Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 26

< December 25	December 27 >

December 26[edit]

ROC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was upmerge. the wub "?!" 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:ROC Control Yuan to Category:Government of the Republic of China

Category:ROC Examination Yuan to Category:Government of the Republic of China

Category:ROC Judicial Yuan to Category:Government of the Republic of China

Category:ROC Legislative Yuan to Category:Government of the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Was goint to suggest speedy expanding "ROC" to "Republic of China" but due to lack of contents might just be better to delete and upmerge to parent category. Snocrates 23:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Bank of China Limited[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bank of China Limited to Category:Bank of China

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Bank of China. Snocrates 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Webby Awards winners[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Another award that is not defining for those who receive it. If we really need the information, then listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-defining award category per WP:OC. Doczilla (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another overcategorization. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining award. --Lquilter (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detete overcategorization. --Dan Leveille^TALK 08:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Production I.G.[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedied. the wub "?!" 21:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Production I.G. to Category:Production I.G

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The company's name is Production I.G, without a period following the "G". --Dino guy 1000 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename as spelling error. Snocrates 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted under Speedy rename per suggestion. --Dino guy 1000 23:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename for spelling error. Doczilla (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Provinces of South Korea sub-category[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename All per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Provinces--Yamadataro131231 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Burger restaurants[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burger restaurants to Category:Hamburger restaurants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename from slang term. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the term "burger" meant to be inclusive of hamburgers, cheeseburgers, "chicken burgers", etc.? If so, it may be the more correct and broader term. Snocrates 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was intended to include "chicken burgers". Is there a restaurant that markets itself as selling cheeseburgers? Even if so, a cheeseburger is a hamburger with cheese. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in France... Otto4711 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (and is there any need to have a separate Category:Fast-food burger restaurants? Aren't most of these places fast-food anyway?). Terraxos (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective inclusion criteria. What percentage of sales must be burgers, how is that threshold not POV, and what RSes tell us that the threshold has been met? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Ruhleben P.O.W. Camp[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ruhleben P.O.W. Camp to Category:Ruhleben prisoner of war camp

Category:POW at Ruhleben to Category:Prisoners at Ruhleben prisoner of war camp

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Parent category is Category:Prisoner of war camps not Category:P.O.W. camps or Category:POW camps. Not sure if name of camp is a proper noun and should be capitalized; I've opted for not, but it probably could go the other way. Snocrates 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Overcategorization. No other WWI POW camps have categories, and no other WWI POWs are categorized by camp. The names are already listed in the main article. I don't see this as sufficiently noteworthy to justify categories. Cgingold (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both POWs shouldn't be categorized by camp, many no doubt had tenures at various way-point camps as well as the camp in which the majority of their detention occurred. For the camp itself, perhaps a conglomeration of WWI camps, but not each individually. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "P.O.W.". While the expansion of the name is sensible, there is no real consistency across the sub-categories right now (e.g. Category:Japanese POW and internment camps. etc.) As it stands it matches the name of the relevant article. Personally I don't have a particular problem with it not matching, but if we are going to tidy one up then all should be done, and that includes the main article as well. (There are 100s of other POW camp categories - hopefully we'll get some more WW1 camp articles added to WP in due course, the Ottoman ones in particular. However Ruleben really warrants its own category as it was most unusual, in that it held a large number of notable civilian internees.) Ephebi (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't categorise prisoners by P.O.W. camp, unless it's a really notable one (e.g. Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp). I'm not convinced that Ruhleben is sufficiently notable; the article already contains a list of notable prisoners in any case. Terraxos (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:United States Army radars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Army radars to Category:Military radars of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Someone recently incorrectly sub-categorized all US military radars from Category:Military Radars (currently nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Military radars) to Category:United States Army radars. As these were not US Army radars, I was initially going to revert the changes. However, after thinking about it, I think it's better to rename the category to cover all US military branches. My reasons are:
1. There are only 21 articles total of which (roughly) 10 relate to the US Army, 9 to the US Air Force, and 3 to the US Marine Corps. Given the low number of articles, a single category for all US military services seems sufficient to me. If we have significant articles at a later date, sub-categorization could be added at that time.
2. Several of these radars were used by more than one service. While these could be handled by applying multiple categories, given #1, a single category makes it easier.
Thanks. -- JLaTondre 15:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. *Cough*... That "someone" was yours truly - I misconstrued the category as referring to the US armed forces in general. (Sorry!) Note also there are other categories (Ground radars, Sea radars, Aircraft radars, etc.) that do a much better job of describing a particular radar, without referring to a particular military branch. GregorB (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Factions in Total War series[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was upmerge. the wub "?!" 15:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category contains one list. Too narrow to be useful. Pagra shtak 15:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Total War series so that the article is not left without a category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Torah figures[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was merge. the wub "?!" 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Torah figures to Category:Torah people

Suggest merging Category:Figures of the Hebrew Bible to Category:Hebrew Bible people

Nominator's rationale: Recently renamed "Major Torah figures" as "Torah figures" on the basis that "major" is POV distinction, see CFD discussion Dec 16. Merely renaming the category kept the more important people in a distinct category but with a meaningless title; should be upmerged to Torah people. Likewise, Figures of the Hebrew Bible -> Hebrew Bible people. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. New evidence, your honour. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Sports in Mobile[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports in Mobile to Category:Sports in Mobile, Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Rename: to match parent category name Category:Mobile, Alabama and main article Mobile, Alabama. Dravecky (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: especially as there is also a Mobile, Arizona -- JD554 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main category. Altairisfar^talk 15:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Parks in Mobile[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parks in Mobile to Category:Parks in Mobile, Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Rename: to match parent category name Category:Mobile, Alabama and main article Mobile, Alabama. Dravecky (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I originally created this category and have no problem with a renaming, the proposal should have been the category name to begin with. Altairisfar^talk 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: especially as there is also a Mobile, Arizona -- JD554 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Subdivisions of Algeria[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Keep.JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only two subcategories (Category:Provinces of Algeria and Category:Districts of Algeria, the second one is also nominated for speedy deletion as it is empty and obsolete. BTW There are also no articles in this category. escondites 10:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a subcategory of Category:Subdivisions by country it's part of a larger system of category naming. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Grutness. This is one of 137 such subcats for 137 different countries. Keep as part of a good pattern. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness and WP:OCAT#SMALL. Snocrates 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having looked at the main article Subdivisions of Algeria, I have populated this category further. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian weblogs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted for the same reason the Liberal weblogs and Conservative weblogs categories were deleted back in March 2007. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_28#Category:Ideological_publications for the deletion discussion for those categories. Skylights76 (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous decision. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Libertarian was not among the political labels deleted in the link you provide. Liberal & conservative are typically deleted because they are vague terms that are particularly controversial in the US and used differently through history and in other places. I haven't seen that rationale applied to Libertarian, and again, Libertarian wasn't discussed in that earlier discussion. That discussion cited "POV" and controversial as applied to people; I'm not sure that would apply to Libertarian, which is a discrete and well-defined political ideology that doesn't seem used as a pejorative (the problem with "liberal" and to a lesser extent "conservative"). Could the nominator please address what the reason for deletion should be, and not simply say "for the same reason"? Also, what is the proposal to do with the items in this category? Upmerge to undifferentiated parents? The parent categories are "political weblogs" and "libertarianism" and, in my view, both need this kind of separation. --Lquilter (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is plenty of controversy about the term "libertarian." For example, left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are in most ways diametrically opposed, yet proponents still call themselves libertarian. Also, many who would generally be recognized as libertarians do not self-identify as libertarian, like some classical liberals, or are even opposed to libertarianism, such as objectivists. As such, anyone categorizing an article under libertarian weblogs would be promoting their POV as to what libertarianism actually is. If you look at the category, you'll see that this is clearly the case, with such disparate inclusions as, on the one hand, the neoconservative-alligned Ace of Spades HQ and Protein Wisdom, and on the other hand the classical liberal LewRockwell.com and Liberty and Power. And there is another POV problem. The fact that libertarian weblogs is now the sole ideological subcategory of Category:Political weblogs creates the impression that a POV is being pushed. In fact, it does provide the opportunity for people to promote such a ideological POV without competition from other ideologies which have no subcategories.
After the category is deleted, the items can simply be recategorized under political weblogs (where the "liberal" and "conservative" weblogs were previously recategorized) if they aren't already there. There aren't that many, and two of them aren't even weblogs. --Skylights76 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's pretty persuasive for the political weblogs category and also for the point in general. What about the "Libertarianism" category of which "weblogs" is a subcategory? --Lquilter (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the weblogs shouldn't be categorized under "Libertarianism," for all the reasons already stated. (You'll notice, too, that there are no weblogs categorized under Category:Liberalism or Category:Conservatism.) The only thing I would suggest is that "Political weblogs" be categorized under "Politics" and "Political media" (in addition to its current categories) so it's a bit easier to find. --Skylights76 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the other subcats, of course. It seems a little strange to have a "political works" category but not to categorize the works by ideology. I'm also not quite used to thinking of "Libertarian" as presenting the same problems as "liberal" and "conservative". Still, your points are good. I'm undecided, still. --Lquilter (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. If this is to be kept, it should contain only self-identifying Libertarian weblogs; but it would be best if it were deleted altogether. Terraxos (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about that, but if it were kept, it would still be the only ideological subcategory under "Political weblogs," and thus would effectively be pushing a POV. We could have other subcategories with weblogs self-identifying as that particular ideology, but that's already been rejected in previous discussions. Besides, just because someone says they're libertarian doesn't mean they really are (e.g. Bill Maher has said he is, but others dispute this). --Skylights76 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely subjective and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Marshals of Yugoslavia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Tito was the only one. Alas, Yugoslavia is no longer with us, so it's pretty clear there won't be any other ones. -- Y not? 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of overall classification scheme at Category:Marshals by country. It's irrelevant if there was only one when they are being classed by country. Snocrates 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency is a good thing, but a category for one entrant makes no sense whatsoever. Let's not be overly bureaucratic. -- Y not? 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can make sense when there is a general classification scheme by country, which is what exists here. See WP:OCAT#SMALL Snocrates 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not unlike Russian vice presidents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Christianity-related controversies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: One could honestly include almost anything in this category here; it is far, far too broad. I don't think that this is an encyclopedic tool that will help us build a better Wikipedia. אמר Steve Caruso 02:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the category. The problem is that 68.123.72.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is randomly adding things to it. --B (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague, non-defining. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nominator does not offer any alternative to group any/all these subcats and articles together. Like any system of belief, there are controversies. This is the properly named category for such articles here. The category is very specific: Christianity-related controversies is specific. It is also part of a properly organized set of such categories in Category:Religious controversies Hmains (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories should not be based on vaguely defined characteristics. The proper place to point the reader to related topics is the text of article itself. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've gone through this before. "Controversy" is subjective. Doczilla (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've gone through this before, and this category was the outcome. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3#Category:Christianity and controversy. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That was a request to rename not a request to delete. Also notice that even as an initial request to rename that it turned into a 2-delete:5-rename vote for all three categories involved. At the very, very least this category needs to be significantly cleaned up as it is next to useless in its current state. אמר Steve Caruso 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs cleanup/division into subcategories so it's clearer just what it's meant to include. Terraxos (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mishmosh of any article where there is a "controversy" (to whom?) and something "related" to Christianity. Why not toss George W. Bush into the cat, because he's controversial (to many) and related to Christianity (so he claims). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it is is mishmash and not well defined. Perhaps it contains some inappropriate items (e.g. one about Harry Potter), but that is a reason for cleaning it up (by removing the inappropriate). It may also be useful to create some more subcategories or perhaps to add text with "see also" items (which might enable all General Councils of the Church to be removed). However, there are issues about which Christians sincerely disagree: that makes them controversial issues, so that they are properly in this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian Homeland war people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Croatian Homeland war people to Category:People of the Croatian War of Independence

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Fooian war people" to "People of the fooian war" per naming conventions for Category:People by war; "Croatian War of Independence" per Croatian War of Independence and Category:Croatian War of Independence. GregorB (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency all around. Snocrates 12:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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