fyslee 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Well, but the quackbusters seldom make that distinction. In their world, Science and Absolute Certainty are their guiding principles. MaxPont 09:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I would favor deletion because Quackery is a value judgement. No system of healing, even if not accepted by the medical mainstream, should be thrown into a derogatory category even if it has not been scientifically validated. If not deleted, perhaps the category should be re-named Unconfirmed medical practice or Healing. * SeppH 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  Unconfirmed medical practice and Healing are POV. Xiner 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• DELETE Oppose Rename I would have to agree with the others. The terms ‘quackery’ and ‘skeptics’ have been hijacked by some claiming to be so-called ‘experts’ and used as instruments to force-feed POV and fuel edit wars. The ‘quackbusters’ have appointed themselves the arbiters of good and evil. Yet many medical practices are conveniently left out of their terrorist attacks. Psychiatry, for example, is the gold-standard of pseudo-science that has been made legitimate by standing under medicine’s umbrella. A self-annointed quackbuster’ Stephen Barrett is an ex-psychiatrist who failed his boards, as has been discussed at length on the pages of Wikipedia. But his only area of training, psychiatry, is somehow ignored as evidenced by the numerous links to his websites placed here and around WP by his sycophants.

The only loss will be in donations (Gladly accepted!) to these supposedly ‘non-profit’ hate-groups. Quackery and similar categories at WP have been exploited as link farms to generate traffic and search engine rankings. They are subjective terms and used pejoritively for attack purposes. Time for removal. Steth 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Already The description and current usage of the Quackery category both put to rest most of the above objections, and Alleged quackery would mean that it no longer looks like an ex cathedra judgement from Wikipedia. Prancybald 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Here is the category's opening: This category is about the subject of quackery, which is a pejorative term defined as "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings." A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." How does this "put to rest" Steth objections? It doesn't. Bottomline, "quackery" is a pejorative term; "quack" implies fraud and while there may possibly be some scientific or legal standard of what is and what isn't "quackery" and who is and who isn't a "quack", I assure you that this is not how it is being used at Wikipedia. On the whole, this category has been used very subjectively to push a very particular POV. This is a category of hate and has no place at Wikipedia. Please delete swiftly! Levine2112 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    I've to agree that the category cannot stay named as it is. Anyone trying to deny that reality is doing a disservice to the cause. Xiner 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Then let me ask: Why do we need a category like this? What categorization purpose does it serve? What are we trying to distinguish and why? Levine2112 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Because science is the ultimate NPOV topic and there is a place in Wikipedia for critiques of people and methods that reject the scientific method. Xiner 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Ever heard about paradigms? Who is to say that positivistic-reductionistic-atomistic-Decartesian-physics envy-mechanistic-Evidence Based Medicine is the culmination of human knowledge. Most non-orthodox medicine respect empirical observations, they just don’t subscribe to the POW way of defining science of conventional medicine. MaxPont 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
          • You're demonstrating my point exactly. Xiner 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
            • But that certainly doesn't relegate anything to "quackery" by definition. If there is "a place in Wikipedia for critiques of people and methods that reject the scientific method" it certainly isn't in the category space. It should be in the article. And most - if not all - of the disciplines and people who are, have been, or would be associated with the pejorative category have articles replete with critical analysis from skeptics and what-not. Levine2112 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
            • To continue relegating anything to "quackery" would indeed be wrong. That is not what I've been arguing. Xiner 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Aside from being argumentative, ambiguous and accusatory, it's impossible to apply in a consistent and encyclopedic manner. Among the fields that have been described as quackery are herbal medicine, acupuncture, traditional medicine, homeopathy, faith healing, alternative medicine in general, various aspects of modern medicine, chiropractic care and the list goes on and on.-- Lee Hunter 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but change criteria to only include articles that are about " quackery" (right now just that and Quackwatch), removing all the examples of quackery. Create a subcategory for convicted quacks, like José Arigó. Create a totally separate category with some precise name and criteria for unproven, unorthodox, alternative, Medicare-won't-pay-for-it type medicine. Move the category:Obsolete medical theories up a notch in the category hierachy to Category:Healthcare. - Will Beback · † · 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete: current scope is highly problematic as regards NPOV, proposed restriction above is both too narrow, and too tempting a target for scope-creep. Deal with "examples of quackery" per Will Beback. Alai 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete: Per TheDoctorIsIn, LeeHunter, Dematt, Levine2112, TheNautilus. Ombudsman 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A needlessly divisive, confrontational category. Greg Grahame 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Those proposing deletion instead of renaming ought answer the question, "Why shouldn't (e.g.) a student writing a term paper be aided by the existence of a category for articles about practices which, from the SPOV, are quackery?" Bkalafut 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with you up to the last word. I strongly support renaming the category instead of deleting it, too, but I don't think, say, acupunture is quackery. I think it's a great placebo. The use of the word quackery is unhelpful to dialogue. Xiner 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • And I would susspect that the article page for Quackery alone provides a student writing a term paper a host of information about the topic. Levine2112 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - though I think we need to come up with a way to advise readers on how various medical or pseudomedical practices are disputed, and on what basis. -- Leifern 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply

If we take out duplicate votes above (and count the editor's most recent vote only), the tally is currently:

• 14 to DELETE
• 5 to RENAME (to a few suggestions)
• 3 to KEEP

What is the next step? TheDoctorIsIn 19:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. the wub "?!" 09:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Westnet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No reason for the Westnet article to reside in a category of its' own. -- Longhair\ ^talk 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge overcategorization. ~ BigrTex 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Is there such a thing as Speedy Upmerge? Xiner 01:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete — P ilotguy ( ptt) 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Current TV network series, convention of Category:Television series by network. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Current TV (network) series. Proposed renaming would be ambiguous (confusion with current series on TV networks). However, I predominately see the suffix "shows" in other subcats of Category:Television series by network. Tinlinkin 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a television listings magazine. Osomec 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: it's a long-standing convention to have categories of this sort. We have some radio/tv hobbyists like this user who edit here doing this kind of categorization and no one's opposed them before. No reason to get in their way now, and it's a useful sort of category. —  coelacan talk — 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Current TV (network) shows per Tinlinkin. —  coelacan talk — 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Useful for liberals as a similar category for Fox News shows would be for right-wingers. Xiner 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm changing my vote to Keep. A user would be confused whether there's a parenthesis or the word "network" or not. As it stands, there's no confusion that Current TV represents a network. Xiner 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'd like to change my vote to Delete, but I'm totally confused now. Is there even a page for the British version or whatever it is? I've been under the impression that it's about Current TV or Category:Current TV, and no one ever corrected that impression. Xiner 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete unencyclopedic and U.S. centric ("network" is American English). Hoylake 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  American English is not a reason to reject anything in Wikipedia. Category:Television_series_by_network validates this kind of categories. Xiner 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unencyclopedic. If kept rename to Category:Current television shows as "network" is redundant and uses a specific version of English when doing so adds no value whatsoever. Hawkestone 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do you think everything in Category:Television_series_by_network should be deleted then? Xiner 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• I just realized that the shows listed in the category are American and the version of Current TV refers to the British version, which means that this category contains American series aired on British television. (The American Current TV doesn't air television series, not from what I can surmise.) In that case, Current TV is comparable to channels that broadcast international shows like Warner Channel, Studio 23, or Kanal 5 (Sweden) (chosen at random). I don't see any original British Current TV-produced programmes. If this is the case, I am leaning towards delete. Tinlinkin 12:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Greg Grahame 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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