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. Timrollpickering 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, as I recall, we had decided against guest star categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom, consensus seems to be not to have guest actor categories for TV series. (Regular cast categories are another topic altogether). Dugwiki 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom and Dugwiki. -- Samuel Wantman 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 02:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Dweller 14:12, 28 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 keep. Timrollpickering 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am nominating the three for deletion after having endured the spam like paste of these categories to a wide range of biographies. I propose that the sub-categories listed under these article should redirect either to "Cat:Islam" or "Cat:Christianity" by, for example, redirecting Cat:Islamic scholars to Cat:Islam directly, or to Cat:Islamic theology which would in turn be a sub of Cat:Islam.

I understand the underlying argument behind these categories, however I also think that they are arbitrary and not appropriate for Wikipedia. If someone is a theologian, then he should be listed under cat:Islamic scholars/etc or cat:Christian scholars/etc which would in turn sub the main Christianity and Islam cats, not simply by saying "cat:Muslims" or "cat:Christian people". These cats are simply becoming nothing more than spam as they are now. Wikipedia is getting bigger every minute, and, even though these categories might have served something three years ago, I only see the potential of them becoming some sort of unmanageable Frankesteins. More so because they spawn other inappropriate categories like Muslim musicians etc. Why not also create Cat:left-handed musicians, Cat:Blonde musicians, Cat:Capitalist musicians, Cat:Communist musicians, Cat:Liberal musicians etc and paste them all over biographies? That's the problem: the cats should serve a purpose, they shouldn't be the yellow pages for any sort of classification that comes to mind. But moreover, unlike nationality-based categories, whose criteria for inclusion is pretty straightforward, such belief based cats group completely irrelevant biographies based on people's undefined beliefs. "Cat:Irish musicians" might make sense, since those people share something that is very fundamental in their lives: Music, and it is pretty easy to determine someone's nationality, and to a lesser extent, ethnicity. Even though many people consider religion to be something fundamental in their lives as well, I just cannot see why a Senegalese football player and a Turkish pianist would need to be categorized together. Not to mention the fact that certain inclusions of these categories might break WP:BIO rules, particularly for living persons.

The case-by-case solution is also not workable in my opinion. I have been spending a lot of time in the last months to track down users who have been inappropriately adding these cats to certain biographies without any regard for the contents of the biography itself. As I said, Wikipedia is getting bigger by the minute and it is becoming harder to track down such small changes. I know of anons who insist on pasting these categories over and over and over again across a wide range of articles without bringing any sort of source acceptable per WP:BIO, particularly for living people.

So, I propose that these categories be deleted, and the categories listed as sub to be redirected directly under more appropriate academic titles like "X scholars", "X theology" or "X theologians" etc and link them directly under the religion cats and/or find/create suitable and more appropriate categories for the rest of the sub-categories to be included. I would also be willing to work on that transition. Baristarim 19:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Repurpose. The category is useful for collecting the subcategories of types of people belonging to the religions. Place a notice at the top of the page saying something like, Individual people should not be placed here, but instead by in more specific subcategories. That's what we do for Category:Albums. We have to periodically clean out the cat of articles about specific albums, but we have an active community, so it's not too tough. - Freekee 20:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Why do we need to group people because of their religions to begin with? My question was one of purpose.. This category is spawning irrelevant and simply pointless cats like "cat:Muslim musicians". Should we also create "cat:Blonde musicians", "cat:Left-handed musicians", "cat:vegetarian musicians" and paste them all over the biographies? That's all.. Even with the clean up, it's hard. Most of those categories are not taken care of at all. For something else it could be easy, however with such huge categories as christian and muslim people, there practically needs to be someone who does the cleanup work every day for hours on end. And, frankly, I can see no-one taking up the slack. Baristarim 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that there should be no people in any of these categories unless their religion is a defining characteristic. Such people should be placed in a subcat. I disagree that prohibiting individual people from the main cat would require a tremendous amount of upkeep. I check Cat:Albums every couple of days and remove a couple of articles. Ten minutes a week? No big deal. As long as we can get project members to agree to watch, I don't think it would a problem at all. Shall we ask at WP:X and WP:ISLAM, and see if anyone is interested? Or might have a more informed opinion on whether these categories are useful? - Freekee 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Certain subcategories make sense to keep, for instance when a band is a "Christian rock" band then that's valid to keep, but those and similar examples are pretty much the extent of it. —  coelacan talk — 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Religion is one of the most basic attributes of the public lives of many important people. Honbicot 16:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In such cases, different categories are usually more appropriate (such as, quite frequently, category:religious controversies). Circeus 19:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete rapidly becoming unmaintainable and too easily focus of warring (Both POV and content). Circeus 19:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Unless you want to remove all categories relating to non-notable fact about notable people. Eli Falk 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, we should start somewhere :) Look, the main argument is not the religion. Seriously. The thing is, these categories are becoming more and more unmaintanable as Wikipedia is growing exponentially. Just twenty minutes ago, an anon tried to paste these cats to fifteen biographies.. As I said, I know the underlying argument behind these cats, I respect that. However, these cats are becoming less and less purposeful and more and more unmanagable as hundreds of articles are created every day. In any case, I think that there is nothing wrong with categorizing people depending on their occupation, eg "cat:X theologians", and sub them directly under the main religion cats. As for something else that another editor mentioned above, "cat:Christian rock singers/artists" makes sense, since there is an actual genre of music Christian rock, and there is an academic purpose to grouping artists/groups who are in that genre since someone interested in Christian rock would also like to learn about other Christian rock singers. However, I simply can't see the same happening with broad categories like these ones. Someone looking up on an Egyptian football player is not likely to wonder too much about a 12th century Turkic prince, or a 18th century Indian poet. Most of those people are already categorized in more purposeful ways with cats like "cat:poets", "cat:"Egyptian football players" etc. They make sense since they do provide the rationale that people who share an interest in an occupation are likely to wonder about people who also practice that occupation (someone who is interested in Pakistani cricket would also be probably interested in other Pakistani cricket players). I really cannot see it with these categories. I am afraid that they are fast becoming the yellow pages, and that sometimes based on ambigious criteria. Baristarim 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As I pointed out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, the problem is placing such groups directly into the categories. If we say these categories should not be used directly, then that should be less of a problem. There's a Jewish American actors|Jewish American actors category, which is placed as a sub-category of Category:Jewish actors, which is an indirect sub-category of Category:Jews. I think that such a categorization is positive. Eli Falk 10:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep If you have problems with the subcategories it is the subcategories that you should be nominating. Deleting these very useful major categories will not stop creation of inappropriate religion categories, but it will make them harder to spot and knock on the head promptly. Sumahoy 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

By the way Wikipedia is not growing exponetially. Growth in size is levelling off, but the number of editors is still increasing, giving us good reason to be optimistic about our long term capacity to handle admin tasks like deleting inappropriate categories. Sumahoy 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict - reply to Sumahoy's comments before self-modification) It was not at all in a moment of temper. I am still behind my arguments. There has been a debate about these categories for a long time, and I felt that the time for a CfD had come. These cats are not at the forefront of my preoccupations in Wikipedia. I just finished an article that is getting great reviews on FA review, so Wikipedia is definitely not getting me down. My arguments were listed above, nobody is demanding the deletion of any pages or any other categories. What I have suggested is to group the sub-categories under more relevant and more academic cats like "X theologians" to sub directly to the relevant religion cat. For Christian rock, it should sub a cat "Christian music" that will sub "Christian culture" that will in turn sub "Christianity" or something similar. I think that you have misunderstood my proposal. These cats as they are now are simply too vague. That's all. It's all about going for a more academic categorization system, not about abandoning worhtwhile parts of Wikipedia. Baristarim 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - These are among the most useful cats on wiki. Baka man 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep These are major and essential categories. Nathanian 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Essentially the initial argument seems to say "I don't like it" or "how can you put a citizen of Turkey and Senegal in the same category?" The first is just a matter of taste and not a deletion criteria. The second is more interesting, but needlessly nationalistic. Besides we have categories where people of different nationalities mingle. Category:Draughts players has a Senegalese man and an Irish woman, Category:New Age musicians has Japanese guitarists and Spanish synthesizer players, etc. The idea that nationality matters more than religion or culture is also a modern notion not accepted by much of the world.-- T. Anthony 14:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Religious identity is important. SR4VA 22:41, 31 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 merge. Timrollpickering 00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge both into Category:Educators, more overcategorization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge There is less than no benefit in creating separate hierarchies for English-langauge whatevers. Wimstead 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm not certain about these categories, but the distinction of "English-language" is often much more useful and beneficial than organizing taxonomies by nationality. For example English-language poets, film-directors, etc... -- Samuel Wantman 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, categorizing people by the language they speak isn't useful. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Many academics from multiple countries speak English as a primary or secondary langauge. For example, most of Category:Astronomers could be listed as "English-language astronomers" as well as "English-language teachers" and "English-language educators" (since many astronomers do teach). This type of categorization is not useful. Dr. Submillimeter 14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete (merging not necessary) Largely useless and mostly duplicative of categories for individiual countries. Sumahoy 03:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both - roundhouse 03:26, 30 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 speedy deleted. Mairi 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Bishops, more overcategorization of religious leaders. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn, Speedy delete as repost of deleted content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:28, 26 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. Timrollpickering 00:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Violates NPOV, hopelessly vague and would include entire epochs of history until modern times. Bloodofox

• Delete per nom. Seems POV and especially prone to misuse. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Kimchi. sg 18:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Robin Johnson (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete; POV magnet. Obvious precedent (which also makes this a speedy candidate) is the deletion of Category:Racists in 2005; that was essentially the same category. Antandrus (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep; Precedent Category:Anti-Semitic People. In particular, more are equally POV's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie222 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Guinnog 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Zaian 19:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep You don't explain the preceedent of Categories such as "Anti-Semitic People". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabcoop ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Richie222/Tabcoop, that category is not much of a precedent. It's been nominated for deletion many times, each time achieving nothing more conclusive than "no consensus". Zaian 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: user's only edits (Tabcoop/Richie222) have been to populate and create this category. Antandrus (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as stated above.-- Johnbull 19:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I can't help noticing that most users in the Delete camp come from the same country most of the original "population" of the category originate Navigator11 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • User's first edit. Antandrus (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Please withdraw the implication that all people from that country, and all the users who voted delete are racist. Wimstead 21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV category.-- Jersey Devil 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Vicious attack category. The precedent is spurious as it looks like a majority has been in favour of deletion of that too more than once. Wimstead 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above. Tabcoop's argument is just good reason to remove that category as well. -- Samuel Wantman 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above. Too generic. Too reliant on POV.-- Gkklein 23:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - has already caused controversy, and will always be a magnet for this. Delete. Bob talk 02:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, POV. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, categorising by an opinion, the meaning of the term is dilluted. Pavel Vozenilek 14:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV and wide open to misuse. Honbicot 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Probably most articles placed in there will be POV, even though there are some who would clearly belong in such a category (such as Adolf Hitler). Eli Falk 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just about the most counter-productive category that could exist. Sumahoy 02:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete - as per Sumahoy and entirely POV. Bye now. Budgiekiller 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - How do we define racist ? Baka man 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Nathanian 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Racist is too non-specific and therefore any names involved may not have a notable intersection. Anti-National people is a separate issue as seen in Category:Anti-Semitic people. In principle then a Category:Anti-Kurdish people or Category:Anti-Armenian people would be okay. A vague "Racist people" deal is not.-- T. Anthony 14:36, 30 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 replaced with Category:Suicides by methods nomination. Circeus 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Trivia. Categories are not intended to serve as an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Trivia, non-defining characteristic. —  coelacan talk — 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Question - I'm curious as to whether you nominated this particular category after finding it randomly, whether you selected it out of the children of Category:Suicides by methods as somehow the least worthy, whether this is the opening salvo in a campaign against all such categories or what. Not that your motivation would necessarily have any bearing on anyone's opinion but I'm, as I say, curious. Otto4711 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I spotted it in article Jakub Jan Ryba but didn't look deeper in the hierarchy. If anyone wishes to nominate the whole tree, please withraw this. Pavel Vozenilek 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Appears to be a natural subcategory of Category:Suicides by methods. So long as that parent is kept and subdivided as intended, it makes sense to have a subcategory for people who committed suicide by various methods. Dugwiki 18:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Of course, if Category:Suicides by methods were deleted, then this subcategory should be too. So if you feel the parent category is not a valid way to subcategorize suicides, then I'd recommend making a seperate cfd for it. Dugwiki 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now, as an arbitary nomination. Nominate all the subcategories of Category:Suicides by methods and I may reconsider. Wimstead 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Will do. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 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 keep. Timrollpickering 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Football managers by club ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty duplicate of more established category Category:Football managers by team Qwghlm 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep and reverse merge Category:Football managers by team into this. This is not a duplicate as national football teams (a hugely important part of the global sport) are not clubs. But all the subcategories in Category:Football managers by team are for club managers. Category:Football managers by team should also contain the categories for international team managers (I assume there are some, but if not they should be created). Wimstead 21:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per Wimstead. Honbicot 16:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep both and add subcategories for national teams. Seems a natural improvement, rather than an impediment. -- Dweller 14:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Opinion changed Dweller 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep both They are not duplicates. I am going to redesign the whole system to reflect the global nature of football, the difference between club and international football, and the fact that managers often work outside their own country. Nathanian 18:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep both and make an effort to distinguish between national teams and local clubs. Budgiekiller 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep both No longer empty. Osomec 17:22, 29 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 merge. Timrollpickering 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Tagalog-language writers, or Keep, see Filipino vs. Tagalog. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment perhaps ever more specification (i.e., subcategorization) is needed, since there are many languages spoken/writen by Filipino people? Pastorwayne 14:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, same idea as English-language teachers above. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 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 merge/delete. Timrollpickering 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Christian pastors, more overcategorization of religious leaders. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep As a subcat of Category:English-language occupations, the language of a Pastor is extremely significant, every bit as significant as for a writer or a teacher or a film director. The occupation of Pastor is heavily language-related, since so much of what a Pastor does is language-based, therefore entirely appropriate as a sub-cat of this Cat. This is only overcategorization if EVERY subcat of Category:English-language occupations is also considered overcategorization. Then the whole scheme of Category:Occupations by language must be overcategorization, as well! Thank you! Happy Boxing Day!! Pastorwayne 14:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge for now but the parent cat is also IMHO an overcategorization, as are most if not all of the other child cats. Otto4711 14:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just totally useless. "Pastor" is not the right overall word to choose and this adds almost nothing that can't be gleaned from other categories. Nathanian 16:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with extreme prejudice, per nom and Nathanian, and per Pastorwayne's failure to justify yet another overcategorization. —  coelacan talk — 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete Wikipedia should use a more inclusive term like "religious leader", but then the by-language categorisation is redundant anyway. Wimstead 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm not sure about this specific category, but categorizations by language often make more sense than categorizations by nationality. For example, poets by language, film-directors by languge, etc... -- Samuel Wantman 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete. By-language classifications clearly make sense when it concerns works produced in the language (books, films, newsbroadcasts, etc). However, in cases where the affect of the person is more based on location and interactions with people there (like a religious or educator or such), location seems to make more sense. Yes, language might play a role, but there's little else in common between an English-speaking religious leader in the US or UK compared to an English-speaking one in Argentina or Iran or Ghana or China. Mairi 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• comment You must please understand that preaching is the primary task of the Pastor (really, the category should be Preachers. But Pastor is more descriptive here at least than Clergy). Writing and delivering sermons is every bit as creative an activity as writing a book or making a film. Therefore, if a category like this is useful for those occupations, it is every bit as much for Pastors, and even more so given the much greater output of Pastors (WEEKLY sermons vs. yearly films, e.g.?). Obviously the language is key to any of this creative type activity. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Delete - Sorting people by spoken language is overcategorization and will lead to category clutter. Besides, how many people are going to look up people in a specific profession based on their spoken languages? For example, imagine "French-speaking politicians" or "Spanish-speaking astronomers". Dr. Submillimeter 12:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Fine, then please nominate ALL such subcats, not just the religious ones. See what I mean about bias against religion? Pastorwayne 13:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I see that the other categories where the English language was peripheral to the career ( Category:English-language teachers and Category:English-language educators) have already been nominated for deletion/merging. Pastorwayne is encouraged to nominate other inapporpriate categories for merging or deletion. However, Pastorwayne is encouraged to review WP:POINT. Dr. Submillimeter 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • You misunderstand me: I have no interest in seeing these cats deleted. I believe they are all very helpful, appropriate cats! But I do desire consistency. Those of you anxious to delete certain cats ought to be as consistent in deleting all similar cats, as I am consistent in desiring these cats to remain. Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Moreover, the language one pastors/preaches in is anything but "peripheral!" Without language, there would be no pastoring! The language sermons are written in, e.g., is absolutely important and central to a Pastor!! Pastorwayne 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, same idea as English-language teachers above. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete per previous comments. Honbicot 16:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete - neither helpful nor appropriate. roundhouse 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete A one-person project that just makes mess. Hawkestone 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, Pastorwayne seems to miss the point. Supporting merger has nothing to do with the fact that language is used in the profession. The question is whether the exact language is of significant value to readers of the Wikipedia. I don't believe that in this case it is. -- Bejnar 05:12, 31 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 speedy deleted by Duja. Whisp e ring 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Self-hating Jew ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, speedy deletion, POV and slander category created by user whose sole occupation on Wikipedia is spreading POV and slander. Chussid 13:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete I put a speedy tag on it, a similar category titled "Self-Hating Jews (alleged)" was deleted on September 3rd. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3 I suggest that the editor that created that category stop edit warring in articles immediately and read WP:NOT a soapbox.-- Jersey Devil 14:09, 26 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 keep. Timrollpickering 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Female bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No need to categorise bishops by gender Tim! 10:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep At the moment, the appointment of a woman bishop is extremely newsworthy through most of the world, and illegal in a large part of it. Therefore, I would argue that female bishops is a significant category. Perhaps in 20 or 50 years, female bishops will have become common, and I would then support your proposal for deletion, but not till then. Ringbark 11:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep – it's a small intersection with a lot of interest. × Meegs 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, in this case, gender IS relevent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per ProveIt. delldot | talk 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - one of the most interesting cats. roundhouse 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bishops and priests are one of the few occupations left nowadays where there are remnants of a codified discrimination based on gender. So I'd agree with the above comments that this is an exception to the general rule against gender-specific subcategories, since it's still extremely notable to be a female bishop. Dugwiki 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as gender is quite relevant (see ordination of women, which discusses bishops some). Mairi 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As of now, a gender perspective is relevant. -- Orland 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Normally, we shouldn't categorize by gender, but I'd say this is a good exception. So keep. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, gender of bishops is notable. Budgiekiller 18:16, 28 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. Timrollpickering 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Women in space ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No need to categorise astronauts by gender. Tim! 10:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per Tim!. :bloodofox: 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Unlike the exception above of Bishops, women in space is not all that uncommon nowadays, nor is there a specific official sanction against women going into space (unlike official sanctions against women becoming priests, for example.) Dugwiki 18:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Dugwiki. delldot | talk 19:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As of now, a gender perspective is relevant. -- Orland 08:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Dugwiki. Punkmorten 11:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Normally, we shouldn't categorize by gender, and I see no reason to make an exception for astronauts. So delete. >Radiant< 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • But we do categorize by gender (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality and Category:Women_by_occupation). We even have Category:Female aviators, the in-atmosphere version of astronauts. 67.117.130.181 12:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Astronauts are astronauts are astronauts. —  coelacan talk — 14:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, gender is irrelevent here. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all has been said. Should there be a Cat:Men in space? :) Baristarim 02:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete pretty soon half of all ppl in space will be women. Baka man 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep (maybe rename to "Women astronauts"). Encyclopedically valid category, preferable to using a list. Just look at Category:Women_by_occupation. We have "women astronomers", "women biologists", "female film directors" etc. and this is fine too. 67.117.130.181 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think a lot of participants here haven't paid attention to our customary practices and maybe aren't aware of them ( WP:CATGRS). Main problem with this category is it needs to be connected up to Category:Women by occupation. 67.117.130.181 12:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, WP:CATGRS says "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered." - and it only says that they are permitted, not banned. Baristarim 13:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Immediately following the sentence you refer to it says "A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." This is certainly an encyclopedic topic; notice the existence of the various books shown here. 67.117.130.181 15:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move to a wiki domain that would not only welcome such a project, but contributors get to keep the Google AdSense revenue their Directory pages might generate. Read all about it right here. -- JossBuckle Swami 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply

JossBuckle Swami is spamming. Check recent contributions. —  coelacan talk — 10:14, 30 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 merge. Timrollpickering 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Streetcars into Category:Street railways

• Merge, the two categories have the same purpose. NE2 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into latter. Latter name has greater clarity for users with weak English. -- Dweller 14:18, 28 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 keep. Timrollpickering 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:World War II Prisoners of War, soon to be renamed to Category:World War II prisoners of war, another case of overenthusiastic categorization, parent category is quite small. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep This category is specifically for those who were NOT "prisoners of war" in the military sense. There should be a cat for military-prisoners as well as for non-military (i.e., civilian) prisoners. The Japanese, especially, during W.W.II, held many non-military persons prisoner. It it confusing to place these civilians in a category meant for soldiers, etc. (i.e. military persons). Also see recategorization of this subcat. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Pastorwayne. A prisoner of war is a *combatant* who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. But both category pages need description text and rules of inclusion. - Freekee 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Pastorwayne and Freekee. delldot | talk 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nominator just doesn't understand the terminology. Wimstead 21:38, 26 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. Timrollpickering 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, we don't do nominees, see Award winners and nominees. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Dugwiki 18:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 02:15, 28 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. Timrollpickering 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:X Wrestling Federation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. A category for a wrestling promotion that didn't last long. There is likely to be no more articles for it, and the 3 articles in it currently: all have good categories for them. This is a good example of category "cruft" if such a thing exists. The logic of "other promotions have categories so this should too" doesn't apply to this much, in my opinion. RobJ1981 01:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete The XWF seems notable enough for an article, but not influential enough for a category. - Freekee 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete It looks like all three articles are already categorized under other promotions, so providing links to those related topics in the XWF main article should suffice. If down the road, though, there are new articles added for XWF-only wrestlers or events that can't be naturally subcategorized under existing promotions, then I'd be for recreating this category. Dugwiki 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 15:19, 30 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 speedy delete typo in category name; empty. Kimchi. sg 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:People fron Nashville, Tennessee into Category:People from Nashville

• Merge, Category is misspelled, underpopulated. Ichabod 01:07, 26 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.