Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

Category:Referendums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Apparently there is a disparity in the use of the term that is unresolvable. In the US a referendum is a type of ballot measure that rescinds an existing legislative act. Not all ballot measures are referendums. Ballot measures consist of initiatives, referendums, recalls, and legislative referrals; all of which are exclusive of each other. Greg Bard ( talk) 23:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
It hadn't thought of using that category. I would be willing to withdraw the proposal The problem is that the "Initiatives in the United States" category is under the "Referendums" category, and the terms are used in different senses. So in this sense, "Ballot measures" doesn't belong under "Referendums." Greg Bard ( talk) 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
But isn't that addressed by the earlier nomination today? If more splitting is needed, then it does not need also be discussed here, does it? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The problem is bigger than I realized. I think what the "Referendums" category is being used for is what should be in "Ballot measures." I think much of the content of that category should move to the more general term "Ballot measures." We need to agree on terms for the US, UK and everyone else. Greg Bard ( talk) 03:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
doesn't this contain referendums and plebesites? -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 07:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Retain per WP:ENGVAR There isn't a problem. "Referendums" is the overarching term meaning popular votes on issues, regardless of whether the local jurisdiction restricts the term to only one particular type of ballot - e.g. Australia where federally referendums change the constitution and plebiscites are votes on other issues. "Ballot measures" is a specifically US term seemingly unused and unfamiliar elsewhere. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Retain per Timrollpickering, and per the primacy of the broad usage of "referendum" even in the American Merriam Webster dictionary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Merriam-Webster? The Wikipedia article definition is not consistent with the usage that Timrollpickering is enforcing. So we need to either degrade the Wikipedia article to the "dictionary" level of understanding, or we need to enforce the usage of the article, Referendum, as it developed. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and neither the lead section of Referendum nor Referendum#United_States has any references. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
In this case, yes, it is a reliable source. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The fact that you agree with something does not make it a WP:RS. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No action since these is already a specific US category, there is no category related action required. If people feel a need to move articles they are free to do so. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- We already have Category:Referendums in the United States. I see no purpose in having another. If there are US specific articles in the general category, they should be recategorised thence. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above - There is already a US category - if it is not doing the job, then it can be split/renamed/whatever needs to be done, no need to touch Category:Referendums to fix a country specific problem. -- Qetuth ( talk) 08:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and I would submit that the proper plural of "Referendum" is "Referenda" not -s. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Professional

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A collection of unconnected things and concepts that simply share the name "professional" - grouping "professional sports" with "professional negligence" and "professional courtesy" is an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. Bencherlite Talk 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Strongly oppose -
-- Penbat ( talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
What are professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law doing in a subcategory of Category:Management? It's a category mess. Bencherlite Talk 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No it is not a mess. I was intending to shortly add new articles professional boundaries and professional competence to this category. Professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law are all aspects of professionalism. Anyway you conveniently mention Category:Management but not Category:Occupations -- Penbat ( talk) 13:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
OK, they don't belong together in a subcategory of Category:Occupations either. Bencherlite Talk 14:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I would support a move to "professionalism", however, I Support the proposal to delete it otherwise. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I dont mind if the template is called "professional" or "professionalism".-- Penbat ( talk) 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands this is a collection of things with a similar name, which is not how we categorize things. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see a category, "Amateur", and I don't see a category for "semi-professional". Just a random collection of hodgepodge. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 05:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CFD October 28 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: So far, there seems to be a clear consensus not to retain a category called "professional". However, there is not so far a consensus on whether it should be renamed and repurposed as a more narrowly-focused category on "professionalism".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I don't actually see what Category:Professionalism would retain from the current collection of articles in Category:Professional, nor do the comments in the previous part of the discussion indicate to me that anyone saw a difference between them making retention of a reworked category appropriate. But maybe that's just me - I don't think that Category:Professionalism is a runner. Bencherlite Talk 23:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Provides nothing the search box doesn't. Tenuous link, the parent cats don't apply to most of the articles, and for example Category:Professional associations is already in the more appropriate Category:Occupational organizations. -- Qetuth ( talk) 08:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As the first comment says, there is a clear concept, covered by professional ethics; professional associations; and the like. The term "profession" refers to the fact that certain occupations were in England required to profess an oath before they were admitted. There is normally an educational entry requirement of holding a professional qualification. This causes there to be a difference from mere "occupations", of which it should be a subset. I would like to be useing other words, but the obvious one is "profession". Unfortunately, the concept has become woolly at the edges, so that there may be difficulties in defining the boundaries, save by the appearance of the word. Nevertheless, the word does have a definite meaning. Qetuth's complaint may be that "management" is an inappropriate parent; I would agree. Miscategorisation is no reason for deletion; rather for recategorisation. If the decision is taken not to keep it, it should be merged with occupations, rather than deleted, but I think there is enough content related to the word to keep it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Reply - Actually I think "Occupations" is an inappropriate parent for most of the contents also, if less obviously so. The only parents I can think of for this category only apply to a handful of its articles, and when I check those articles they are already in the appropriate tree themselves. I think I can see the aim here, but I don't see it achieved, or can think of a way to do so. -- Qetuth ( talk) 22:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Professional is a term that is used and while there may be a definition, it's application is completely arbitrary. In effect it becomes also a group associated only by name. One might call this BS or ask that we create a category for the BS professionals. Yes, look at the link if you wish. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nearly every notable person at Wikipedia is noted for something professional (whether paid or not). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aviation terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete (and WP:SALT?). This category has recently been re-created and populated with a selection of aviation articles. There is no reason for most (probably all) of the articles currently in the category to be under Category:Terminology (and hence under Category:Language). Most similar subjects (e.g. Road transport) do not have a "terminology" category. The main problem caused by such a category is that new articles would be placed in it _instead_ of being placed in the appropriate category/ies (there's some notes about this on my user page). DexDor ( talk) 21:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree, the category is not useful. Any word in aviation is "terminology" and thus all articles about avaition subjects in general keep getting added back into this category. It is too general to be of value and doesn't help readers locate anything. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it was only deleted in the past for being empty - I can't find any previous deletion discussions through "whatlinkshere" where it was decided that this category should not exist. Bencherlite Talk 23:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I recreated and populated this category. It was a red link, and had been deleted in the past for the sole reason of being empty. Unlike road transport, aviation is a complex field, with unique technical language very specific to this subject. I see no reason to believe that this category would cause new articles to be misctegorized, and it is necessary to have a category that contains the key terminology of aviation. Skrelk ( talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment How do you define "key terminology" ? e.g. how do you decide which articles under Category:Aircraft wing components to include ? Why is ACARS "key", but not TCAS ? How does this fit with WP:OC#ARBITRARY ? My reason for believing that articles are sometimes placed in terminology/terms category instead of the appropriate categories is experience - for example look at the history of articles in Category:Aircraft navigation; prior to the creation of that category many articles about aircraft navigation were placed in the terminology category which appears (as do many of the terms/terminology categories) to have been used as a "miscellaneous" category (for articles that an editor wants to move down the category hierarchy, but hasn't found/created a category for). DexDor ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment That's a good point. I would agree that TCAS is key terminology, and should probably be in there. If you want to discuss what we should define as key terminology, we can do that. I would define key terminology as commonly used phrases information that any airline pilot would be expected to know. I say airline pilot because their are some key concepts that a private would not need or be expected to know, but nonetheless represent significant terminology, such as TCAS, for instance. To be perfectly honest, looking at your userpage, I get the impression you have some sort of bone to pick with 'terminology' categories in general. Rest assured, I wasn't trying to stir anything up. I saw the category redlinked, and that it had been deleted due to being empty, and concluded that someone needed to recreate it and populate it. Skrelk ( talk) 20:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment The previous Aviation terminology category was under Category:Language. All the articles in it that were not about language were moved to more appropriate categories (e.g. Pressure suit was moved to Category:Aircrew clothing) making it easier to find articles about similar subjects. Wikipedia does have some articles that are about language (e.g. Clothing terminology and Researchsome), but I'm not aware of any articles where both aviation and language are defining characteristics of the subject.
Terminology/Terms categories (in combination with editors who don't understand categorisation) can cause many articles to be wrongly categorised (for example the Yaesu FT-77 (S) article isn't about language, but is about an radio transceiver). That's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid.
If the new Aviation terminology category is for articles whose titles are commonly used terms/phrases that any airline pilot would be expected to know (or articles about subjects that any airline pilot would be expected to know about) then I'm not sure how this would fit into WP categorization; are there any other categories with similar inclusion criteria ? Would it be better as a list article ? DexDor ( talk) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think so. I think it's reasonable to have a category for key terms. Skrelk ( talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (/weak delete) - I just had a look at the current contents, and I would say most of what is there are not terminology articles. Types of aircraft should not be in a terminology category, they should be in aircraft by type, which they are. Nor should things like PCL or IFR or Aileron. These are not terminology articles. They use terminology as the names of the articles because this is how we name all articles. The only reason I (so far) bolded comment not delete is because of a handful of articles like Deadheading (aviation) and V speeds but these are currently a minority and historically I understand terminology categories have been very difficult to maintain for this reason. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and delete we have plenty of lists of terminology specific to some field See Category:Glossaries where these lists are categorized. The whole family tree at Category:Terminology is due for some trimming IMHO. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Bee Gees templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Bee Gees album tracklist templates. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Bee Gees, there is no need for this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Can't even be bothered to think of a lame Bee Gees pun as the nominator has said it all - he wins again... Bencherlite Talk 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Bee Gees album tracklist templates, as that is what they are. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Category:Album track list templates (of which these four templates are already members) is not subdivided by band, so there seems no need to start with the Bee Gees. However, not all are in Category:Bee Gees album templates, so perhaps it should be an upmerge instead. Bencherlite Talk 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I thought of that, but that category displays a template stating "The pages listed in this category are meant to be navigational (navbox) templates. If subcategories exist for other types of templates (e.g. infoboxes) that relate to this topic, they should appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox." Therefore I proposed the sub-cat. I wasn't going to make it a sub-cat of Category:Album track list templates as they are already in it, but if anything it would probably be helpful rather than unhelpful to do so. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nicole Scherzinger album covers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. Artist has only released one album. Statυs ( talk) 14:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • What does another category have to do with this one? That's quite ridiculous. How is a single cover an album cover? I'd assume that video releases (DVD or Blu-ray covers) are also included in such a category. I think we're gonna need an overhaul of category renames. Statυs ( talk) 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People of Hong Kong descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge triple intersections to all parents, for the same reasons as Category:American actors of Hong Kong descent which was upmerged per CFD Oct 19. The British politicians are already in more specific sub-cats of Category:British politicians. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I added more to this nomination. The American musicians are in suitable Hong Kong talent categories where appropriate, so do not need to be merged to the other parent Category:Hong Kong musicians. The British actors are already categorised as Hong Kong actors where appropriate, so we should not merge them all to that parent. The British politicians are already in more specific sub-cats of Category:British politicians, so do not need to be merged there. I did not check but assumed that the equivalent would be true for the Canadian politicians. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge without prejudice against getting rid of any of the overly specific or unjustified trivial intersect categories merged to in the future. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge triple intersection - may also be trimmed as suggested by JPL above. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian gay-related television programs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Canadian LGBT-related television programs and Category:Gay-related television programs; the latter to be decided on its own merits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is nothing that indicates that Canadian television treats gay men so differently from lesbians, bisexuals or transpeople that a separate splinter category for "gay-related" shows is warranted. Category creator has made a number of these categories and has been asked repeatedly to stop while other similar cats are discussed here. Buck Winston ( talk) 11:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Please cite the body of evidence that indicates that homosexual males in Canadian television were treated so differently than homosexual females or bisexual males that this category is warranted. Buck Winston ( talk) 17:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Not wishing to speak for Fayenatic London, but I don't read FL's comment as doing anything other than agreeing with you that the category ought to go - FL is just pointing out that the category has two parents, and the articles in it ought to be upmerged to both of them. I disagre, as I now explain. Bencherlite Talk 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ulla Jones

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Improvised music albums by Australian artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All kinds of music is improvised--a lot of jazz, freestyling rap, rock solos--this isn't a genre of music, just an element common to several genres. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Initiatives and referendums in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to split. This is without prejudice to a fresh nomination to consider the proposal by Vegaswikian to rename the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It is not a good idea to lump together Referendums, Initiatives, and Recall. They are distinct types of questions. This split will cause for the parent and child categories to be more meaningful. Not every ballot measure is either a referendum, or an initiative. Greg Bard ( talk) 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
(Amended proposal: Referenda --> Referendums)
  • Strong oppose "Referenda" the standard plural is "referendums" - see referendum - as used across Wikipedia including the main article Initiatives and referendums in the United States. No reasoning has been given for switching to cod Latin. Neutral as to the rest but there is a potential for confusion because of the US tendency to restrict the word "referendum" to a specific subset of its global meaning. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This isn't the issue AT ALL, so I have amended my proposal. "Referendums" is just fine with me. However, initiatives are not a type of referendum. Greg Bard ( talk) 12:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mass media

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC):* Propose renaming Category:Media by genre to Category:Mass media by genre reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow the parent Category:Mass media and disambiguate from Category:Wikipedia media files. It is probably not necessary to carry this renaming any further, but I think it is desirable for these these "Media by foo" categories. – Fayenatic L ondon 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nominator to eliminate ambiguity.
    I think it would be a good idea to carry this reaming on into the by-country categories, because e.g. Category:French media is ambiguous between "French mass media" and "French media files". But that would require a separate (huge) nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Local Government Areas of Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. I am not prepared to say that the discussion below constitutes a sufficient consensus to rename the entire LGA tree. BHG's concerns are relevant here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: local is a common noun (but capital remains per convention); government and area are common nouns and the capitalisation should be removed; this proposed renaming is for meant for this category's sub-categories as well, consequent on approbation Crusoe8181 ( talk) 09:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}} reply
  • Rename per nom and then speedily rename the sub-categories; the articles about the areas tend to use lower case. Bencherlite Talk 17:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Firstly, on procedural grounds. If the nomination is intended to include the sub-categories, then they should be listed as part of this nomination. That way they will be tagged so that editors and readers of the categories will be aware of the existence of this discussion, and editors looking at this discussion will be aware of exactly what changes are intended. The speedy renaming process was created as a way of avoiding repeated discussion on issues are uncontroversial because they have have been decided before. It is not a mechanism for allowing a CFD discussions to proceed without listing the categories it is designed to effect.
    Secondly, my substantive objection is that "Local Government Area"2 is frequently used in the capitalised form by the Australian central and state governments. See for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The capitalised usage is sufficiently widespread that it appears likely to have official standing.
    I will be happy to withdraw the second part of my objection if editors can persuade my by contrary evidence. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment Government departments do regularly use Self-Importance or Bureaucratese capitals. We tend to avoid them. I notice on one of the example pages given above the use of Maps, Regional and Metropolitan which are hardly proper. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and per the common usage in the articles that populate these categories. BHG's links #2 and #4 demonstrate no capitalisation in the instances outside of headings and links where every word is capitalised, and to add one of my own [6]. -- Qetuth ( talk) 09:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- A brief look at subcategories and articles indicates that in Australia "Local Government Area" is a technical term (a proper name) covering the areas of cities, shires and other Local Government entities. Similarly Scotland now has "Council Areas". I do not like the terms, but that is what they are. We should no more put it in lower case than we would "the district of Colombia". The need would seem to be to capitalise the references in the articles, not de-capitalise the category. Mind you, I am not an Australian, and do not know for certain. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment we capitalise District of Columbia (sic) because it is the name of a specific place and is a proper noun; we do not capitalise local government area because it is NOT the name of a specific place, it is a general term such as a locality, suburb, village, housing estate, electoral district, park, street, desert, waterhole, of each of which there are many and according to the rules of English grammar all are deemed common nouns and do not begin with a capital letter Crusoe8181 ( talk) 08:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support the question is not are these the official terms, but are they proper nouns. They are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Compilation albums of number-one songs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a trivial association with an arbitrary starting point--the Beatles' 1. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per recent discussion CFD July 24 (subsequently renamed at CFD July 31). – Fayenatic L ondon 09:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The point that I made there was that it's a rare enough achievement to be able to issue such an album that it is defining characteristic. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as creator. The starting point is hardly arbitrary, it was the first album in this genre. - ProhibitOnions (T) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as overcategorization by chart position of the songs on the album (which is not a genre) and per nom as a trivial association. There is more like categorization by a marketing idea and by album name. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Queer Jews

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 27#Category:Gay Hindus that LGBT+religion categories should not be subdivided further in this way. Bencherlite Talk 08:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per recent CFD discussions. Nymf hideliho! 08:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge -- Those who have come out as "queer" seem to be few in number, so that an ethnic intersection with that will be a miniscule one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beijing culture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other similar categories. Makecat Talk 07:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Greg Bard ( talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, Category:Culture by city is a mix of "Culture in Foo" and "Culture of Foo". I have no real preference for which one should be followed, but this could do with a sort-out. Bencherlite Talk 17:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as nominated: In fact, Category:Culture by city also contains a lot of "Foo culture". The national categories Category:Culture by nationality are "Fooian culture", but that pattern does not have to be copied to cities. National cultures tend to extend abroad where their people go, but city cultures probably less so. Category:Culture of Beijing sounds wider than "culture in", and this would fit with the facts that that the notable sub-cat Category:Peking opera is not only performed in Beijing, and the other sub-categories (cuisine, and films set/shot in Beijing) all extend worldwide. However, most sub-cats of Category:Culture by city and within the national sub-cats of Category:Culture by nationality and city are called "culture in Foo"; and the categories and articles within them are mostly about culture within a city. So I end up supporting the nomination on grounds of consistency. Even using "in", the meaning is big enough to cover culture that spreads beyond, such as the sub-cats. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I think the x in y format works for cities, and would support any other renames along these lines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CableACE award nominees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I can understand categories for winners of awards, but not for nominees. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as being merely nominated for such an award is not a defining characteristic for the person/programme/film nominated. Bencherlite Talk 17:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we avoid most winner categories, so we should avoid nominee categories even more. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The practice is to listify award winners; with a few exceptions, we do not allow awards categories. Lists do the job better, becasue they put them in date order and can have a column of the work that gave rise to the award. Nominees might conceivably be added to such a list article in a runners up column, but better not at all. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People accused of blasphemy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Blasphemy; remove articles that do not belong in the target category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It's very easy to make harmful allegations against people.
In addition to parent category Category:Blasphemy, we already have appropriate categories for People prosecuted for blasphemy and People convicted for blasphemy and People executed for blasphemy, which actually make sense. Mere accusations of blasphemy historically were very common – for instance, Flaubert was accused of writing blasphemous literature. Jesus Christ was accused of blasphemy and accused others of it. [7] [8]
And isn't it significant to actually evaluate who did the accusing, how notable was the accusation? A category is inherently incapable of considering that. Also, we have deleted these types of categories before – for instance, over here because
1) possible WP:BLP issues;
2) "Accused" is the equivalent of "alleged" and categories based on allegations are strongly disfavored.
Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete - The problem with "alleged/accused" is that it's subjective to the person(s) doing the alleging/accusing, and that needs to be noted. Something not possible due to the technical limitations of categories. - jc37 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Category:People who have recieved a Fatwa. That would keep Salman Rushdie and Rifka in the cat. That is something that is verifiable and meets the criteria of BLP. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 09:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to category:Blasphemy. The article Rimsha Masih blasphemy case does not mention a fatwa, so I am not convinced that the renaming suggested above would work. The sub-cat would need to go up anyway. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Blasphemy. There are currently two articles ( Rimsha Masih blasphemy case and Salman Rushdie) and a subcategory ("people prosecuted"). Taking the article about Masih first, this should be in the parent category, or perhaps Category:People prosecuted for blasphemy (the state of the proceedings is unclear from the article). Rushdie should not be in this category at all - WP doesn't do a "people accused of crime" category series (except those prosecuted, as already mentioned), for the reasons given by the nominator and jc37, and "people accused of crime X" shouldn't be put into "Category:Crime X" to get round this. So Salman Rushdie shouldn't be upmerged to Category:Blasphemy. In fact, the article that should be in the head category (but which wasn't until just now) is The Satanic Verses controversy. The sub-category of "people prosecuted" has to be upmerged or it will be left orphaned. Bencherlite Talk 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete. A list of people accused of blasphemy works because we can say who did the accusing. A category just opens up to many problems. Also, lists require sources and are much easier to maintain. There is no easy way to keep categories from being flooeded with unsourced accusations of living people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • There is nothing worth listifying because no information is going to be lost - as I attempted to explain, Rushdie's article ought not to be there at all because the Satanic Verses controversy article is the appropriate one for this category tree , and the other one ought to be recategorised elsewhere in the tree. And that's all that the category contains, apart from a subcategory. Bencherlite Talk 00:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to category:Blasphemy -- If we are to delete this, we need to work out how to recategorise the currnet contents. Neither case got as far as a prosecution. Rimsha Masih blasphemy case is a result of the mob rule that seems to apply in Pakistan to such cases: if a Mullah declares a person guilty of blasphemy, he (she) ought to be killed even if the courts establish that the whole case is trumped up. Rimsha's case never got beyond arrest, so that inclusion in the "prosecution" category would be incorrect. Iran would no doubt have like to prosecute Salman Rushdie, but could not get its hands on him. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete accused by whom? Not meaningful - according to David Koresh, all who didn't accept him as the returned savior is a blasphemers; I take it that we're all blasphemers around here now? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5&oldid=1074809806"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

Category:Referendums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Apparently there is a disparity in the use of the term that is unresolvable. In the US a referendum is a type of ballot measure that rescinds an existing legislative act. Not all ballot measures are referendums. Ballot measures consist of initiatives, referendums, recalls, and legislative referrals; all of which are exclusive of each other. Greg Bard ( talk) 23:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
It hadn't thought of using that category. I would be willing to withdraw the proposal The problem is that the "Initiatives in the United States" category is under the "Referendums" category, and the terms are used in different senses. So in this sense, "Ballot measures" doesn't belong under "Referendums." Greg Bard ( talk) 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
But isn't that addressed by the earlier nomination today? If more splitting is needed, then it does not need also be discussed here, does it? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The problem is bigger than I realized. I think what the "Referendums" category is being used for is what should be in "Ballot measures." I think much of the content of that category should move to the more general term "Ballot measures." We need to agree on terms for the US, UK and everyone else. Greg Bard ( talk) 03:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
doesn't this contain referendums and plebesites? -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 07:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Retain per WP:ENGVAR There isn't a problem. "Referendums" is the overarching term meaning popular votes on issues, regardless of whether the local jurisdiction restricts the term to only one particular type of ballot - e.g. Australia where federally referendums change the constitution and plebiscites are votes on other issues. "Ballot measures" is a specifically US term seemingly unused and unfamiliar elsewhere. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Retain per Timrollpickering, and per the primacy of the broad usage of "referendum" even in the American Merriam Webster dictionary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Merriam-Webster? The Wikipedia article definition is not consistent with the usage that Timrollpickering is enforcing. So we need to either degrade the Wikipedia article to the "dictionary" level of understanding, or we need to enforce the usage of the article, Referendum, as it developed. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and neither the lead section of Referendum nor Referendum#United_States has any references. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
In this case, yes, it is a reliable source. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The fact that you agree with something does not make it a WP:RS. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No action since these is already a specific US category, there is no category related action required. If people feel a need to move articles they are free to do so. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- We already have Category:Referendums in the United States. I see no purpose in having another. If there are US specific articles in the general category, they should be recategorised thence. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above - There is already a US category - if it is not doing the job, then it can be split/renamed/whatever needs to be done, no need to touch Category:Referendums to fix a country specific problem. -- Qetuth ( talk) 08:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and I would submit that the proper plural of "Referendum" is "Referenda" not -s. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Professional

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A collection of unconnected things and concepts that simply share the name "professional" - grouping "professional sports" with "professional negligence" and "professional courtesy" is an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. Bencherlite Talk 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Strongly oppose -
-- Penbat ( talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
What are professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law doing in a subcategory of Category:Management? It's a category mess. Bencherlite Talk 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No it is not a mess. I was intending to shortly add new articles professional boundaries and professional competence to this category. Professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law are all aspects of professionalism. Anyway you conveniently mention Category:Management but not Category:Occupations -- Penbat ( talk) 13:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
OK, they don't belong together in a subcategory of Category:Occupations either. Bencherlite Talk 14:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I would support a move to "professionalism", however, I Support the proposal to delete it otherwise. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I dont mind if the template is called "professional" or "professionalism".-- Penbat ( talk) 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands this is a collection of things with a similar name, which is not how we categorize things. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see a category, "Amateur", and I don't see a category for "semi-professional". Just a random collection of hodgepodge. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 05:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CFD October 28 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: So far, there seems to be a clear consensus not to retain a category called "professional". However, there is not so far a consensus on whether it should be renamed and repurposed as a more narrowly-focused category on "professionalism".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I don't actually see what Category:Professionalism would retain from the current collection of articles in Category:Professional, nor do the comments in the previous part of the discussion indicate to me that anyone saw a difference between them making retention of a reworked category appropriate. But maybe that's just me - I don't think that Category:Professionalism is a runner. Bencherlite Talk 23:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Provides nothing the search box doesn't. Tenuous link, the parent cats don't apply to most of the articles, and for example Category:Professional associations is already in the more appropriate Category:Occupational organizations. -- Qetuth ( talk) 08:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As the first comment says, there is a clear concept, covered by professional ethics; professional associations; and the like. The term "profession" refers to the fact that certain occupations were in England required to profess an oath before they were admitted. There is normally an educational entry requirement of holding a professional qualification. This causes there to be a difference from mere "occupations", of which it should be a subset. I would like to be useing other words, but the obvious one is "profession". Unfortunately, the concept has become woolly at the edges, so that there may be difficulties in defining the boundaries, save by the appearance of the word. Nevertheless, the word does have a definite meaning. Qetuth's complaint may be that "management" is an inappropriate parent; I would agree. Miscategorisation is no reason for deletion; rather for recategorisation. If the decision is taken not to keep it, it should be merged with occupations, rather than deleted, but I think there is enough content related to the word to keep it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Reply - Actually I think "Occupations" is an inappropriate parent for most of the contents also, if less obviously so. The only parents I can think of for this category only apply to a handful of its articles, and when I check those articles they are already in the appropriate tree themselves. I think I can see the aim here, but I don't see it achieved, or can think of a way to do so. -- Qetuth ( talk) 22:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Professional is a term that is used and while there may be a definition, it's application is completely arbitrary. In effect it becomes also a group associated only by name. One might call this BS or ask that we create a category for the BS professionals. Yes, look at the link if you wish. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nearly every notable person at Wikipedia is noted for something professional (whether paid or not). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aviation terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete (and WP:SALT?). This category has recently been re-created and populated with a selection of aviation articles. There is no reason for most (probably all) of the articles currently in the category to be under Category:Terminology (and hence under Category:Language). Most similar subjects (e.g. Road transport) do not have a "terminology" category. The main problem caused by such a category is that new articles would be placed in it _instead_ of being placed in the appropriate category/ies (there's some notes about this on my user page). DexDor ( talk) 21:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree, the category is not useful. Any word in aviation is "terminology" and thus all articles about avaition subjects in general keep getting added back into this category. It is too general to be of value and doesn't help readers locate anything. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it was only deleted in the past for being empty - I can't find any previous deletion discussions through "whatlinkshere" where it was decided that this category should not exist. Bencherlite Talk 23:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I recreated and populated this category. It was a red link, and had been deleted in the past for the sole reason of being empty. Unlike road transport, aviation is a complex field, with unique technical language very specific to this subject. I see no reason to believe that this category would cause new articles to be misctegorized, and it is necessary to have a category that contains the key terminology of aviation. Skrelk ( talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment How do you define "key terminology" ? e.g. how do you decide which articles under Category:Aircraft wing components to include ? Why is ACARS "key", but not TCAS ? How does this fit with WP:OC#ARBITRARY ? My reason for believing that articles are sometimes placed in terminology/terms category instead of the appropriate categories is experience - for example look at the history of articles in Category:Aircraft navigation; prior to the creation of that category many articles about aircraft navigation were placed in the terminology category which appears (as do many of the terms/terminology categories) to have been used as a "miscellaneous" category (for articles that an editor wants to move down the category hierarchy, but hasn't found/created a category for). DexDor ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment That's a good point. I would agree that TCAS is key terminology, and should probably be in there. If you want to discuss what we should define as key terminology, we can do that. I would define key terminology as commonly used phrases information that any airline pilot would be expected to know. I say airline pilot because their are some key concepts that a private would not need or be expected to know, but nonetheless represent significant terminology, such as TCAS, for instance. To be perfectly honest, looking at your userpage, I get the impression you have some sort of bone to pick with 'terminology' categories in general. Rest assured, I wasn't trying to stir anything up. I saw the category redlinked, and that it had been deleted due to being empty, and concluded that someone needed to recreate it and populate it. Skrelk ( talk) 20:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment The previous Aviation terminology category was under Category:Language. All the articles in it that were not about language were moved to more appropriate categories (e.g. Pressure suit was moved to Category:Aircrew clothing) making it easier to find articles about similar subjects. Wikipedia does have some articles that are about language (e.g. Clothing terminology and Researchsome), but I'm not aware of any articles where both aviation and language are defining characteristics of the subject.
Terminology/Terms categories (in combination with editors who don't understand categorisation) can cause many articles to be wrongly categorised (for example the Yaesu FT-77 (S) article isn't about language, but is about an radio transceiver). That's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid.
If the new Aviation terminology category is for articles whose titles are commonly used terms/phrases that any airline pilot would be expected to know (or articles about subjects that any airline pilot would be expected to know about) then I'm not sure how this would fit into WP categorization; are there any other categories with similar inclusion criteria ? Would it be better as a list article ? DexDor ( talk) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think so. I think it's reasonable to have a category for key terms. Skrelk ( talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (/weak delete) - I just had a look at the current contents, and I would say most of what is there are not terminology articles. Types of aircraft should not be in a terminology category, they should be in aircraft by type, which they are. Nor should things like PCL or IFR or Aileron. These are not terminology articles. They use terminology as the names of the articles because this is how we name all articles. The only reason I (so far) bolded comment not delete is because of a handful of articles like Deadheading (aviation) and V speeds but these are currently a minority and historically I understand terminology categories have been very difficult to maintain for this reason. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and delete we have plenty of lists of terminology specific to some field See Category:Glossaries where these lists are categorized. The whole family tree at Category:Terminology is due for some trimming IMHO. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Bee Gees templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Bee Gees album tracklist templates. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Bee Gees, there is no need for this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Can't even be bothered to think of a lame Bee Gees pun as the nominator has said it all - he wins again... Bencherlite Talk 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Bee Gees album tracklist templates, as that is what they are. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Category:Album track list templates (of which these four templates are already members) is not subdivided by band, so there seems no need to start with the Bee Gees. However, not all are in Category:Bee Gees album templates, so perhaps it should be an upmerge instead. Bencherlite Talk 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I thought of that, but that category displays a template stating "The pages listed in this category are meant to be navigational (navbox) templates. If subcategories exist for other types of templates (e.g. infoboxes) that relate to this topic, they should appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox." Therefore I proposed the sub-cat. I wasn't going to make it a sub-cat of Category:Album track list templates as they are already in it, but if anything it would probably be helpful rather than unhelpful to do so. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nicole Scherzinger album covers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. Artist has only released one album. Statυs ( talk) 14:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • What does another category have to do with this one? That's quite ridiculous. How is a single cover an album cover? I'd assume that video releases (DVD or Blu-ray covers) are also included in such a category. I think we're gonna need an overhaul of category renames. Statυs ( talk) 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People of Hong Kong descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge triple intersections to all parents, for the same reasons as Category:American actors of Hong Kong descent which was upmerged per CFD Oct 19. The British politicians are already in more specific sub-cats of Category:British politicians. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I added more to this nomination. The American musicians are in suitable Hong Kong talent categories where appropriate, so do not need to be merged to the other parent Category:Hong Kong musicians. The British actors are already categorised as Hong Kong actors where appropriate, so we should not merge them all to that parent. The British politicians are already in more specific sub-cats of Category:British politicians, so do not need to be merged there. I did not check but assumed that the equivalent would be true for the Canadian politicians. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge without prejudice against getting rid of any of the overly specific or unjustified trivial intersect categories merged to in the future. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge triple intersection - may also be trimmed as suggested by JPL above. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian gay-related television programs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Canadian LGBT-related television programs and Category:Gay-related television programs; the latter to be decided on its own merits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is nothing that indicates that Canadian television treats gay men so differently from lesbians, bisexuals or transpeople that a separate splinter category for "gay-related" shows is warranted. Category creator has made a number of these categories and has been asked repeatedly to stop while other similar cats are discussed here. Buck Winston ( talk) 11:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Please cite the body of evidence that indicates that homosexual males in Canadian television were treated so differently than homosexual females or bisexual males that this category is warranted. Buck Winston ( talk) 17:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Not wishing to speak for Fayenatic London, but I don't read FL's comment as doing anything other than agreeing with you that the category ought to go - FL is just pointing out that the category has two parents, and the articles in it ought to be upmerged to both of them. I disagre, as I now explain. Bencherlite Talk 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ulla Jones

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Improvised music albums by Australian artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All kinds of music is improvised--a lot of jazz, freestyling rap, rock solos--this isn't a genre of music, just an element common to several genres. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Initiatives and referendums in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to split. This is without prejudice to a fresh nomination to consider the proposal by Vegaswikian to rename the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It is not a good idea to lump together Referendums, Initiatives, and Recall. They are distinct types of questions. This split will cause for the parent and child categories to be more meaningful. Not every ballot measure is either a referendum, or an initiative. Greg Bard ( talk) 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
(Amended proposal: Referenda --> Referendums)
  • Strong oppose "Referenda" the standard plural is "referendums" - see referendum - as used across Wikipedia including the main article Initiatives and referendums in the United States. No reasoning has been given for switching to cod Latin. Neutral as to the rest but there is a potential for confusion because of the US tendency to restrict the word "referendum" to a specific subset of its global meaning. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This isn't the issue AT ALL, so I have amended my proposal. "Referendums" is just fine with me. However, initiatives are not a type of referendum. Greg Bard ( talk) 12:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mass media

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC):* Propose renaming Category:Media by genre to Category:Mass media by genre reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow the parent Category:Mass media and disambiguate from Category:Wikipedia media files. It is probably not necessary to carry this renaming any further, but I think it is desirable for these these "Media by foo" categories. – Fayenatic L ondon 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nominator to eliminate ambiguity.
    I think it would be a good idea to carry this reaming on into the by-country categories, because e.g. Category:French media is ambiguous between "French mass media" and "French media files". But that would require a separate (huge) nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Local Government Areas of Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. I am not prepared to say that the discussion below constitutes a sufficient consensus to rename the entire LGA tree. BHG's concerns are relevant here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: local is a common noun (but capital remains per convention); government and area are common nouns and the capitalisation should be removed; this proposed renaming is for meant for this category's sub-categories as well, consequent on approbation Crusoe8181 ( talk) 09:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}} reply
  • Rename per nom and then speedily rename the sub-categories; the articles about the areas tend to use lower case. Bencherlite Talk 17:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Firstly, on procedural grounds. If the nomination is intended to include the sub-categories, then they should be listed as part of this nomination. That way they will be tagged so that editors and readers of the categories will be aware of the existence of this discussion, and editors looking at this discussion will be aware of exactly what changes are intended. The speedy renaming process was created as a way of avoiding repeated discussion on issues are uncontroversial because they have have been decided before. It is not a mechanism for allowing a CFD discussions to proceed without listing the categories it is designed to effect.
    Secondly, my substantive objection is that "Local Government Area"2 is frequently used in the capitalised form by the Australian central and state governments. See for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The capitalised usage is sufficiently widespread that it appears likely to have official standing.
    I will be happy to withdraw the second part of my objection if editors can persuade my by contrary evidence. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment Government departments do regularly use Self-Importance or Bureaucratese capitals. We tend to avoid them. I notice on one of the example pages given above the use of Maps, Regional and Metropolitan which are hardly proper. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and per the common usage in the articles that populate these categories. BHG's links #2 and #4 demonstrate no capitalisation in the instances outside of headings and links where every word is capitalised, and to add one of my own [6]. -- Qetuth ( talk) 09:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- A brief look at subcategories and articles indicates that in Australia "Local Government Area" is a technical term (a proper name) covering the areas of cities, shires and other Local Government entities. Similarly Scotland now has "Council Areas". I do not like the terms, but that is what they are. We should no more put it in lower case than we would "the district of Colombia". The need would seem to be to capitalise the references in the articles, not de-capitalise the category. Mind you, I am not an Australian, and do not know for certain. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment we capitalise District of Columbia (sic) because it is the name of a specific place and is a proper noun; we do not capitalise local government area because it is NOT the name of a specific place, it is a general term such as a locality, suburb, village, housing estate, electoral district, park, street, desert, waterhole, of each of which there are many and according to the rules of English grammar all are deemed common nouns and do not begin with a capital letter Crusoe8181 ( talk) 08:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support the question is not are these the official terms, but are they proper nouns. They are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Compilation albums of number-one songs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a trivial association with an arbitrary starting point--the Beatles' 1. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per recent discussion CFD July 24 (subsequently renamed at CFD July 31). – Fayenatic L ondon 09:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The point that I made there was that it's a rare enough achievement to be able to issue such an album that it is defining characteristic. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as creator. The starting point is hardly arbitrary, it was the first album in this genre. - ProhibitOnions (T) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as overcategorization by chart position of the songs on the album (which is not a genre) and per nom as a trivial association. There is more like categorization by a marketing idea and by album name. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Queer Jews

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 27#Category:Gay Hindus that LGBT+religion categories should not be subdivided further in this way. Bencherlite Talk 08:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per recent CFD discussions. Nymf hideliho! 08:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge -- Those who have come out as "queer" seem to be few in number, so that an ethnic intersection with that will be a miniscule one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beijing culture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other similar categories. Makecat Talk 07:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Greg Bard ( talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, Category:Culture by city is a mix of "Culture in Foo" and "Culture of Foo". I have no real preference for which one should be followed, but this could do with a sort-out. Bencherlite Talk 17:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as nominated: In fact, Category:Culture by city also contains a lot of "Foo culture". The national categories Category:Culture by nationality are "Fooian culture", but that pattern does not have to be copied to cities. National cultures tend to extend abroad where their people go, but city cultures probably less so. Category:Culture of Beijing sounds wider than "culture in", and this would fit with the facts that that the notable sub-cat Category:Peking opera is not only performed in Beijing, and the other sub-categories (cuisine, and films set/shot in Beijing) all extend worldwide. However, most sub-cats of Category:Culture by city and within the national sub-cats of Category:Culture by nationality and city are called "culture in Foo"; and the categories and articles within them are mostly about culture within a city. So I end up supporting the nomination on grounds of consistency. Even using "in", the meaning is big enough to cover culture that spreads beyond, such as the sub-cats. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I think the x in y format works for cities, and would support any other renames along these lines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CableACE award nominees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I can understand categories for winners of awards, but not for nominees. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as being merely nominated for such an award is not a defining characteristic for the person/programme/film nominated. Bencherlite Talk 17:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we avoid most winner categories, so we should avoid nominee categories even more. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The practice is to listify award winners; with a few exceptions, we do not allow awards categories. Lists do the job better, becasue they put them in date order and can have a column of the work that gave rise to the award. Nominees might conceivably be added to such a list article in a runners up column, but better not at all. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People accused of blasphemy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Blasphemy; remove articles that do not belong in the target category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It's very easy to make harmful allegations against people.
In addition to parent category Category:Blasphemy, we already have appropriate categories for People prosecuted for blasphemy and People convicted for blasphemy and People executed for blasphemy, which actually make sense. Mere accusations of blasphemy historically were very common – for instance, Flaubert was accused of writing blasphemous literature. Jesus Christ was accused of blasphemy and accused others of it. [7] [8]
And isn't it significant to actually evaluate who did the accusing, how notable was the accusation? A category is inherently incapable of considering that. Also, we have deleted these types of categories before – for instance, over here because
1) possible WP:BLP issues;
2) "Accused" is the equivalent of "alleged" and categories based on allegations are strongly disfavored.
Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete - The problem with "alleged/accused" is that it's subjective to the person(s) doing the alleging/accusing, and that needs to be noted. Something not possible due to the technical limitations of categories. - jc37 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Category:People who have recieved a Fatwa. That would keep Salman Rushdie and Rifka in the cat. That is something that is verifiable and meets the criteria of BLP. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 09:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to category:Blasphemy. The article Rimsha Masih blasphemy case does not mention a fatwa, so I am not convinced that the renaming suggested above would work. The sub-cat would need to go up anyway. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Blasphemy. There are currently two articles ( Rimsha Masih blasphemy case and Salman Rushdie) and a subcategory ("people prosecuted"). Taking the article about Masih first, this should be in the parent category, or perhaps Category:People prosecuted for blasphemy (the state of the proceedings is unclear from the article). Rushdie should not be in this category at all - WP doesn't do a "people accused of crime" category series (except those prosecuted, as already mentioned), for the reasons given by the nominator and jc37, and "people accused of crime X" shouldn't be put into "Category:Crime X" to get round this. So Salman Rushdie shouldn't be upmerged to Category:Blasphemy. In fact, the article that should be in the head category (but which wasn't until just now) is The Satanic Verses controversy. The sub-category of "people prosecuted" has to be upmerged or it will be left orphaned. Bencherlite Talk 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete. A list of people accused of blasphemy works because we can say who did the accusing. A category just opens up to many problems. Also, lists require sources and are much easier to maintain. There is no easy way to keep categories from being flooeded with unsourced accusations of living people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • There is nothing worth listifying because no information is going to be lost - as I attempted to explain, Rushdie's article ought not to be there at all because the Satanic Verses controversy article is the appropriate one for this category tree , and the other one ought to be recategorised elsewhere in the tree. And that's all that the category contains, apart from a subcategory. Bencherlite Talk 00:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to category:Blasphemy -- If we are to delete this, we need to work out how to recategorise the currnet contents. Neither case got as far as a prosecution. Rimsha Masih blasphemy case is a result of the mob rule that seems to apply in Pakistan to such cases: if a Mullah declares a person guilty of blasphemy, he (she) ought to be killed even if the courts establish that the whole case is trumped up. Rimsha's case never got beyond arrest, so that inclusion in the "prosecution" category would be incorrect. Iran would no doubt have like to prosecute Salman Rushdie, but could not get its hands on him. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete accused by whom? Not meaningful - according to David Koresh, all who didn't accept him as the returned savior is a blasphemers; I take it that we're all blasphemers around here now? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5&oldid=1074809806"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE