The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brit spelling for U.S. topic. Moved all items into Category:Ports and harbors of the United States. jengod 23:01, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. - Hapsiainen 11:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. US spelling for US subjects, UK spelling for UK subjects. Grutness... wha? 02:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No-brainer. Sebastian (talk) 07:17, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Created over a month ago; empty. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:34, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunate that it is empty, however, it fits with the other listed categories in its section. Either all of them would have to be deleted or populated, as they all seem to be empty. I almost vote keep, but deletetion and listify the lot of them, would seem more logical. <>Who ?¿? 05:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm deleting all the empty ones. Because they are not only empty but also improperly capitalized (and named contrary to their parent), no discussion should be necessary. Postdlf 04:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 14:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems to contain television series, not episodes. It could probably just be merged into Category:Programmes of TVB. - SimonP 17:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or rename as drama series of TVB. — Insta ntnood 11:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per SimonP. R adiant _* 09:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not all programmes are drama series, or the other way round. Many of the series produced by TVB are sold to overseas markets as video cassettes or through cable channels, but not as common for the other programmes. — Insta ntnood 17:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Raname as Drama series of TVB instead of Drama episodes of TVB to distinct between dramas and non-dramas. -- Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 02:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 14:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An inherently POV category. It seems that people add there only articles which tell about heresies according to Catholocism. But there are also other branches of Christianity. Also the category looks crude in an article. We already have categories Category:Ancient Roman Christianity and Category:Christian history. Let's stick with them. - Hapsiainen 15:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The category is useful, and lists official heresies, which have always been referred to by historians as the "xxxx heresy" whether or not they are on the same side as the official church. The contents don't seem at all POV, they seem like the standard list of ancient church heresies used by most theology departments. The title is a bit unfortunate though, as it does appear to be POV if you don't note the contents of the category. I am not sure what it could be renamed to though, maybe "Ancient christian heresy"? ~~~~ 12:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In church history both Catholicism and Orthodox church are heresies, because they declared one another such in the Great Schism. Such renders the category "heresy" useless. Heresy was also sticked into Sedevacantism, which is POV, even an insult. Wow, I'm waiting for when someone puts LDS into the category. And putting the label into Taborites hints that Unity of the Brethren is a heresy, too. "Taborites' theological thinking strongly influenced the foundation and rise of the Unity of the Brethren". Labeling Arianism as a heresy is an sting towards the Jehovah's Witnesses. You can't see the contents of the category from the category title, so the contents can't be an excuse for a crude category. - Hapsiainen 19:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV. Some extreme religionists would want to add Harry Potter here, for instance. R adiant _* 07:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as it stands it would probably fill very quickly with POV, as stated by Radiant. Rename to Category:Historic heretic accusations or something similiar Category:Accusations of Heresy ? <>Who ?¿? 05:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and — it depends on how many religious groups have been labeled "heresy":
  • If most important denominations and factions have been declared heresy by some other factions at some time: Include existing categories like Category:Christian denominations as substubs and explain why.
  • Else: Create intermediate category Religious groups labeled as heresy at some time. Most people who read about any religion would find it offensive it if were categorized directly as heresy, regardless how you glorify the name, but they probably wouldn't object to this classification.
  • If it's too complicated or we don't care: Clarify in description that it does not contain denominations and factions. Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary, since we already have Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification and Category:Accuracy disputes. Template:Dubious does not use this category; in fact, it's empty right now. -- Beland 00:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Dubious used to use the category, so it was quite useful, but it was removed from it for some reason. It seems to be more for issues over single statements in an article than a large chunk of it such as the accuracy disputes category. I think it should be added back to the template, as I don't understand the reason given for removing it. ~~~~ 12:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It was removed from {{ dubious}} because of redundancy. Whether the template is useful is another matter, but it is useful to have all related disputes in one cat rather than two. So, delete. R adiant _* 07:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both the category and the template, as they are both redundant. I feel that Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification , Category:Accuracy disputes , and Template:Accuracy already cover that ground. To keep and add another category would be not only confusing but especially redundant. Note, Template:Accuracy is not only more appealing, but eye catching, promotes conversation. <>Who ?¿? 05:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd agree with delete, but i actually prefer the name "dubious" because it's short. How much effort would it be to rename the existing category? Sebastian (talk) 07:38, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

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 page.