View source for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1

<noinclude><div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
|-
! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="grey">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 31|December 31]]
! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 2|January 2]] <span style="color:grey;">&gt;</span>
|}
</div></noinclude>

=== January 1 ===

====[[:Category:Wizards of the Coast novels]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', We already decided against [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_7#Category:Novels_by_publisher|Novels by publisher]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' per ''Novels by publisher'' precedent. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' per above [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' per precedent. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Rakeshsharma/userboxes]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', as user category.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Speedy Delete''' as user category. --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Prisoners Confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:<s>'''''Rename''' to [[:Category:Prisoners at the United States Disciplinary Barracks]].''</s> -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*No. '''Delete''' underpopulated category that is not noteworthy. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Doc. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Although I'd put Leavenworth in parantheses so folks understand what the category is.   [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' No need for this category, a list would serve the topic better -- in fact, of the 4 current entries, only two actually qualify.  Two of the articles clearly state that the subject is no longer confined to the Barracks.  [[User:TheMindsEye|TheMindsEye]] 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I don't think a category being ''currently'' underpopulated is a reason for deleting it, as categorizing takes time.  I can see a place on Wikipedia for categorizing famous prisoners by their institutions, tying together those who served at Folsom State, those who were at Alcatraz, and the notorious ones who were sent to Leavenworth.  I don't quite follow the reasoning behind lists versus categories?  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**:First, it was the "not noteworthy" part to which I was primarily referring.  Secondly, one point is that a category appears on every relevant article, <exaggeration>and some articles have more categories than text</exaggeration>.
***'''Comment''' So, if "not noteworthy" is not the primary reason for omitting it, then underpopulated?  But I just got told it was fine to create 3 categories, 2 with 1 person, and 1 with 2 in it.  I would like to get these policies straight?  Is  underpopulated a reason for deleting a category?  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
***:Er, you need to read what I actually wrote. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' not a notable category --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I disagree.  These are the sort of lists that people make all the time, lists of prisoners executed at Leavenworth, list of famous prisoners of Alcatraz ("prisoners of Alcatraz" gets 5200 hits, "inmates at Alcatraz" a handful, "inmates of Leavenworth" some).  When people search for this information, "List of prisoners at Alcatraz" they should be able to come to Wikipedia for it. This has utility value beyond its curiosity.  And what are the criteria for category notability? [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Prison can be notable, but this title is unwieldy -- why can't we do "Fort Leavenworth prisoners" and the like? --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  Whether a prison is notable is irrelevant to whether it makes sense to categorize who is held there.  As noted above, two of the four entries in this category at the time of its CFD listing aren't even at the prison any longer.  Prisoners get moved or released.  The prison articles (or separate subtopic list articles) are quite capable of listing what notable inmates they have held, when, and for how long.  Absent that information of time and duration, this becomes mere trivia, and classification should not be based on such an overly specific and transitory fact.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to ''[[:Category:Prisoners at Leavenworth]]''; Changing my vote, this seems to be one of those cases where nobody uses the official name, and most people don't even know the official name.  So, if we keep it, lets just call it '''Leavenworth'''. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Boys Boarding Schools, Virginia]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Boarding schools in Virginia]], or [[:Category:Boarding schools in the United States]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 14:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', not a useful case of subcatting by gender. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. [[User:Mike 7|Michael]] 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Jewish Supreme Court justices ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus to delete; rename to [[:Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices]]'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Jewish Supreme Court justices}}<br/>
'''Delete''' overly specific, trivial category.  It's also ambiguous (''which'' Supreme Court?).  It was meant for U.S. Supreme Court justices, but we already have a substantial article on [[demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States]].  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. If you add the other Supreme Court justices found in [[List of Jewish jurists]], the cat becomes non-trivial. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' overcategorization. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Ethnic categorisation is rather invidious in this field. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', there are no different supreme courts for different religions. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.WP is full of Categories by ethnicity.--LAZY 1L 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**And we have [[:Category:Jewish American jurists]], which no one is challenging here...but intersecting ethnicity to a specific position/job title is unnecessary and unhelpful for purposes of that category system, especially considering that the SCOTUS article on the demographics of justices already records this information in a much better form and context. If this category is proper, why not make [[:Category:Jewish American judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]], etc.? [[:Category:Italian American M*A*S*H cast members]]? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
***If you are going to use the "slippery slope" argument then every category is up for questioning.Jewish Supreme Court justices makes sense. Jewish 5th circuit judges does not make sense. --LAZY 1L 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 
*'''Keep''', but change to specify that this refers to the U.S. Supreme Court. [[User:Mike 7|Michael]] 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - If Jewish people have had to overcome social obstancles (i.e. racism) to get onto the U.S. Supreme Court, then an article on Jewish U.S. Supreme Court justices (with the individuals listed in the article) would be much more meaningful.  If Jewish people have not faced problems that are any different from any other U.S. Supreme Court justices, then the category really has no significant meaning.  In either case, the category should be deleted.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', and include Supreme Court justices in other countries, or change category to US Supreme Court.
*'''Delete''' Irrelevant and excessive cross-categorisation. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', overcategorization. Being Jewish is no barrier to being a Supreme Court Justice, so this category tells us nothing special. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
** Being Jewish was a huge barrier to becoming Supreme Court Justice.see [http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/louis-brandeis-1916-1939.html], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds].Although now it is far less difficult for a Jew to get onto the Supreme Court, one has to have their head in the sand to think that people are "religion blind" and they do not "notice" when a Jew is appointed to the Supreme Court.--LAZY 1L 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not claiming that it ''was'' never difficult, but it was no barrier to [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]. It doesn't make sense to tag every Jewish Justice between the Signing of the Constitution and the Great Robot Rebellion. Perhaps you are looking for [[:Category:Jewish Supreme Court Justices who had a hard time getting there]]. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Anyone with a knowledge of Jewish American History knows the great obstacles due to their religion that most of the Jewish Supreme Court justices had to overcome to make it to the bench. In my opinion it is an important categoty.--[[User:Mrs random|Mrs random]] 09:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to Jewish judges in the U.S [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Let's stop all this category hating. There is no great loss to society with the creation of this category. If anything it will be beneficial. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:209.212.21.182|209.212.21.182]] ([[User talk:209.212.21.182|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/209.212.21.182|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
**What "category hating"? People who care about categories want to see bad ones deleted. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as an irrelevant intersection. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' POV category. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' for a whole bundle of reasons. First test: were these judges sitting on the Supreme Court in a Jewish way? If not, this is an irrelevant intersection.  If this category is kept, then logically all SCJs should be categorised by ethinicity and religion, which would be both unhelpful for navigation and also a form of apartheid. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]]  • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*I'm also going to point out again that a substantial article on [[demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States]] exists, which documents, in the full context of historical significance, the ethnicity, gender, religion, age, geographical origin, education, and economic background of the justices.  The article documents this far better than categories can and without creating category clutter.  Otherwise, either a flood of extra categories for all such intersections would result, or the ghettoization of categories such that individuals would ''only'' appear within the ethnic/religion subcategories.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' then '''Rename''' to make it clear that the category refers to United States Supreme Court justices. Given the significance of religion in judicial appointments nowadays (and no judicial body is more significant than the Supreme Court) in the American political environment categories to outline the religious background of Supreme Court justices is not unreasonable. Last year The Economist had an [http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VQQNTQS entire article] devoted to the increased appointment of Catholics to the Supreme Court, so "trivial," the matter of religion, is not. [[User:Thethinredline|Thethinredline]] 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Afghanistani women ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Afghanistani women}}<br/>
'''Delete''', Roughly half of all [[Afghans]] are women and "Afghanistani" isnt a correct adjective.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into ''[[:Category:Afghan people]]'', as gendered category. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Do not Merge.  Afghan is the adjective and we do not need the redirect. --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' inaccurately named category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge/delete''' and '''block''' per numerous precedents. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Mike 7|Michael]] 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Sermon writers ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Sermon writers}}<br/>
There does not seem to be a significant distinction between a minister/pastor/preacher and one who writes his own sermons. Very few preachers give someone else's sermons, and even ministers who are not full-time preachers give their own sermons occasionally. Thus, I think this cat is largely redundant with the existing [[:Category:Christian ministers]] etc. --[[User:Flex|Fl]][[User:Flex/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Flex|x]] ([[User_talk:Flex|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions:Flex|contribs]]) 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' But Christian ministers include people whose ministries have nothing to do with writing (or preaching) sermons.  Homiletic ministry is only one part of ministry.  [[:Category:Christian ministers]] may include a vast number of people who minister in all kinds of other ways! [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Can you give some examples of who would fit in [[:Category:Sermon writers]] but not [[:Category:Christian ministers]]? That might help make a good case one way or the other. --[[User:Flex|Fl]][[User:Flex/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Flex|x]] ([[User_talk:Flex|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions:Flex|contribs]]) 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:::It's probably a subcategory of Christian Ministers, so I'm not certain of the point of asking this?  We have all sorts of plants in the [[:Category:Angiosperms]] that are also in the [[:Category:Nymphaeaceae]], we don't argue that we have to eliminate the subcategory Nymphaeaceae, just because they're all Angiosperms.  We don't eliminate cats as a category, just because they're all mammals, or mammals just because they're all animals, or animals just because they're all living things.   [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''' [[:Category:Christian ministers]] seems to be for ordained persons (though I disagree with that inclusion criteria -- ministry can be done by lay as well as ordained).  All kinds of people write SERMONS.  It is mostly ordained people, no doubt.  But not limited to them.  And only including those who are known for their sermons, even if they are also known for other achievements.  They might also be academics or pastors or whathaveyou.  Hope this helps. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 12:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:::**'''Comment''': Fair enough, but see my response below to tjstrf about renaming it. --[[User:Flex|Fl]][[User:Flex/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Flex|x]] ([[User_talk:Flex|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions:Flex|contribs]]) 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' redundant and inadequately defined cat. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', redundant. Don't they all? [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - As indicated, the category is redundant. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Not all ministors/pastor/preachers write their own sermons.  However, this category has some older well-known preachers in it who were known for their sermons.  This was an 18th and 19th century American oratory tradition, preachers who spoke all over the place, delivering sermons they had written, and had published versions of their sermons that were collected in works sold to their audiences.  I believe the tradition was not simply American, although this is all I know about.  Possibly the title does not make the distinction, but there are preachers who are known for their sermons, the ones they write and deliver themselves, but ''known'' for the written versions of their sermons.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - The category includes living people such as [[David Jeremiah]] and [[Chuck Swindoll]] who have published books.  Should these people also be counted as "sermon writers"?  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 22:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***'''Comment''' Did they write sermons? or just books?  If they didn't write sermons, they don't belong.  However, I suspect in the long run the list will be peopled with historical examples, not modern examples.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' Moreover, many of their books were written first as Sermons (something many of their books openly acknowledge)! [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 12:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' - I am going to guess that this category will be misunderstood (at best) and will be filled with people who do not belong.  Therefore, I am still going to advocate deletion.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*****'''Comment''' But the solution to this is to do away with all categories.  It's just impossible to deal with eliminating categories just because someone might misinterpret them.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
******Assume competence! [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 12:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' As you can see, this cat is a subcat of [[:Category:Writers by format]].  Sermons are every bit as important a form/format of literature as Poems, diaries, essays, speeches, etc.  Certainly more important than comics or sketches (at least to many).  All of these formats have similar subcats.  So should sermons have, especially in an historic sense (but even in a present sense, too).  E.g., the sermons of [[Jonathan Edwards]] -- extremely important to English literature!  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 12:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' In the past books of sermons were bestsellers. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Writers of sermon books]]. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Is Radiant correct, though, about the format of the title of the category?  Just because someone can't use something properly, doesn't mean it should be deleted.  I say Assume Competence.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
***'''Comment''' "Assume Competence" -- I like that!!  It applies to a whole host of CfD's!! [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
****It's not a matter of "competence," it's a matter of whether someone reading the category name can ascertain what you thought it meant.  And based on what is now over two and a half years of Wikipedia dealing with categories, we can only assume contributors will equivocate and attempt every possible interpretation that the words can conceivably sustain.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' another category that Pastorwayne has failed to justify. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:: What's with the personal attack? [[User:NDCompuGeek|NDCompuGeek]] 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - overcategorisation. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 14:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Question''' So is [[:Category:Hymn writers]] overcategorisation?  [[:Category:Speechwriters]] ??  [[:Category:Interactive fiction writers]] ??  We must not need ANY subcats in [[:Category:Writers by format]].  Let's do away with the whole cat [[:Category:Writers]], too, while we're at it!  [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**"Speechwriter" is a defined and distinct occupation and job title.  Is this true of sermon writers, such that there are sermon writers who do not belong in [[:Category:Christian ministers]], or members of [[:Category:Christian writers]] who write sermons only?  If not, then why wouldn't inclusion in either of those two suffice?  Or are you aiming for a narrower subcategory like [[:Category:Christian ministers who write sermons]]?  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
****'''Answer''' It is not about the writer as much as about the format or genre of the writING.  I believe this is a subcat of format, not of pastors or clergy or ministers. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
***I don't think it has to be Christian, although it probably will wind up being mostly Western, largely 16th-19th century Christians.  And I don't think it would have to be a minister, anyone who writes sermons could be included.  And it's a specialized type of speech.  But certainly it could be a subcategory of speechwriters, if that's a category, as inspirational speeches are a subcategory of speeches, and eulogies.  Again, just because something belongs in a bigger category, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subcategorized.  Or maybe I'm missing something in the arguments for, if it can be in a bigger category the smaller category should be deleted?  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - This category has value as referring to the distinct literary genre of published sermons (whether or not actually delivered) for which many European clerics, from the C16th onwards, were famous in their own day and are still famous - [[:Bossuet]], [[:Fénelon]], [[:Robert Sanderson]], [[:Lancelot Andrewes]], [[:John Wesley]] himself are only a few that spring to mind immediately, and all these (+ many others) could very usefully have this category added to them. (I am not familiar with the American equivalents). These people are not co-terminous with [[:Category:Christian ministers]], and I can't off the top of my head think of any notable non-Christians famous for their sermons, as that is a specifically religious form. As writers of a distinct literary genre, sermon writers are surely on the same footing as hymn writers, speechwriters, poets, dramatists, journalists and the rest. [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', there are ministers notable for their skill in the authorship of sermons for whom sermon writers is a decent subcategory. For example, [[Jonathan Edwards]] of [[Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God]] fame. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
**Sure. But what about every other minister who writes sermons but is not widely known for them, like say [[John Frame]]? He's well known (at least in certain circles) for his books, essays, etc. but not for sermons, though he does give them from time to time. Is the cat only for those notable for their sermons (in which case it should perhaps be renamed [[:Category:Notable sermon writers]], [[:Category:Writers of notable sermons]], or similar) or for anyone who writes sermons? --[[User:Flex|Fl]][[User:Flex/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Flex|x]] ([[User_talk:Flex|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions:Flex|contribs]]) 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
***There simply isn't a way to make that kind of distinction in a category.  If it's just titled "sermon writers," everyone who ever wrote a sermon is going to be dumped in it because that's what the category name invites.  And "notable" is one of the many forbidden category words because, like "famous," it's either redundant to the minimal notability required to even have an article, or it requires an irrevocably POV judgment above and beyond that, kind of "notability plus."  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
****Are you saying the cat should not exist because everyone who has ever been near a pulpit will be dumped in it, making it nigh unto useless for browsing? (Is that a criterion for keeping/deleting cats?) It would still leave out, say, Carl Sagan even if myriad Christians who aren't particularly known for their sermons will be added to it. --[[User:Flex|Fl]][[User:Flex/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Flex|x]] ([[User_talk:Flex|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions:Flex|contribs]]) 17:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*****'''Comment''' This argument can be made for almost every existing category.  I'll get some random articles for examples, [[Ya'an]], well, that one's well and finitely categorized, [[La Feuillie]], a disambig page to non-existent articles, [[WWIII Music/AMC]], needs major editing, categories, okay, here we go, [[D'oh]], Homer Simpson's catch-phrase, is in the category Words, which has a subcategory, Words by language.  So, every word in every language is going to be dumped in it, so it shouldn't exist.  If the person merits an article in Wikipedia AND they write sermons, this is the category for them.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' &mdash; overcategorisation.  the category isn't very useful, and who should be included will either be anyone who has ever written a sermon (which makes the category bloated and unhelpful) or (subjectively) those whose sermons or sermon writing are significant. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as overcategorisation. I think that Mel Etitis sums it up nicely: either the category will be bloated and unhelpful or it will be subjective and POV. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Actually, Mel Etitis' comments if applied would shoot the great majority of cats out of the water. Most categories can be messed up if people are dim about using them, but that's no reason not to have them. Sermons are an important genre in the history of European literature, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, and this cat is valuable for those writers (most of whom will admittedly also be Christian clerics, by the nature of sermons) who are notable for their published sermons: that includes some very important writers (I named a few above), many of whom are principally notable for sermon-writing and who would be inaccurately / incompletely categorised if this cat were not available.
:Would it help if inclusion were restricted to writers of '''commercially published''' sermons (ie, not just in the local parish newsletter? [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': There are those who, as mentioned earlier, just write sermons and do not deliver / preach them.  There are also those who just write speeches and do not deliver them.  Speechwriters have a category to aid in the finding and grouping of these people.  This category will do the same.  Didn't just about everyone write a speech in high school?  Wouldn't that mean that ''everyone'' must have an entry in the speechwriters category?  Again, I say '''keep''' because the noteability baseline will restrict this category from becoming overly bloated, and it will be a help for the categorization of those who write sermons - without consideration if they preach or not. [[User:NDCompuGeek|NDCompuGeek]] 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' People who write and --usually--pblish sermons are distinct from preachers writing sermons for their own use. The most notable seermon writer who was not a clergyman was [[Samuel Johnson]] who wrote sermons for a number of his friends. Their source was acknowledged, and they form a major category of Johnson's works, comprising one of the volumes in the standard modern edition. As SJ said at one point, (approximately) Sermons are such an important part of our literature that a collection containing no sermons would be altogether incomplete. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Military brat ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Military brat}}<br/>
:{{lc|Military brats}}<br/>

'''Delete and block''' This has been deleted at least once before, and I believe more than once. Parental occupation is non-defining and this term is not neutral. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
::Please provide past CfDs, archives, or diffs to support above, thanks.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Meegs.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26#Category:Military_brats] The previous category was deleted before Balloonman's work at referencing the term.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**Reasons for previous deletion:
**POV Term---this is not factual.  See the article [[Military brat (U.S. subculture)|military brats]] for discussion on linquistic reclamation and acceptance of the term by the described community.  Military brat is not the same as spoiled brat.
***The word brat is the word brat. We don't have [[:Category:Niggers]] even though lingustic reclamation is going on there as well. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
****Please cite your sources.  The dictionary will show that your statement is false, scientist/researchers will show this statement to be false, politicians will show this statement to be false, military personell will show this statement to be false.  [[:Category:Niggers]] has not been universally accepted by the described community NOR has it become a studied/investigated subculture.  Researchers use the term military brat to describe a definable subculture, they do not use the term nigger.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**Not a defining characteristic.  Again inaccurate as it is a heavily studied characteristic.
***You are making assumptions that studies that support your view are correct and that the results apply to anyone who has ever acknowledged the term in an interview, perhaps humourously or in answer to a leading question. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
****Ok, show me research to the contrary, otherwise your statement is original research.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**"[I]t is highly speculative and largely unprovable that it has a major influence on their lives." This is again a false assertation as it has been shown to be a major influence on people's lives.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***I mean their public lives. We should categorise people on the basis of the achievements that made them suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. The most important things in people's private lives like marriages and parenthood don't meet this criterion, so we don't categorise by them. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
****So you'll vote to delete EVERY category that describes people---like the ones about where they are from or what high school/college they graduated from?  Those are less studied/supported than this term.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' a few people have mentioned that parental occupation is not a defining characteristic and thus the category should be deleted.  The subject of [[Military brat (U.S. subculture)|military brats]] is a highly studied subject not because of the parents occupation, but rather because of the impact on the individual.  It is NOT the same as saying, "Children whose parents were accountants," but more along the lines of a racial/religious/cultural identity.  A quick read of the article should show that being a brat does have an impact on who/what one is.  It is NOT what your parents did, but rather how that affected the child on the long term.  The effect of growing up as a brat have been heavily investigated.  The effects can also be found in [[Third Culture Kid]] research.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete and block''' per nom. What my parents did for a living should not define me as a human being. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I'm talking about blocking the category, not the creator. I see no reason not to assume good faith on the creator's part. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**If what your parents did for a living had a direct impact on who you were and was studied, then it is every bit as legitimate as many of the other categories out there.  Being a military brat is a studied subject.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***But the fact is that you don't personally know what impact my parents' occupation had on me, so it's not up to anyone except me to declare myself a "military brat" or "preacher's kid" or "teacher's kid" or whatever. A properly cited '''list''' of self-declared military brats would make sense. You can't annotate a category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
****No I don't know what the effect of your parents occupation had on you, but has the effects of your parents occupation been studied like military brats?  Do children of your parents occupation self identify themselves as whatever your parents were?  Military brats and PK's do.  Military brats grow up with that term and identify with it.  It is a studied term that is used to describe anybody whose parents were in the service.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 10:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete, block creator''', non-neutral, irrelevant to the article and its subject. [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Support/Keep''' It is neutral, I can pretty much guarantee that the people who have voted no, are not brats themselves or they would not question it.  [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28identity%29#Self-identification|Wikipedia naming conventions]] states "when naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use" and "do not assume that a different term is more inclusive or accurate."  As for the relevance of the parents.  This is a studied sub-culture.  Please see [[Military brat (U.S. subculture)]] wherein it discusses the characteristics which are common among military brats.  You will also note from the recent  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/archive1|FAC]] that brats supported the use of the term.  There are also over 160,000 occurances of the term "military brat" if googled.[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22military+brat%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official] Also please notice the reference section for the [[Military brat (U.S. subculture)]] references [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_brat_%28US_subculture%29#References] numerous books and scientific articles on the subject.  This is a bonafide subject and legit category.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Military brats call themselves brats, such as myself, and are proud of it. It is a neutral term in this context. Wiki needs to stop being so *&*(()% politically correct.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**It is complete nonsense to suggest that this nomination has anything to do with political correctness, which I despise as much as anyone can. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 06:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' per Rlevse and Balloonman. [[User:Sumoeagle179|Sumoeagle179]] 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' subject to every addition to the category being well-referenced to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] in the subject's article.  Suggestions to block the creator are unwarranted, spurious, and I question the [[WP:AGF|good faith]] of suggestions to block the creator, considering that {{user|Balloonman}} has been very hard at work on referencing the articles and the category, his efforts are in good faith, and his work has been subjected to several peer reviews and FAC.  Balloonman asked me to look at this CfD because I have been following the article since it's [[WP:FAC]] and peer reviews - I, too, had objections to the term, but he has referenced its usage according to Wikipedia policies. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Full disclosure.  I've contacted those people who are interested in this subject AND those people who previously voted to delete the category.  The term is not offensive and is verifiable.  I don't want those who are ignorant of the subject determining the fate of the category.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**PS - pick one, and delete the other - is the category brats or brat?  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***I think brat is the appropriate category... when I went online to create it last night, somebody else had beaten me to it... so it looks as if they created the redirect.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment on block''' I guess others were suggesting a block of {{user|ChardingLLNL}}; reviewing the history shows that the cat wasn't created by Balloonman.  I don't know anything about ChardingLLNL's edit history, but that does change my comments above. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*****Yeah, somebody else created it, but I went through and added the category to people who I have been able to document are in fact brats.  I would have created it if it wasn't for his beating me to it. [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***I would think that "brats" would actually be the better term; pretty much every other category for people is in plural form. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''  A look at Balloonman's contributions and work at Wikipedia would have been sensible before calling for this user to be blocked--sourced, edited, referenced, peer-reviewed, hard-working, works with others, and a call for this editor to be blocked is issued?  I can't know that any more careful look was taken at the term, brat, than at the creator of the category, but I'll assume the comments were done in good faith and that the person actually looked at the category, the term and its creator.  I suggest folks read the article [[Military brat]] to see why this is a legitimate category and how being the child of military members impacts the life of the child, before saying that elimination of the category is all about "children not being defined by their parents."  There is a lot of research referenced in the article, and more can be found all over the web, and in your library and bookstore.  There's probably a good article on the nature versus nurture debate on Wikipedia also, for those who consider their parents had no impact on their lives.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**Other user ([[User:ChardingLLNL]] does not appear to be a problematic editor, either, no reason to call for his or Balloonman's blocking appear in either editor's histories or contributions.  A simple reading of the article about  military brats and looking at their edit histories should have been done first.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – the plural one was deleted after this [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26#Category:Military_brats|July 26 discussion]]. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. People who say the term is not neutral obviously weren't military brats themselves. It gets to the point of, "should you speak on something you don't know?" [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|I did "That's hot" first!]] 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' and [[WP:SALT|salt]] both as recreation of previously deleted category; I also agree that parental occupation is not defining.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - I do believe the category has a lot of malplaced quality info that should be placed in the article.  The fact that the malplaced info was well referenced because it is malplaced.  With a proper short category intro this page should be deleted for [[WP:NN]] [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**Am I the only one unable to follow TonyTheTiger's statement?  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***No, you are not. Read my comment after my keep vote. It seems to be a case of just that. [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|I did "That's hot" first!]] 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
****Tony, could you elaborate, I'm not following your arguments?  Are you simply saying it fails notability, and therefore should be deleted?  Balloonman covers this issue, if that is the case.   [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' You cite notability. The first sentence in the notability section reads: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other."  The article for military brat cites over 40 different articles, books, and studies surrounding the subject of military brats.  This does not include many of the studies where military brats are lumped in with [[Third Culture Kids]].  A google search will pull up over 160,000 hits and there are scores of books and studies on the subject.  But to cite a few, from the article:
***Ender, Morten, "Growing up in the Military" in Strangers at Home: Essays on the effects of living overseas and Coming 'home' to a strange land. Edited Carolyn Smith, Alethia Publications: New York. 1996
***Morten G. Ender, ed. (2002). ''Military Brats and Other Global Nomads: Growing Up in Organization Families,'' Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. {{ISBN|0-275-97266-6}}
***Musil, Donna, [http://www.tckworld.com/thebratsfilm/index.html “Brats: Growing Up Military > Project Overview > Integration.”]  Retrieved [[December 3]], [[2006]].
***Quigley, Samantha (25 April 2006). “Author Explains Culture for Fellow Military Brats.” American Forces Press Service.
***Truscott, Mary R (1989). ''BRATS: Children of the American Military Speak Out," New York, New York: E. P. Dutton. {{ISBN|0-525-24815-3}}[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***See also this list of some pubmed articles on the subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_brat_%28U.S._subculture%29/Archive_3#PubMed_Research]
* '''Keep''', well-referenced, and apparently a significant characteristic for these individuals. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Coomment''' BINGO, being one myself, I can vouch it is a DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of my life. That's all that needs to be said here. That is the same reason we have cats for Jewish people, homosexuals, ad infinitum. Those who are not mil brats themselves simply don't know what they're talking about (99% of the time).[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''The fact that the subject is well chronicled is what makes for such a fine article. It has no bearing on the notability of the category. Individuals in the category must be notable as individuals not for belonging to a notable category. I probably placed the wrong argument. WP:NN is really an argument against articles. What I mean to say is that all of the introductory info in the category is malplaced. A category should not require an essay of introduction. You should not have to cite a category with references (IMO). I am a strong supporter of the article. This does not mean a category needs to be created or that I should support one.  All superfluous introductory Category information should be moved to the article page. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Oh, I get it''' Tony's right, it should be ''famous'' military brats or ''notable'' military brats, not just military brats.  I say, '''replace''' with Famous military brats.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I added the information on the category page in an effort to avert a CfD... I knew that people who are unfamiliar with the term or it's acceptance would nominate it for deletion.  So, I tried to avert it by discussing it there.  I have absolutely no problem deleting the stuff on the category page as it comes straight from the main article.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*(after edit conflict)'''Keep''', per Balloonman, Kirill and others. There does not seem to be any intent to put all offspring of military personnel in this category, which would be problematic. As it stands, it seems useful (and certainly doesn't fall under the description offered in the nominations). [[User:Carom|Carom]] 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**after another edit conflict - Tony, I'm still not following your reasoning for a deletion of the category?  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' the plural version. This category is a cultural identity. The category inclusion criteria are objective with only very narrow grey areas. The term itself is neutral; it doesn't really have the negative meaning the word "brat" alone might carry. Most people categories are plural, so keep cat:Military brats and delete/redirect the other one. (edit conflict) [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep/rename''' to "Famous Military Brats."  Being a military brat does indeed affect the person you become, as vividly explained in the article it's linked to.  As has been argued to death for the benefit of those who apparently don't care to listen, this is not the same as being the child of an engineer, but rather this is a culture in and of itself, like being Jewish or being Cuban or whathaveyou--it directly affects who the individual will be when they mature.  The fact that those who oppose the category are the same as those who didn't read the article on the subject really says something--if you're not knowledgeable about the topic, why on earth would you feel qualified to speak on its notability or NPOV?  --[[User:ScreaminEagle|ScreaminEagle]] 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep and/or Rename''' per Balloonman and Kirill. However, it should be renamed to "Famous Military Brats" or "Notable". '''[[User:Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">S h a r k </span>]][[User talk:Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">f a c e </span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">2 1 7 </span>]]''' 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''  The extensive duplicative article material in the Category has to go.  Like other categories it, if it survives, should use the [[Template:Catmore1]] to define itself. --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''  The new article does define the class, and it is relevant to some people.  However is the utility of the category outweighed by the likelihood that anyone with military parents will be placed in the category regardless of whether they are self-identifed "militray brats" and regardless of whether they have the attributes discussed in the new article?  I think that the utility of the category is low, and the likelihood of abuse is great.  I do dismiss the idea of a Famous Military Brats category.  It does not solve anything and raises its own problems.  Being famous ''as'' a military brat is unlikely, and does not go to the attributes that [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] has highlighted.  Being otherwise famous is irrelevant.  If a person is not otherwise notable, then they aren't going to be in the encyclopedia anyway.  So, I would delete [[:Category:Military brat]] because it is almost impossible for it to be used correctly.  Instead of a category, I think that a List would be appropriate and would meet the needs of [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] and other "military brats". --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 23:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**[[:Category:LGBT]] would then be much more problematic.  People do consider it vandalism to be called gay/lesbian/etc.  People would not find it offensive to be called a military brat, once they understood the term.  All of these arguments can be used for a number of other categories.  But they still exists. As for usefulness... I think it's just as strong as these other categories.  People who are interested in the subject, will want to know and be able to identify them.  I should also note, that as a studied subculture, it doesn't matter if the individual self-identifies with the group, they are part of the group.  Anyway, the thing that you fail to understand is that it is a term that brats do accept---I have NEVER met or heard of a brat who doesn't acknowledge that fact.  I've met one or two who may not like the term, but never one who doesn't acknoweldge that they are a brat.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***Another example:  if someone's bio indicatates they are born in [[Venezuela]], they can be included in a Venezuelan category, even if they no longer self-identify as Venezuelan, have given up citizenship, and renounce all things related to [[Hugo Chávez]]'s "Bolivarian" Republic.  You're born with, you can't get rid of it - as Venezuelan ex-citizens say, Chávez is like gum stuck in your hair. Self-identification isn't part of the category-defining process:  Wiki will still categorize Venezuelan-born as Venezuelan, and "brat" (as documented and referenced by Balloonman) isn't harder to reference than LBGT, religion, ethnicity, citizenship or any other category we have.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
****Too go one step further, I've seen articles stating 3 or 4 places with the category "People from."  The person may have lived in Colorado for 2 years, and now they are "from Colorado."  Being from Colorado has less documented effect than growing up in the military... and is often harder to validate.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 16:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**Follow-up---how is it "it is almost impossible for it to be used correctly."  One either is or is not a military brat.  If one's parent(s) were in the service, then one is a brat.  This is usually a fairly easy thing to obtain and obtain reliably.  Issues such as sexuality and religious beliefs are often less reliable and/or subjective---especially on a historical basis when those terms meant different things than they do today.  Being a military brat simply means that one's parents were in the armed forces.  It is something that media outlets and newspapers and politicians use all the time---without fear of being sued.  [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' My father was in the Navy in WWII, I was born after he left active duty, does that make me a "military brat"? My friend grew up and went to high school out of the same house in Virginia, they never moved, his father was a sergeant in an Army band, none of the criteria in the article apply to him (except the occupation of the father).  Is he still a ''military brat''.  He doesn't think so.  --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
***'''Comment''' No, technically you're not a military brat, and I thought the article covered that.  Balloonman, please take care of this.  Really, none of the criteria, not a single one apply to this child of a career military NCO?  CWell, he's human, and there are plenty of exceptions.  [[Adult Children of Alcoholics]] don't all meet all the criteria, neither do children whose parents are Afghans, or all sorts of other people.  But a lot of children, growing up under these circumstances, share many traits.  The article does explain this, or Balloonman should be called to task.  Maybe he's edited this section out.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
****Opening sentence, "A "military brat" (or "brat") is a person whose parent(s) served full-time in the armed forces ''during the person's childhood.''"  Having a parent who is ex-military does not make one a brat.  A person whose parent is called to active duty, ala a reservist, is technically a brat but as explained in the article may not identify with the culture or share the characteristics because they aren't really part of the military culture. [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**Follow-up---"likelihood that anyone with military parents will be placed in the category regardless of whether they are self-identifed "militray brats" and regardless of whether they have the attributes discussed in the new article?"  The attributes are like any culture/subculture---generalizations about the culture/subculture.  An African American is an African American even if he doesn't share any of the cultural generalizations that could be made.  A Roman Catholic is a Roman Catholic even if he doesn't share any of the generalizations one could make about Roman Catholics.  A military brat is a military brat, even if they don't share all the attributes sociologist have found in that subculture.  It is an objective term, accepted and used in the military community.  I challenge you to find any source that indicates or implies that military brat is NOT accepted by children of military members.  The closest I came was one researcher indicated that 2 older brats (out of 82) didn't care for the term, but acknowledged that they were still brats.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 10:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I think we've covered the issue of this term being POV or not.  It's not.  For the rest, I'd honestly like to see some standard of what categories should be, but I think it's important to take the question of military brat as being an identifier like being born in California, or New York.  Or being Jewish.  Given that the Wiki-preference seems to be for categories, not lists, I can't see why this category is being singled out.  Is there some real policy established anywhere?  [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I see that other categories don't include the ''famous'' moniker, just the presumption, as someone states above, that if they're there, they're already famous.  I think this is just confusing me.  Overall, the category is fine, it belongs, it categorizes something specific.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**Correct - including famous or notable is redundant.  "Famous" is unencyclopedic, and notability is established (theoretically) in the individual's Wiki article.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Neutral''' on deletion discussion; actually, recusing myself due to personal ties to a major party in this discussion. However, I '''strongly object''' to the proposal to block the category's creator, [[User:ChardingLLNL]], and/or other involved parties. Besides the fact that I see ''no'' offensive language, suggesting a block seems not to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and is not supported by the [[WP:BP|blocking policy]]; repetitive disruption does not seem to be occurring. I am not one to wheel war, but if there is a block to the creator of particular category, I will likely unblock. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo]][[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">100</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']]</sup> 00:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Balloonman's arguments, it is studied and neutral --[[User:Awiseman|AW]] 07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', maybe change to "Notable", but any idea of blocking the user is outrageous, or of blocking the category is POV. As an expert if non-credentialed  contributor to this article, the very idea that an editor, whomever it is, can say "such-and-such shouldn't define who I am" is as POV a statement as there is. Who are you to define what should or shouldn't be if the article defends and documents itself? The term is not offensive, it was one of the first things I noted about myself as I was growing up, and even when I created my user page. There is so much fluff and truly offensive stuff not only tolerated on wkipedia but given the golden star that there is room for a serious article to prompt serious thought about a topic that impacts society. A list of prominent persons produced by the subculture is a gateway to further insight, pro or con.--Buckboard 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' U.S. centric, POV and trivial. This discussion has obviously been manipulated by an interest group. People who use this term are the last ones who can judge whether it is suitable for Wikipedia. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**I don't use the term, I opposed the first FAC, but since then Balloonman has defined and referenced the term to Wiki standards of verifiability, using very reliable sources.  If "brat" is not suitable, then, there are likely thousands of categories less fitting to Wiki standards, which haven't established verifiability, reliability, and notability to the extent that "Brat" has. There are many categories that are specific to a given country:  that's not a reason to delete them all. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**How very dismissive of other peoples' votes, reasonings, and most importantly, life experiences. But it's your opinion, and opinions are like as...well, I think you can fill in the blank. [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|I did "That's hot" first!]] 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', systemic bias, non-defining characteristic, redundant with better-written list ([[List of Famous Military Brats]]), article masquerading as category, and shouldn't use slang terms in cat names. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**Could you explain the comment "systemic bias?"  I don't see it.  It is a defined term used to describe one whose parent(s) were in the military.  Thus, a defined term without any connotation of bias.  One either is or isn't a military brat.  As for non-defining characteristic, again this is not an accurate statement.  It is a defining characteristic---thus the research that has gone into the subject to identify the effects of growing up as a military brat.  Finally, as far as slang terms, this is more than a slang term today.  It is a defined term used by sociologist and researchers to describe a self-identified/aware community. [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**How would ''you'' know it isn't a defining characteristic? Are you one and feel it doesn't define who ''you'' are? I really don't understand why people feel compelled to speak on things they don't know! [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|I did "That's hot" first!]] 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*<s>Merge to a single article and '''keep'''. [[User:BSVulturis|BSVulturis]] 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)</s>
**You misunderstand the options. Merging to an article means deleting the category and we already have the article [[military brat]]. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 16:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
***Thank you. Vote retracted until I have time to grasp what's appropriate. [[User:BSVulturis|BSVulturis]] 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Very strong delete''' A term that requires hundreds of words of justification on the category page is too loaded for use as a category name. [[User:Olborne|Olborne]] 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**Those words were removed... I put them there because I knew that a non-brat would nominate this for CfD... because non-brats see the word "brat" and instantly think, "This is POV."  They are ignorant of the other connotations the term has---and the acceptance of the term.  Senator John Cornyn, Phil Gramm, and John McCain III all proudly call themselves brats.  The term is so accepted that John Cornyn used it to describe Janice brown during her United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  The problem isn't the term, but the fact that people unfamiliar with the term think it's derogatory.  Lack of knowledge on the part of some is not justification for removal.  The use and acceptance of the term has been established.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 17:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I don't really see how this would be less defining than what school you went to or what state you're from, and we have categories for those things. It's an obvious keep to me. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per Demi, but the name really needs sorted out. The article isn't U.S centric, but the name implies it is, so get that sorted. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''[[User:Heligoland|'''Heligoland ''']] |  [[User talk:Heligoland|'''Talk''']] |  [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|'''Contribs''']]</font> 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**Actually, the article is very US centric, thus the qualifier.  Studies on non-US brats has not been conducted and other countries have very different military cultures than the US. IT would be impossible to write a truly global article on brats, just as it would be impossible to write a comprehensive article on the Jewish Culture.  Too many different experiences and environments.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' The word "brat" is pejorative, and people see that regardless of whether they are familiar with the term "military brat" and its supposedly non-pejorative meaning. [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Very strong delete.''' It's a subjective term, applied by an individual upon themselves based on their own experiences. There's no adequate, objective criteria for labeling someone else a military brat, and in this context could be [[libel|libellous]]. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:*How is "Your parents were in the military while you were a child" a subjective term?  And I am frankly concerned that people think it's libel to have Wikipedia mention a person's heritage.  You'd have to be totally ignorant of what the word means, and in such a case, well, that would be the ignorant person's problem, not Wikipedias.  [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 21:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Here's the text from Encarta.com, an on-line dictionary for this definition of brat: "2. child from military family: the son or daughter of a serving member of one of the armed forces (informal) an army brat," please notice that it does not give any indication that it is pejorative or libellous.  So, please provide ''your'' references that show that in this usage the term is pejorative.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**If it were libel would newspapers and magazines use the term in describing people?  Would Senators use it to describe themselves and their spouses?  Would a senator use it to describe a Judicial nominee that he supports?  I challenge you to find a SINGLE source that says that military brat is libel.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*** '''Comment.''' First of all, Balloonman, I think you're far too close to this issue to talk about it dispassionately. And frankly, I've little interest in arguing with you since I'm not going to change my previously stated opinion on this category. The unanswered question is whether anyone can call someone else a "military brat". You've already cited examples of people calling that themselves -- I've no problem with that. But by what standard can you categorize someone as such even if they don't identify with the term? How do you know whether or not "military brat" is universally accepted by everyone who had parents in the military? The article on military brats talks more about it being a personal point of pride -- again, unless someone actually says "I'm a military brat" who are you or anyone else to label them as such? [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' Well, who are you to label someone a truck driver?  Can anyone call someone else "trudk driver?"  "Cowboy?" "Soldier?"  "Husband?" Is it universally accepted by everyone who drives a truck?  Is it universally accepted by every cowboy, every soldier?  If that's the criterion, I hope we don't have a category for Japanese people or occupations by nationality or hundreds to thousands of other categories that we already have.  If someone is born in Japan, the child of 40 generations of ancestors born in Japan, we better ask them first if they identify as Japanese before we categorize them as Japanese?  That can't and isn't a criterion.  Or if it is, heck I've been wrong before, give me a link to that particular policy, because there are many categories that need deleted for failure to offer 100% total universal acceptance of the label applied.  I've never actually said, "I'm a resident of the Central Valley" out loud.  That doesn't mean I'm not one.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
****Think of it this way: You've made a statement that military brat is equally offensive as Spoiled brat, and I'm challenging you to defend your statement, otherwise it is original research.  I've provided numerous sources to the contrary (including the Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Command[http://www.pacom.mil/speeches/sst2000/milchild.htm], a US Congressman/member of the Armed Forces Service Committee[http://www.senate.gov/~bennelson/news/details.cfm?id=239293&&], numerous sociologist/researcher[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_brat_%28US_subculture%29#References], etc.)  Unless you can show us that military brat is libelous, then your statement is [[Wp:or]] and thus [[wp:POV]].[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
***Here are some newspapers/magazines/websites using the term.  If it were libelous, do you think they'd use it?  Also do you think that the people here, who are brats, would say so?  Congressmen on Judicial nominee[http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=966&wit_id=2047], American Forces Press (If it was libelous they would know)[http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2000/n08252000_20008252.html], Saint Petersburg Times[http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/Hillsborough/Mincing_few_words__pu.shtml], "In the Spirit of the Smokies" magazine[http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/Hillsborough/Mincing_few_words__pu.shtml], CBS[http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor2/survivors/jerri_b.html], New York Times[http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?_r=2&res=9403E0DB163EF934A2575BC0A9669C8B63&oref=slogin&oref=login][http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/reference/biersdorferbio.html] [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDF163DF937A1575BC0A966958260], Rocky Mountain News[http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4305191,00.html][http://www.denver-rmn.com/shooting/0822fata1.shtml], Denver Post[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3924895], Westword Magazine[http://www.westword.com/blogs/?m=200607], MudvilleGazette[http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/2005_12.html], Brightwell Publishing[http://www.brightwellpublishing.net/PortfolioWeekly.htm], Hinesville Coastal Courier[http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10867517&BRD=1389&PAG=461&dept_id=161952&rfi=6],  MyrtleBeachOnline.Com/Sun News[http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16310813.htm?source=rss&channel=myrtlebeachonline_local], Yahoo Movies[http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800014424/bio], Honolulu Advisor[http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Mar/08/mn/mn01a.html], Vh1[http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/rem/bio.jhtml], US News and World Reports[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/041011/11whisplead.htm], CBC[http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2003/08/22/brat220803.html], National Public Radio[http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=military+brat], Bloody-disgusting.com[http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/feature/269], Beaufort Gazette[http://www.beaufortgazette.com/state_news/regional/story/6295440p-5490273c.html], Indianapolis Star[http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2006/11/sorry_nostalgia.html], The Guardian[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1764769,00.html], NBC[http://www.nbc.com/Fear_Factor/rewind/105_rewind.shtml], Random House[http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/authors/bird/index.html], Blackmilitaryworld[http://www.blackmilitaryworld.com/served.htm], Daily Utah Chronicle[http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2005/10/03/Opinion/Gatrell.Needs.To.Respect.The.Opinions.Of.Others-1007204.shtml?norewrite200701021942&sourcedomain=www.dailyutahchronicle.com], PBS[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/speakout/mystory/militarybrat_2-11.html], Austin Chronicle[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Calendar/Film?Film=oid%3A140973], WashingtonPost[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113000236.html].  There are literally over 160,000 hits on google.  If this was an offensive term these respected news agencies would not use the term.  Military ''Brat'' does not mean Spoiled ''Brat.''  Media sources use it all the time, so claiming it is libelous, is simply wrong---it is a statement made out of preconceived notions of te term brat.  Not realizing that it is accepted in the military community.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**** Balloonman, I don't know whom you're addressing. You said: "You've made a statement that military brat is equally offensive as Spoiled brat." Can you show me where I made that statement? Thanks. KP Botany: for the occupations you cited, I think you'll find a lot of objective criteria here [http://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm]. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. The fact that it is used a fair bit isn't important as the same applies to thousands of unsuitable terms. It just isn't neutral enough, and the characteristic referenced is unencyclopedic in any case. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' or '''Rename''' to something appropriate (at the very least ''Merge'' the two categories). Being a so-called "Military Brat" would be a defining influence in the person's childhood, forcing them to relocate every couple of years. (For what it's worth, I'm a CFD lurker / occasional voter, and don't have any military bias.) [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I am a Military Brat, and wear the label with pride. All of the kids I knew at the bases where my dad was stationed were also proud of being called the same as that set us apart from the "townies" and we considered ourselves lucky because we were not "stuck" in the same place - we got to travel, see interesting places and meet interesting people. Ballonman has done a great job on the article itself, and when I saw that articles on other people were categorized according to some distinguishing characteristic, such as guitarists from Georgia, or Senators from Maine, I thought that in the keeping with that logic that it was warranted to create the category. Also, I do not understand why some are calling for blocking me for creating the category - it was done in good faith that such a catagory would help locate members of this well documented and researched sub-culture. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:ChardingLLNL|ChardingLLNL]] 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is nothing to do with why people have articles. [[User:Annandale|Annandale]] 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  The category is too broad covering anyone who was a child of someone in the military.  It is also not a defining point for most people.  <s>If kept, rename to [[:Category:Military children]].</s>  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and please don't take it personally. No denigration of life experiences is proposed here, any more it is for the hundreds of thousands of other people who are not categorized by parental occupation. [[User:Wilchett|Wilchett]] 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  Aside from anything else, I don't think that the names of categories should be local slang (would it be limited to U.S. or North American people?), but also I agree that it's not a significant characteristic for most people whose parents were in the military &mdash; and deciding who were significantly affected by their parents' occupation would probably be PoV in many cases.  I certainly think that describing it as a subculture is odd. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete and salt''' non-defining characteristic. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Not to be rude, but people who are saying that this isn't a defining characteristic, slang, or describing one's parent's occupation are not familiar with the research that has gone into this subject.  Military brat is a well cited/referenced term, which has been shown to have a profound effect on who one is as an adult. Scientific research, not opinion, supports that statement.  But here is a '''Compromise proposal.'''  The article on [[Third Culture Kids]] (TCKs) needs to be improved, but TCKs is a broader term used to describe anyone "who follows their parents into another culture."  Just as adult Children of Alcoholics are studied because of the definable long term effects of growing up with an acoholic, children of highly mobile families are studied because of the definable long term effects.  ALL of the research into TCKs discusses "Military brats," by name, as the largest component of TCKs.  My proposal is thus, create a new category "Third Culture Kids."  And then within that category create a subcategory "Military brats."  This should assuage people who are unfamiliar with the term that we are using it in a scientifically studied academic enyclopedic sense that transends the boundaries of a slang term.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' Let's look at some of the criteria listed in the [[Military brat (U.S. subculture)|article itself]], most of which are referenced, accurately I presume: <blockquote>Military brats are typically highly educated, outgoing, loyal, patriotic, idealistic, and honest... Life on military bases instills patriotism within the brat... Their strict adherence to military values is what separates military brats most from their civilian peers... [Military brats] "aren't just non-racist, but anti-racist."</blockquote> Do all the persons listed under the military brat category fit these criteria? If someone exhibited none of these (and I've met a few children of military families who want nothing to do with "military values"), does that automaticaly make them ''not'' a military brat? Look at the category list. There are several names there that I would say calling them military brats -- based on the articles' criteria -- would be a huge stretch: Jim Morrison (!!), John Philips, Bob Marley (military values?? LOL), John Denver, Michael Stipe, Andy Dick. What possible justification is there to list these people as military brats, if not just for parentage? Remember, I'm not saying to delete the article, which aside from a few niggling problems is not bad. Just the category. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
***Exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the scientific studies on cultures.  With ANY culture there are exceptions---often notable exceptions---who break the mold.  Sociologist study populations for population norms, which may or may not fit individuals.  The term Military Brat is objective because, despite "Bob Marley" not fitting the mold, he is still a military brat and part of the subculture.  The movie Rain Man is based on a real life autistic person, [[Kim Peek]] who has broken many of the norms of autistic people.  His success doesn't invalidate the norms associated with autism.  Likewise, your 'exceptions' does not disprove the sociologist and researchers who study the subject.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' about famous or notable in the name.  These are not required since you can not have an article unless you are notable, so anyone included is by definition notable.  Adding notable to the category goes against previous renames and still leaves the problem of establishing the category as one for those who are notable because they were a military brat.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*If kept or no consensus, '''Merge''' [[:Category:Military brat]] to [[:Category:Military brats]]. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and '''block''' the category. We do not classify by parental occupation and the fact that someone has come up with a colorful term for this particular intersection is not a reason to start to do so, but if anything the opposite. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' &mdash; why is everyone that is in favor of deleting the category basing that on a misinterpretation of the term? It does not categorize by parental occupation. It is a sub-culture characteristic. It is not derogatory, libelous, or pejorative. It has absolutely <b>nothing</b> to do with the pejorative "brat", which is argueably libelous in the first place. I have yet to hear of anyone being sued for calling someone a brat or even a spoiled brat. &mdash; [[User:ChardingLLNL|ChardingLLNL]] 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*:Um, you do know it's not just someone, but a very large number of people who use this term, furthermore, is there some evidence that Wikipedia don't classify by parental occupation for any particular reason?  Certainly ancestry is important, or are you arguing for the deletion of all the categories that reference where somebody was born?  This is no different.  [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*::The widespread lack of categories such as "Children of lawyers" is evidence.  The only exceptions I'm aware of are the subcategories of [[:Category:Children of national leaders]], which are not only very specific and 100% clear (there is no doubt as to who belongs in [[:Category:Children of Presidents of the United States]]), but most of the entries exist only because of that relationship, as being the child of a national leader (in some countries, at least) is sufficient to endow notability.  We also don't actually categorize people by birthplace specifically (though if we did, at least that would have objectively clear criteria), but more broadly by where they are "from," which includes adult as well as childhood residence; regardless, the city and other subnational people categories are typically a mess with unclear inclusion criteria (are you "from" somewhere if you were just born there but never lived there, only went to school there for a year, etc.), and so are hardly a model of good categorization.
*::Another problem with this category is that it has no logical parent&mdash;[[:Category:People by subculture]]?  [[:Category:People by childhood experience]]?  There's simply no precedent for it, it doesn't fit into anything, and I haven't seen a good reason for making this ''sui generis''.  The keep votes seem largely driven by personal attachment to the subject ("I was a military brat, so I know how important it is"), or misplaced arguments that are really justifications for having an article on the topic ("the ''concept'' is well documented"), without any explanation as to why this is a sensible category based on how we use and handle categories generally.  Hopefully the closing admin will take note of the lack of relevant rationale for keeping (as well as the fact that these were recreated without anyone ever challenging the previous CFD on DRV), rather than just writing this off as "no consensus."  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 15:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and '''block''' a very useless and large category and to some extent derogatory --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
::* '''Comment''' please provide a pointer to any articles/writings/sources to support your assertion that it is derogatory. &mdash; [[User:ChardingLLNL|ChardingLLNL]] 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*It's at the very least a colloquialism, for which there does not appear to be a non-colloquial descriptive term (which says something).  While I will not dispute that the term deserves an article, whether it's appropriate for a '''category''' is a completely separate question (see, e.g., [[polymath]]).  Furthermore, we don't have a practice of categorizing people by "subculture" (as you said above this was an example of), and I have not yet seen a good reason for starting.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
::::"Most of the '''professional research''' on growing up in military families has contributed to the perpetuation of the 'brat' label... It is no wonder that the label endures and is as polular as ever," Morton Ender in "Growing up in the Military" (p128.)  While it may have started out as a slang/colloguial descriptive term, it is now used and accepted in academic/research circles as an accurate descriptor of a distinct definable community.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I was not aware that [[Andy Dick]] and [[Bob Marley]] were in a "community"; you make it sound like they lived in an Amish town together. Can you point to another category on Wikipedia for a similar "community"? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''.  The defenders of this category seem to have trouble deciding what its status is.  When defending its objectivity, they calim that anyone born of military parents qualifies; when defending its significance, they claim that it's a subculture.  Now, if it's the latter, then the former is false (as a number of people have pointed out), and conversely, if the former is true, then it's not the latter.  --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**Huh?  Your argument makes no sense.  You make two points that are not contradictory and try to present them as such.  "Military Brat" is an objective term; anybody whose parents are active duty is while growing up is, by definition, a military brat.  This is a well established definition, thus objective.  This definition defines a subculture that is studied and researched, thus its significance.  You then point to some [[wp:or|original research]] where somebody points to military brats who don't fit the mold. They have provided [[wp:or|Original Research]] to argue that it disproves the model, but that's their opinion, not fact.  Within any cultural description, there are exceptions to the rules.  Pointing out perceived exceptions does not invalidate the scientific researched on the culture as a whole.  There are African Americans who do not like the term, but we still have scores of categories that are "African American XXXX."  We have no fear of categorizing somebody as an African American, eventhough they may not like/accept the term.  There are African Americans who do not like "black culture" or fit the mold, but that doesn't invalidate the culture.  Nor do those exceptions invalidate research into those communities.  The term is objectively describes the subculture specifically because it is not subjective and not one that can be renounced.  For example, Bill Cosby has caught a lot of flack for his criticism of the African American community, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still black. Likewise, even if one of the people described above as not fitting the mold were to say, "I'm not a military brat" or "that doesn't describe me."  That would not change the fact that they objectively part of this studied subculture!  Belonging to the subculture is NOT something that people chose/reject, they either are or are not part of that culture.  That's what makes it objective, you have NO FEAR of somebody saying "I'm not a military brat," because even if they did, it doesn't change the objective fact (as defined by the community and researchers who study the culture) that they are![[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**:You seem not to have followed my point (and also seem to have a very odd notion of the nature of culture/subculture).  However, this discussion is ludicrously long, and I doubt that it's worth pursuing the point further. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' These categories seem to employ an extraordinary amount of POV and personal bias into their inclusion; in actual fact, I fail to see how these could warrant as valid categories at all, because of their bias. Secondly, as has been indicated upteen times in this CfD, familial background does not warrant the inclusion of a category. --[[User:Jb-adder|JB Adder]] | [[User talk:Jb-adder|Talk]] 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' because the category is too large & unwieldy, and too specific to 20th century US context to be generally useful. It is ''not'' "offensive".  And it ''is'' a significant part of individual identities and not just parental occupation.  So a "list of famous military brats" or "list of x-generation military brats" etc. are fine. '''Oppose''' the knee jerk suggestions to block the user which are at best poorly thought out.--[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' we generally don't categorize people based on occupation or status of parents, or based on subculture (and it still isn't clear which this category is for, which also makes it less useful), and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to make an exception in this case (unlike the children of US presidents, where that is often why they're notable, few people are notable soley for being military brats). [[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete and Salt''' The validity of this specific cultural meme is not being questioned, it is obviously of some notability in US culture. However as others have stated it is not proper to classify people by their parents' employ. And while it is clear that this is a badge of honor to some, a person not familiar with the term (as the majority of Americans, and the vast majority of non-Americans would be) who simply sees Bob Marley being called a "military brat" at the bottom of his page would not understand the term and get a wrong impression. [[User:Thethinredline|Thethinredline]] 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Fictional swordfighters ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Fictional swordfighters}}<br/>
'''Delete''', non-defining characteristic. I can name at least 2 bajillion fictional swordfighters off the top of my head. Also, I'm about 417% certain this category has been deleted before, but I don't feel like finding the old discussion. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Wielding a sword (or something vaguely sword-like) is not a defining characteristic for a fictional character.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' – the ability is not defining and is too common to make an interesting or useful cat.  Incidentally, I looked and could not find a real-life counterpart to this (other than [[:Category:Fencers]], which is certainly ok). Axem, you may have been thinking of [[:Category:People who carry swords]], deleted after [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_1#Category:People_who_carry_swords|this October 1 discussion]]. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' People who carry swords was a fictional character category. Not in name, but in content. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', overly broad and useless. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The great majority of fictional characters who engage in combat in stories set in periods prior to the age of handguns fight with swords.  This would potentially be a very large category. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is fanboy nonsense. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' There are LOT of fictional swordfighters whose swordfighting is not notable --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 03:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', for all the reasons given above. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 18:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====Category:Referendum====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''Relist'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 08:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
''Moved from Speedy''

*[[:Category:Referendum]] to [[:Category:Referenda]] plural. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Referendums]] or else keep at [[:Category:Referendum]]. Both plurals are in use but referendums is more technically correct in English - see [[referendum]]. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' Surprisingly convinced to rename to  [[:Category:Referendums]] by [[referendum]]. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename AND prune''', probably subcatting by country is best. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Referenda]] (etymology is all very well, but standard usage in the U.K., at least, is "referenda"). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' So why is the title in legislation "referendum"? See the text of the [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97061--a.htm#end Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997] and the [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000041.htm Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000]. What's the evidence that standard usage goes for the Latin plural rather than the English one? [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
**:Well, one bit of evidence: [http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&q=Referendums about 2,260,000 Google hits for "Referendums"] and [http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&q=Referenda about 5,000,000 Google hits for "Referenda"].  Those are unlimited; the proportion is about the same when limited the U.K. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 13:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Fictional bisexuals ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus to delete/merge; no consensus to rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Fictional bisexuals]] to [[:Category:fictional bisexual people]]
*'''Rename''', if the category has to exist, then it should match {{cat|Bisexual people}} and {{cat|American people}} etc. ~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 15:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Against''', if they are fictional, they aren't really people. --[[User:Deenoe|<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b>]] 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to [[:Fictional bisexual people]]. Capitalize the F. "Bisexual" is best used as an adjective, not a noun. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Or better yet, [[:Fictional bisexual characters]] for consistency with other fictional character descriptions (and to cover fictional bisexual anthropomorphic animals). [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**Don't worry, the software doesn't allow a [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter|lowercase first letter]], anyway. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 20:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per Doczilla [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' use of "people" in a category name for fictional characters. '''Merge''' category to [[:Category:Fictional LGBT characters]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC) You're right that it should say characters. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', Already covered by [[:Category:Fictional LGBT characters]], and wheter THAT category should be deleted is another argument. ([[User:Animedude360|Animedude]] 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
*'''Merge''' per Otto. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*If consensus swings back to merge with {{cat|Fictional LGBT characters}}, then please please please count my vote as '''merge'''.~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' under one name or the other, but do not delete. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' unless the LGBT category is also deleted. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:* The point is that it's not nominated for deletion because bisexual people are unworthy of categories, simply hard to differentiate from gay in a lot of cases. No points for keep in the last CfD should have even counted, they failed to make any objective point. Anyway, this is about '''renaming''' for the most part, so I urge an administrator to still rename this category to {{cat|Fictional bisexual people}} despite the lack of consensus on the merge/keep debate. Or better yet, merge it, hah. ~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''rename''' as it is necessary to describe things accurately. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:*LGBT defines bisexual people accurately, in fact moreso in cases where homo/bisexuality can be hard to distinguish.~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' (that is: '''Keep under existing name''').  On its existence: I tend to the view that this is overcategorisation, though it's on the margin.  On the renaming: the notion that "fictional people" is somehow contradictory is peculiar (it must make reading novels or watching plays and films a bit of an odd experience), but unless anyone other than a person can be bisexual (OK, plants I suppose, but on how many fictional plants are there likely to be articles?), I don't see the point of a change. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or '''merge''' back into LGBT characters, since there's quite a bit of ambiguity in who is actually bisexual and who's gay, and LGBT already covers bisexuals (hence the B). There was a similar debate about "Fictional lesbians" and that category was deleted because of too much ambiguity. [[User:Katsuhagi|Katsuhagi]] 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Fictional skateboarders ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Fictional skateboarders}}<br/>
*'''Delete''' - This is an ad-hoc category for any character who rides a skateboard.  Unless you believe that [[Marty McFly]], [[Bart Simpson]], and [[Spyke]] have other things in common besides riding skateboards, this category should be deleted.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Too many characters have driven skateboards. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - too broad, doesn't contribute any meaning to the article. [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Dr. Submillimeter, although that sounds like the greatest cross-over ever. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - unless '''all''' the Fictional Sportspeople categories are deleted, this one should stay. Why delete one and not the rest? However, if all of them are to be deleted then so should this one. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HillValleyTelegraph|HillValleyTelegraph]] ([[User talk:HillValleyTelegraph|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HillValleyTelegraph|contribs]]) 20:59, 4 January 2007</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:*''Keep''. In some cases being a skateboarder is part of the character. For example, many Simpsons episodes are built around Bart and his skateboard, for instance ''Bart the Daredevil''. If Marty McFly were not an expert skateboarder, he would not have been able to escape from Biff in the first film or use the hoverboard in the second film. And Max Goof's skateboarding abilities actually make up the plot of ''An Extremely Goofy Movie''. What should be done is to restrict this category to those such as the above characters whose skateboarding is fairly important to the plot, rather than a character who merely says in one line in one scene in one episode, "I like stateboards". <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:81.77.193.208|81.77.193.208]] ([[User talk:81.77.193.208|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.77.193.208|contribs]]) 12:55, 7 January 2007</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Education in Kuala Lumpur ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''keep'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Education in Kuala Lumpur}}<br/>
'''Delete''', This category is redundant. It can be expressed more neatly in the categories Schools in Malaysia and Universities and Colleges in Malaysia, both subcategories of Education in Malaysia. Geographical location can be further subcategoried. [[User:Skoban|Skoban]] 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Not redundant, and one of at least 135 education by city categories. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' non-unique per osomec and because we don't want to reorganize an entire country unless we need to ;) [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Other cities have this category as well such as Paris (Category:Education in Paris).[[User:Wai Hong|Wai Hong]] 07:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Argentine racing drivers]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Argentine racecar drivers]], convention of [[:Category:Racecar drivers by nationality]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 18:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom (though I find "racecar driver" a clumsy, nursery-English sort of phrase.  I suppose it's U.S. English?) --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Former Lutherans}}<br/>
:{{lc|Former Mennonites}}<br/>
:{{lc|Former Anglicans}}<br/>
I accept that Former Religion categories have support, but these three are quite recent and seem way too specific. We can't have a former category for every denomination. Also they originally were only of those who became some form of [[Methodism]], which strikes me as strange.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Ok, I learned a new word today.  But this work '''opprobious [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opprobrium]''' is way too strong!  It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions.  It should not be an offense to anyone.  It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way.  It is knowledge and fact.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:*I don't think I used the word "opprobious" and if you'll notice I was/am silent on some of these others. I just thought you got too specific here in a way that could lead to an overabundance of these. I mean should we have [[:Category:Former Free Will Baptists]] or [[:Category:Former Irvingites]]?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 14:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - This category could be subjectively interpreted.  Does it include people who simply stopped going to church, or people who have officially declared themselves to have left the religion, or do the people in these categories need to be baptised as belonging to another faith?  Given the open-endedness of the category, it should be deleted.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I should perhaps mention that I'm not, this is not, a CfD for [[:Category:People by former religion]] or even [[:Category:Former Protestants]]. I just felt the three I listed were getting into newer more specific territory than those so needed to be discussed. I'm not wild about any of the Former Religion cats, but the main ones survived delete before.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 15:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Weak delete''' -- I'm not opposed to "Former religion" categories in general, but these three specifically don't seem to add much beyond "Category:Former Protestants".  There are lots of people who switch Protestant church affiliations for reasons of practicality or convenience (e.g. stopping going to an Episcopalian church and starting going to a Presbyterian church because they've moved), but who do not particularly consider themseleves to have "converted" -- and it would be faintly ridiculous to put such people in a category of "Former Anglicans" or whatever... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 15:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Indeed, these categories are for further specificity for those who are '''Former Christians,''' indicating not transfer from one Protestant denominaton to another, but from the Christian faith to another religion entirely (or possibly from Protestantism to Catholicism).  As such, though the specificity of former Anglicans or Methodists may not be needful, for parent cats of Former Christians or Former Hindus, etc., most definately are! Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:**If so, they have already failed. {{cl|Former Anglicans}} includes two members who became Methodists (and if so, we should include the entire second generation of Methodists); and one who became a Lutheran (or perhaps held Anglican and Lutheran orders concurrently.) '''Delete''' [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' into Former Protestants, the individual religions are similar enough that they do not mean much in someone's life. [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think I vote '''merge''' or upmerge myself. Maybe it's assumed I voted delete, but I put this up to discuss more than to delete.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' all of these as descriptions that should not define people and are not as clearcut as one might think -- e.g., one can be both a self-defined Christian and an atheist. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', cat people by what they are, not what they are not. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', for balance. We had a very similar discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination)]] recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: <br/> If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:I believe I'm non-voting on the others, if I slipped up and voted on the others I'll cross out the vote, but I'd like to give a response specific to the ones I nominated. I feel the categories I nominated are different than say [[:Category:Former Muslims]]. The Muslim category has the positive [[:Category:Converts to Islam]]. We do not have [[:Category:Converts to Anglicanism]], [[:Category:Converts to Mennonitism]], or [[:Category:Converts to Lutheranism]]. The neutrality concern that we are having "only the positive convert to X" categories and not the "negative former X religion" categories doesn't apply in these cases. If anything it's the opposite. We only have the "ex-members" categories for these. I guess we could start convert categories for these, but I think I'd prefer not to.(What I'm saying here also applies to the Christian Science category I created and nominated for cfd) In other words I'm trying to go on a case by case basis. Others here are making statements on all "former" categories, but I'm not.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
::Addendum, I've withdrawn the nomination of [[:Category:Former Christian Scientists]], but on reflection I think these three have a slight difference from it. Christian Science is something a bit more like the Mormons, in that it's kind of a separate issue from Protestantism whereas these aren't.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people.  I accept the fact that for some it is.  However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': all the "former religion X" classification should be deleted as a rule. It is not a primary characteristic, it is hard to verify and corner cases could became battlefields. The current individual voting is mistake, the whole tree should be treated at once. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:Such a vote would probably fail or reach no concensus. I also nominated these for different reasons that don't relate to the whole category.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' --- [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' them all.  Pointless overcategorisation. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' them all per Vegaswikian.  Plenty of people switch between different protestant denominations, and don't regard it as a hard-and-fast-choice; there are plenty of people who switch between (for example) Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist churches simply on grounds of convenience (which church is closer etc).  This is very rarely a defining characteristic, and it is  often not a permanent choice. By extenfing these categories to more specific than former protestnats, we also risk ending up with a categorisation schme to fit the prejudices described in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1580452,00.html this joke].<br />I'm afraid that this is another example of the chaos caused by [[User:Pastorwayne|PW]]'s approach to categorisation, which appears to be look at an article on a methodist individual, select labels which could be attached to that person, and then create both the category and any subcats necessary to tie it in place. --01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' them all. Some of them seem to be people (eg [[Jacob Albright]]) who left one religious order and founded another, which is surely a defining feature. ('Former Lutherans' don't upmerge to 'Former Christians' (some remained Christians) or 'Former Protestants' (some remained Protestants).) (I expect we could concede that Henry VIII would sit happily in a 'former Catholic' category.) I don't think PW has defended these categories very well, neither do I think the case against has been established - if people are put incorrectly into a cat they can be removed. Eg I don't think the article on [[Isabelle Eberhardt]] establishes that she was ever a Lutheran. (The joke above is most welcome.) [[User:Pc1dmn|roundhouse]] 19:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe, but this could start really filling things up if acceptable. Going by [[:Category:Christian people]] and [[:Category:Christians by denomination]]: this would open the door for: [[:Category:Former Assemblies of God people]], [[:Category:Former Baptists]], [[:Category:Former Calvinists]], [[:Category:Former Congregationalists]], [[:Category:Former Foursquare Gospel Members]], [[:Category:Former Huguenots]], [[:Category:Former Methodists]], [[:Category:Former Covenanters]], [[:Category:Former Presbyterians]], [[:Category:Former Messianic Jews]], and [[:Category:Former Uniting Church in Australia people]]. (Also, by extension, [[:Category:Former Shi'a Muslims]], [[:Category:Former Sunni Muslims]], and [[:Category:Former Orthodox Jews]]) Possibly this isn't a bad idea, but I'm still a bit skeptical.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 18:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Former Scientologists ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''keep'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Former Scientologists}}<br/>
Same reason as CfD on all other "former religion" cats nominated by me today. Opprobrious and magnets for trolls who are against a particular religion or religious belief.[[User:Rumpelstiltskin223|Rumpelstiltskin223]] 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Ok, I learned a new word today.  But this work '''opprobious [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opprobrium]''' is way too strong!  It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions.  It should not be an offense to anyone.  It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way.  It is knowledge and fact.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - arent they a cult rather than a religion? <b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' People should not be defined by churches they used to attend. It's not who they are now. (And Scientology is legally a religion.) [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:In the United States and a few other countries. I think there are English speaking nations where it's status is more uncertain.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Rumpelstiltskin223 gives no reasons for this particular category to be deleted, only a blanket statement that trolls might abuse categories like it with no examples. [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' this one, my reason for deletign the above does not apply here [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It's a category used in the media, Wikipedia users might as well have access to it.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It's notable and encyclopedic and should be kept. '''[[User:Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">S h a r k </span>]][[User talk:Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">f a c e </span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">2 1 7 </span>]]''' 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' [[Special:Contributions/Pink moon1287|Pink moon 1287]]<small><sup>([[special:emailuser/Pink moon1287|email]]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pink_moon1287 talk]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Pink_moon1287 user])</sup></small> 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', for balance. We had a very similar discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination)]] recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: <br/> If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people.  I accept the fact that for some it is.  However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep with reservations''' But there has to be verification in the person's article that they were a former CoS member. [[Olivia d'Abo]] is a great example -- nowhere in the article is her erstwhile Scientology membership even mentioned. And including [[Quentin Hubbard]] in the category is a little misleading in the article doesn't make it at all clear whether he left the church prior to his death. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:I removed Quentin until there's a cite that he left Scientology before his death. (Confusion over the word "former") [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' As we don't divide between past and present, living and dead, this is a necessary companion to the Scientologists category, since it could otherwise be used in a misleading way to suggest that Scientology has more adherents than is really the case. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  Pointless (and to those who say that it's used in the media, I'd say that's evidence for not against my view). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
::Not at all pointless. Anyone doing research on the trends in religious "migration" needs "converts ''from''" as well as "converts ''to''" information. A category is a fine way to catalogue that information. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:::As Scientology is only 53 years old, and was limited in following in its first years, a "converts to" category would be almost all of them.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Former Jehovah's Witnesses}}<br/>
Same reason as CfD on all other "former religion" cats nominated by me today. Opprobrious and magnets for trolls who are against a particular religion or religious belief. [[User:Rumpelstiltskin223|Rumpelstiltskin223]] 14:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Ok, I learned a new word today.  But this work '''opprobious [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opprobrium]''' is way too strong!  It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions.  It should not be an offense to anyone.  It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way.  It is knowledge and fact.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Arent they a [[cult]] rather than a religion? <b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' People should not be defined by churches they used to attend. It's not who they are now. And they are not a cult. Every church began as a cult. After a century and a half with millions of members, they are a church. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per directly above, no explanation by nominator for these. [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', cat people by what they are, not what they are not. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', for balance. We had a very similar discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination)]] recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: <br/> If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**See above. I'm not sure balance matters in this case. We don't have a [[:Category:Converts to Jehovah's Witnesses]]. This isn't an argument to delete or keep, but I feel it's relevant to your point.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:::We don't have that category ''yet'', but there's no good reason why someone shouldn't ''make it''. It would indeed be a NPOV balance if this one remains. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 05:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
::::So you want this as balance for a future category that may be created someday? Or you think both should exist so they can balance each other? Wouldn't it just be easier to not have either one in the first place if we don't have to?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 
*'''Delete'''. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people.  I accept the fact that for some it is.  However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per my comments on the Scientology category. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per my comments on the Scientology category. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Former Muslims ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Former Muslims}}<br/>
Same reason as CFD on [[:Category:Former Hindus]] and [[:Category:Former Christians]]. Inherently opprobrious. [[User:Rumpelstiltskin223|Rumpelstiltskin223]] 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Ok, I learned a new word today.  But this work '''opprobious [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opprobrium]''' is way too strong!  It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions.  It should not be an offense to anyone.  It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way.  It is knowledge and fact.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' since there was a recent deletion attempt which failed back in October.  Also, "former" is not particularly insulting (I imagine Bertrand Russell would have been proud to be known as a "Former Christian"), and if there are objections to it, then a more satisfactory terminological substitute for it should be found (instead of deleting the category). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 15:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - There is an article [[Apostasy_in_Islam]]. Unlike Hindus, Muslims seem to actually care when someone decided to leave their belief system.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 17:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', cat people by what they are, not what they are not. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', for balance. We had a very similar discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination)]] recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: ''If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats.'' &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people.  I accept the fact that for some it is.  However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per my comments on the Scientology category. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per my comments on the Scientology category. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' per my comments on the Former Christians category. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]]  • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Former Christians ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Former Christians}}<br/>
Such controversial cats are a magnet for trolls.Partisan editors are putting up [[:Category:Former Hindus]] and,[[:Category:Former Muslims]]. Such cats are inherently opprobrious. [[User:Rumpelstiltskin223|Rumpelstiltskin223]] 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete'''</s> I created it, but I think it was a mistake. I put subcats in it that aren't necessarily of former Christians & I think this is unnecessary.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm switching to not voting on consideration. However I think if this survives it should be limited to people who left Christianity in general and not include people who went from Catholicism to Protestantism or Anglicanism to Eastern Orthodoxy or whatever.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 
*'''Keep''' Ok, I learned a new word today.  But this work '''opprobious [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opprobrium]''' is way too strong!  It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions.  It should not be an offense to anyone.  It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way.  It is knowledge and fact.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Christian is a broad range. The point is there are also big pages like [[Excommunication#Christianity]] and [[Great Apostasy]] but those are better serves for individual groups.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this unnecessary and quite arguable category. Should a Catholic turned atheist be listed? They might argue that they're still Catholic and that it's not up to you to say whether they are or aren't Christian. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Bakaman is right. The term "Christian" is way too broad. If it were "former Roman Catholics" or "Former Mormons", then I would vote keep. '''[[User:Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">S h a r k </span>]][[User talk:Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">f a c e </span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sharkface217|<span style="background:black;color:red">2 1 7 </span>]]''' 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', cat people by what they are, not what they are not. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', for balance. We had a very similar discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination)]] recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: ''If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats.'' &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' but [[:Category:Former Anglicans]] is incorrectly given as a subcat - this just requires a simple edit. (Someone who is a Former Anglican may remain a Christian; I looked at articles for 2 of them, both of whom became Catholics.) Neither cat includes the other. So eg [[Cat Stevens]] would be correctly placed (if he was Anglican - I've no idea) both in [[:Category:Former Anglicans]] and [[:Category:Former Christians]]. Eg [[Shlomo Ben Avraham "Ole" Brunell]] could be correctly placed in [[:Category:Former Lutherans]], [[:Category:Former Protestants]] and [[:Category:Former Christians]] (as he converted to Judaism). [[User:Pc1dmn|roundhouse]] 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people.  I accept the fact that for some it is.  However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Not a useful category --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per my comments on the Scientology category. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per my comments on the Scientology category. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' as impossibly vague.  What exactly is a "former christian"? Does it include someone who has "[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/glossaries/carter.html committed adultery in my heart]"? Someone who breaks all of the commandments?  Someone who was baptised but doesn't go to church very often?  Or is it simply someone who has renounced christianity definitely and in its entirety?  This category is a POV nightmare. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]]  • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
::"''Someone who has renounced christianity definitely and in its entirety''" will do just fine. We can specify this on the Category page and ensure that it is rigorously applied. Not every category is completely obvious in its application, but we make do with explanations on the category pages. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''keep'' On what logic can we delete this category but not delete the ones above? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Former Hindus ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Former Hindus}}<br/>
POV and inherently opprobrious.<s>No such category exists for any other religion</s> correction cats do esist for other religions but that does not change that it is inherently opprobrious so why Hindus? I listed all the cats of former religions for deletion [[User:Rumpelstiltskin223|Rumpelstiltskin223]] 13:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Ok, I learned a new word today.  But this work '''opprobious [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opprobrium]''' is way too strong!  It is interesting and helpful to know notable persons who made changes in their religious convictions.  It should not be an offense to anyone.  It is certainly not shameful or contemptable in any way.  It is knowledge and fact.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - See my comments under "Subcats of Category:People by Former Religion". [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - the point is that there are religions notorious for terrorizing apostates. Hinduism isnt one of them. See [[Apostasy#Hinduism and Buddhism]].<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:I don't really think that's the point of these categories. To me they're for people whose apostasy is notable. If a person leaves Buddhism, and becomes notable for writing about his/her time as Buddhism in a negative way, I don't think it'd matter how Buddhists feel on it. The person has made themselves known as an ex-Buddhist. Still I don't know enough about Hinduism to say whether apostasy is even possible or means anything to anyone.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 
:Okay on reading that section it states "There is no concept of an apostate in Hinduism or Buddhism as there is no concept of conversion." If this is accurate does this mean we should delete [[:Category:Converts to Hinduism]]? Why or why not? (I hope you don't snap at this question as I'm actually curious. I've not voted or formed an opinion)--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 
::Thanks for your concerns. The "converts to" cat is filled with members of Hindu organizations & people like [[ISKCON]], [[Prem Rawat]], [[Parisada Hindu Dharma]] and [[Arya Samaj]] which do ''proselytize''. Hindu texts have no views on either apostasy or conversion. Hinduism the world oldest religion, had no need to define apostasy and conversion because everyone in the area around them followed similar beliefs. OTOH Abrahamic religions were born in eras where their religious concepts were revolutionary ideal (Judaism vs Babylon/Egypt/Assyria, Christianity vs Jews/Romans, Islam vs Jews/Pagans/Zoroastrians).<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Then does this mean "former Hindus" could be valid if limited to the newer Hindu movements which have more defined senses of entering and leaving?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
::::It would be more efficient to merely make a cat with a title like [[:Category:Former members of ISKCON]], [[:Category:Former followers of Sathya Sai Baba]], etc.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Freedom skies|Freedom skies]]|[[User_talk:Freedom skies|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per other noms. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - see comment for Category:Former Scientologists [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**I am sorry but I did not understand your reason in the Scientologists debat above.  Could you please explain? --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 07:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per other noms.--[[User:Dangerous-Boy|D-Boy]] 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', cat people by what they are, not what they are not. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. We had a very similar discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination)]] recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there: ''If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats.'' &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**And exactly how do two wrongs make a right?  In any case it is the article's content that has to be neutral first.  The purpose of categorization is to help people locate other similar articles.  Therefore categories should not carry any POV in themselves. --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 07:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. In general this is not a defining characteristic for most people.  I accept the fact that for some it is.  However there is no way that a category like this will not become a dumping ground for any individual who simply changed religions.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' There are currently only two persons in this category.  not a viable category. --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**Why not? It is twice the minimum size. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per my comments on the Scientology category. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**Unlike Scientologists, there are about a billion Hindus in this world.  The argument that you made in that category is not really relevant here. --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:::There are a much smaller number of ''notable'' Hindus though, who will end up on Wikipedia. And Piccadilly's argument applies to this subset. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
::::How can recategorising the small number of notable Hindus on Wikipedia give any one any impression that there are fewer Hindus in the World than there really are? Notable people in general are not categorized by their religion in Wikipedia so how will some one get an impression how many there are to begin with  so that they can start subtracting?--- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per my comments on the Scientology category. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Companies listed on the JASDAQ Securities Exchange ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''keep'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Companies listed on the JASDAQ Securities Exchange]] to [[:Category:JASDAQ Securities Exchange listed companies]]
*'''Rename''', A simply terse category title. I'm not sure if it should have a [[hyphen]] in it ([[:Category:JASDAQ Securities Exchange-listed companies]]). [[User:CyberSkull|Dread Lord CyberSkull]] [[User talk:CyberSkull|✎☠]] 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per convention of [[:Category:Companies by stock exchange]]; also existing format sounds less awkward than proposed. [[User:CaliforniaAliBaba|cab]] 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Existing name is preferable and in line with the convention. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Occitan personalities ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus to delete; rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Occitan personalities]] to [[:Category:Occitan people]]
*'''Rename'''. Originally nominated for speedy, then for renaming as per the current proposal [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 25#Category:Occitan personnalities here]], but it was badly handled. Firstly as no-one supported the existing name the debate should have been kept open for another 7 days, secondly despite the "no  consensus" closure the original speedy proposal was implemented regardless of a lack of support. Thirdly no-one opposed my amended proposal, including the original nominator, who certainly saw it (though he misunderstood removal from speedy as meaning that it was being nominated for deletion when very clearly it was not). This is a simple matter of applying standard terminology. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 11:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*Note for Mel Etitis. Once again, '''''THIS IS NOT A DELETION PROPOSAL'''''. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 12:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**Sorry to shout, but it heavy emphasis seems necessary as he is having extraordinary difficulty grasping the difference between deletion and renaming. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**:I have no such difficulty; my clearly-expressed comment was misunderstood. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. -- although I'd support delete for a category that has only one member. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*:The category was depopulated by [[User:Grcampbell]]; I'm repopulating it for the purposes of this discussion. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' When it was tagged as a speedy. --[[User:Grcampbell|Bob]] 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' - per nom.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' due the disputed scope of the Occitan languages and region. If not deleted then '''rename'''. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*''''Delete''' per Chicheley. The domain of occitania is POV at best. This category has been applied to many biographies of both living and dead persons regardless of the actual fact of whether or not the person in question was occitan. Has also been discussed [[User_talk:Grcampbell#Olinde_Rodrigues|here]], [[Talk:France#Clarification_on_Occitania_requested:_Vandalism_or_Classification_sharpening.3F|here]] and most pointedly, [[User_talk:81.67.178.49|here]] --[[User:Grcampbell|Bob]] 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' As one of the previous editors of the article on the 19th-century mathematician [[Olinde Rodrigues]] I was amazed to find this category applied to him. I had gone to a lot of trouble to verify the facts behind his previous assignment to categories, including his ancestry, and it was a shock to find this one landing on him 'out of the sky', as it were. So everyone who ever resided in Bordeaux is now an Occitanian?  I don't know if there could be other logic behind this proposal besides what's been added in the comments above, but it would be a relief if this category, if kept, never comes near the [[Olinde Rodrigues]] article again. If kept, it would help if someone could find the word 'Occitan' applied to him anywhere in the literature, by anyone. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 14:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*:You seem to have misunderstood the nature of this discussion.  The question isn't whether the category should be applied to a particular article, but whether the category itself should be renamed, or even exist. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*::If the term 'Occitan' is puzzling when applied to [[Olinde Rodrigues]] it may be puzzling elsewhere. It's like labelling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a 'Colonial American Personality' because he once lived in Vermont, and Vermont was once part of Colonial America. For additional background, go to the [[Occitania]] article and note that [[Albert Camus]] is listed under 'Famous People from Occitania', a man with a pied-noir Algerian father, a mother of Spanish descent, and an Algerian childhood. A person's actual ethnic origins as given in their article, or their personally-stated cultural identifications, should be used (in my opinion) when assigning categories. Camus would not be Occitanian if that rule were followed.  If there are famous modern people who assert an Occitanian cultural identification, then conceivably such people might be put in a category, but it would be kind of quirky, like 'Catalan nationalists', which might possibly make sense, but would be a small category. Since [[:Category:Occitan personalities]] is nothing like this, I believe it should be deleted (as I stated above), rather than renamed. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**No, he hasn't misunderstood the nature of the discussion, merely giving an example of how preposterous this category is. To paraphrase (basically copy)  [[User:JMLofficier|JMLofficier]] from [[User_talk:81.67.178.49|here]]: labelling people from all over France as "Occitan personalities" or "Occitan people" is akin to mixing up a [[Sioux]] (Lakota) and a [[Cheyenne]] because they're both [[Plains Indians]]. In modern-day terms, the label "Occitan" should be reserved only to those born in the Languedoc-Roussillon area (excluding [[Catalan]]s) and parts of the Midi-Pyrenees, period, making sure that they are, indeed, Occitan, and that they have identified with the Occitania movement, as the labelling is a cultural statement, not an accident of birth. (We already have categories for place of birth. They are [[:Category:Natives of Languedoc-Roussillon]] and [[:Category:Natives of Midi-Pyrénées]]. Using the wider geographic area covered by this category is at best misleading, at worst preposterous.) To give an example, there are a number of famous writers and artists in America who have Native American ancestry and Wiki does not refer to them as a "Cheyenne writer" -- unless of course they have written about or produced works pertinent to the Cheyenne Nation. For example: Comic artist [[Philippe Druillet]] (born in [[Toulouse]]) is no more an "Occitan" artist than [[Tom Wolfe]] is a [[Mattaponi]] writer because he was born in [[Richmond]], [[Virginia]]. I think the attempt to label all kinds of French writers, politicians, sportsmen and artists etc as "Occitan" solely because of their birthplaces is akin to [[vandalism]] and should be reversed and the category deleted because it is so heavily disputed. Furthermore, there is already a [[:Category:Occitan-language writers]] which could be populated by those writing in that language. --[[User:Grcampbell|Bob]] 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**:Giving an example of a misapplication of a category doesn't count as an argument against the existence of that category.  Moreover, this resort to terms like "vandalism", as well as "preposterous" , does little to help your case.<br>Note, incidentally, that I have no position in this debate &mdash; only a concern that the heated comments suggest that it's not being carried out with regard to what's right for Wikipedia, but with regard to some extra-encyclopædia political battle. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' and '''strong keep'''. [[Occitania]] is as well defined as any other historic linguistic classification. That it may be misapplied, especially to people who speak standard Modern French, makes it no different than any other category. I will note that it had, and should have, more members than it does now; one of the more emotional editors above has been depopulating it during this discussion. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Your proposal is that the category should only include Wikipedia articles about people who are documented as speaking Occitan? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:**Or who self-identify as Occitanian. But the way I would phrase it is that it should be obvious from the article why the category is justified; so I would not, say, include the [[Girondins]].[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 
*'''Delete''' Not a defined nationality and we don't categorize by language spoken. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Current list implementation seems to promote a political POV. Would keep a renamed list that includes people that have created literary works in the Occitan language (As opposed to French) --[[User:Juanpdp|JuanPDP]] 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Only the Occitan-language writers should be in a category. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' one can belong to a socio-linguistic group without being a published author in the language.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====Category:Cities and towns in Taymyr Autonomous Okrug====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Cities and towns in Taymyr Autonomous Okrug]] into [[:Category:Cities and towns in Krasnoyarsk Krai]]
*Quite simple: Taymyr Autonomous Okrug was merged into Krasnoyarsk Krai, effective today. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - nom [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - per nom.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Frayser Boy albums]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''keep'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

'''Delete''' per [[WP:OC]]. [[User:FrummerThanThou|frummer]] 05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:ALBUM]].  --[[User:Musicpvm|musicpvm]] 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:ALBUM#Categories]]. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. ~ [[User:BigrTex|<font color="blue">Bigr</font>]][[User Talk:BigrTex|<font color="red">Tex</font>]] 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  All these categories are pointless overcategorisation; there are usually lists of releases by the various artists in the relevant articles, often in separate discography articles. (Note also that [[WP:OC]] is a Wikipedia guideline, while [[WP:ALBUM]] is merely a WikiProject; the latter is guided by the former &mdash; or, in this case, has failed to be guided.) --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Palestine]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

*Rename "Palestine" to "Palestinian territories", "Palestinian", or "Palestinian National Authority" depending on category's main article or convention, as [[Palestine]] refers to historic region, and not substituents of these categories '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*[[:Category:Transportation in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Transportation in the Palestinian territories]]
*[[:Category:Economy of Palestine]] to [[:Category:Economy of the Palestinian territories]]
*[[:Category:Football in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Football in the Palestinian territories]]
*[[:Category:Football venues in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Football venues in the Palestinian territories]]
*[[:Category:Mayors of places in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Mayors of Places in the Palestinian territories]]
*[[:Category:Cities in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Cities in the Palestinian territories]]
*[[:Category:Towns and villages in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Towns and villages in the Palestinian territories]]
*[[:Category:Political parties in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Political parties in the Palestinian National Authority]]
*[[:Category:Elections in Palestine]] to [[:Category:Elections in the Palestinian National Authority]]
*[[:Category:Palestine football competitions]] to [[:Category:Palestinian football competitions]]

::'''Support''', per nom [[User:FrummerThanThou|frummer]] 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': First of all, the different categories are of different character, and there shouldn't be a group CfD. I could very well go along with [[:Category:Elections in the Palestinian National Authority]], but I strictly oppose [[:Category:Political parties in the Palestinian National Authority]] (as most parties predated the PNA). --[[User:Soman|Soman]] 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**Would you be ok with that moving to [[:Category:Political parties in the Palestinian territories]] instead? I only used the political body because I thought it would be most accurate, but if some of the parties really do predate the PNA, then I certainly wouldn't want to miscategorise them. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 15:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - to do this properly one should put <nowiki>{{subst:cfr|ProposedName}}</nowiki> notices on all relevant category pages, this has not been done.  For the moment this is a ''stealth'' rename attempt and as such it is out-of-process.  --[[User:64.230.123.128|64.230.123.128]] 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Nevermind''', I notice that there are CfR templates on some of the categories.  --[[User:64.230.123.128|64.230.123.128]] 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' renaming of main [[:Category:Palestine]], as this is required (but I'm not sure if that is actually being proposed here, anyway?); '''Oppose''' block renaming as per User:Soman, what's right for some will not necessarily be right for others; '''Oppose''' suggested renaming of [[:Category:Political parties in Palestine]], which would be no better than the current title (but would support renaming to ''Category:Palestinian political parties'', which is the only really accurate and useful version); '''Support''' other proposed renamings listed here. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' per soman & palmiro, & note this change also nn as brings names into line with israeli rhetoric on the 'issue'&nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''⇒'''</font> [[User:Bsnowball|<span style="color:white;">bsnowball</span>]]&nbsp;</span> 09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' per bsnowball & palmiro, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''  per bsnowball & palmiro, [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Non-neutral nomination. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', very bad idea. POV, essentially claiming that Palestine does not exist. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. It's long overdue. It's a must to avoid confusion and maintain NPOV. [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''comment''' the 'confusion' argument is as absurd as saying we should distinguish between the country currently called 'italy' and the peninsular which has historically been called 'italy' every time the name is used. it's utter nonsense, there is no such confusion.&nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''⇒'''</font> [[User:Bsnowball|<span style="color:white;">bsnowball</span>]]&nbsp;</span> 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. I am surprised to see so few specific arguments *FOR* making the change. Is this part of a longer debate, which is documented somewhere else? If so, I'd appreciate a pointer. In the absence of clear arguments, I vote to keep the status quo. Noting by analogy that [[Macedonia]] is a controversial term, and there is a careful disambiguation page for it, there are plenty of plain 'Macedonian' categories that seem to be used without embarrassment (take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/Category:M]). My intensive 5 minutes of research also shows [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Palestine a deletion debate] for the Category:Palestine from last March, which had an 'unresolved' outcome. Has anything changed to make all this renaming more desirable now? I also like bsnowball's argument about Italy. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per bsnowball. --[[User:Alynna Kasmira|Alynna]] 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup style="color:purple;">(talk)</sup>]] 10:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I would just like to point out that Palmiro only opposes the "Elections" renaming (if I understood the comments correctly), thus all of these seeming "Oppose per Palmiro" actually support most of the renamings. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 10:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. --[[User:PinchasC|PinchasC]] | [[User_talk:PinchasC|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. Let's not confuse a political entity and a geographic region. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]</sup> 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as POV, and as per Bsnowball and per EdJohnston [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. I realize this is tricky political territory (so to speak), but it seems to me that a dispute about the meaning of a term should be resolved in the articles about the term (e.g., [[Palestine]] and [[Palestine (disambiguation)]]) rather than by imposing categories. ----[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom, Humus and Leifern.  [[User:6SJ7|6SJ7]] 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. "Palestine" is, at least now, a geographical placename, not a sovereign entity. [[User:Isarig|Isarig]] 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' although there could also be an article called palestine, the currect article only refers to the political entity which would be more accuratley referred to by most of Tewfik's suggestions.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 08:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Partial Support''' Only for Political parties and Elections.  Leave other categories alone as they refer to a geographical area and not a political entity.  As far as I know, Palestinian Territories and Palestine represent the same geographic area.  Precedent: The category for "Geography of Massachusets" is not called "Geography of the Commonwealth of Massachusets".  There are many other examples like that all over Wikipedia.  --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
**[[Palestine]] and [[Palestinian territories]] do not represent the same region. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== American physicans by ethnicity ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

* [[:Category:African American physicians]]
* [[:Category:Jewish American physicians]]
:'''''Merge both''' into [[:Category:American physicians]], does anyone really think ethnicity is relevent here?'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge both''' per nom; the current situation is overcategorization. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' both, oversegregation, irrelevant information [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' both. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom.  However, at some point we will need a position on how to deal with [[:Category:African Americans]].  Maybe this needs to deleted if the problems it is causing out way the advantages of the category. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per above. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge both''' per nom. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 14:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:American religious executives]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', just kill it now, before it spreads.  Yet '''another''' in a long and useless series of Bishop categories.  The only current member is of course a yet another Bishop.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 05:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', in any event it only has one substituent, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 05:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The current member is a member of this category not because he was a Bishop.  He was a "Religious Executive" before elected a Bishop.  It refers to another part of his notable life, before becoming a Bishop.  Categories apply not just to one achievement of someone's life.  Persons do different things during different times in their lives, for which they may also be categorized.   Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - The title is overly vague.  What is a "religious executive", anyway?  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - underpopulated, vague [[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]</small> 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - unless it can be adequately populated it is useless.  I have no reason to believe it can be. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' underpopulated, vague category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 13:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - no need for such a subcat. [[User:Pc1dmn|roundhouse]] 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per all of above.  Hopelessly incoherent.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom.  This is just another of [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]]'s useless categories, apparently crreated simply to place one of his articles in more categories. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]]  • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 11:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 14:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Religious executives]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', or '''Merge''' into [[:Category:Religious leaders]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 05:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' what is at some level a useful categorisation without falling prey to religioncruft, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 05:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' see above. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - See above comments.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Please see cat for updated inclusion language.  Thanks.  [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', distinction isn't clear. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - distinction not apparent. [[User:Pc1dmn|roundhouse]] 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom.  The inclusion language only makes clear that these are religious leaders, not why they should not simply be called that.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. So tedious now, Pastorwayne. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. --- [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as ill-defined category, incapable of more precise definition (the word "executive" is too fuzzy). Either it will be used for non-notable religious bureaucrats, or it will be used to add an unecessary extra category to biographical articles on people notable for other reasons.  This category is a very good example of why [[User:Pastorwayne|PW]]'s antics are being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive170#Pastorwayne_and_category_creation|WP:ANI]]. --[[User:81.156.255.136|81.156.255.136]] 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Female Sikh warriors]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Sikh warriors]], why is gender relevent?'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 04:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per [[Sexual revolution]], '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 05:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep'''. The era in which they lived (16th-18th century) may lend some notability to the characteristic, especially since their femaleness seems to be their (almost solitary) defining trait. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 07:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per Tefwik. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom, Tefwik. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' In most cases, this ''is'' the claim to notability. If a male Sikh warrior had the same battles and family, we would not have an article on him. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - per [[:Category:Women in war]]<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Catholic theologians]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge/redirect'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge / Redirect''' into [[:Category:Roman Catholic theologians]], convention of [[:Category:Roman Catholics by occupation]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 04:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per [[:Category:Roman Catholics by occupation]]'s convention, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 05:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' per nom. [[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]] 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Redirect or merge''' - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Macaulay Institute ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Macaulay Institute}}<br/>
Found in cleaning out November cat. This was nominated on 11-14 but I did not find a discussion.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into [[:Category:Agriculture in Scotland]] as it seems to be a rather minor institution. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Number-one singles on the Canadian airplay chart]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Number-one singles in Canada]], or '''Delete'''.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' &mdash; these do not belong in [[:Category:Number-one singles in Canada]] and topped a major Canadian chart. There's no reason this should be deleted. There are a million U.S. ''Billboard'' component charts ([[:Category:Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks number-one singles]], [[:Category:Billboard Hot Dance Club Play number-one singles]]); why delete this one? [[User:Velten|Velten]] 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:National Guard]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:United States National Guard]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Merge''' per nom. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 10:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Rename''' to [[:Category:United States Army National Guard]] per naming conventions of the US Military History task force. [[User:NDCompuGeek|NDCompuGeek]] 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Disney Nonsense Word Songs]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''upmerge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Rename''' to [[:Category:Disney nonsense-word songs]], or '''Delete''' as categorization by trivial attribute.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as overcat and pointless subdivision of [[:Category:Disney songs]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Listify and/or delete''' per nom. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 10:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**The last section of [[Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo]] could be spun-off for this purpose, though it's not much of a list. Unless there's more to say about the set of songs, I'm not sure it can stand alone. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Actually I have some problems with that section, especially considering that it (like the category) listed both [[Passamaquoddy (song)]] and [[Hakuna Matata (song)]] as examples of nonsense words Disney made up so it could trademark them. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – obviously, if there's no consensus to keep this, it should be merged back up to [[:Category:Disney songs]]. At least [[Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah]] needs it. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' else upmerge.  These songs are actually a distinct group of songs.  [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is over-categorization.  I assume that the author of the category meant "songs containing nonsense words", especially given the six songs there listed.  When [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] said that these were a "distinct group", I cringed. ''Heigh-Ho'' may not even belong in this category. The only words in that song that could be considered nonsense are ''heigh-ho'' which are derivative of old teamster words for directing horses. Is ''giddy-up'' nonsense?  Also the newer songs are quite different from the older ones.  This is not a meaningful category, even if it were not a case of over-categorization. --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' overcategorization. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''', overcat. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete & merge''' (not in that order); overcategorisation. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete & merge''', completely worthless and ill-defined category.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Companies based in Eugene, Oregon]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Companies based in Oregon]], parent is still a bit small.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom.  Overcategorization.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:National parks of Ireland]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''speedy deleted''' per below. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 10:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', as I created this page not knowing there was already a category [[:Category:National parks of the Republic of Ireland]], and I do not know how to delete/merge a page. My apologies. -[[User:RiverHockey|RiverHockey]] 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''', and tagged as such. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Artists/Bands With Long Song Titles]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', as categorization by [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|non-defining or trivial characteristic]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Proveit. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ProveIt. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, and as completely arbitrary&mdash;no reason that "long" would mean "50 characters" as the description currently states, so it just invites subjective judgment.  Would "[[Long, Long, Long]]" qualify?  ; )  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== United Methodist bishops ====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

* [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Dakotas Area]]
* [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Holston Area]]
* [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Louisiana Area]]
* [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Manila Area]]
* [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Omaha Area]]
* [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Washington Area]]
:'''''Merge all''' into [[:Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church]], overcategorization.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 02:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''.  Would [[:Category:American United Methodist bishops]] be a better target except for [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Manila Area]]? [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 08:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all to [[:Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church]]''' - Categorizing by epsicopal area is overcategorization in this case, as established by precedent.  The category for the nationality of the bishops can be added later (just in case one of the bishops served in the United States but emigrated from Germany or Canada or somewhere else).  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 10:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**then why is categorization of Catholic or Anglican Bisops by dioceses not "overcategorization?!?"  [[Episcopal Area]] is what United Methodists call their "dioceses."  Thus, this is a sister-categorization to Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.  If this Methodist categorization is overcategorization, then so it is for all these other denominations.  Kindly nominate all of these systems for deletion, too.  And make sure all the same arguments for and against apply equally to these Methodist categories.  Moreover, one misguided deletion of some categories does not establish "precedent!"  Happy New Year! [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - To see the precedent for this, view the discussions under [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 22|Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 19|Category:Methodist bishops of the Buenos Aires Area]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 17|Category:Methodist bishops of Japan]] (which is a discussion on multiple categories), and [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12|Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State]] (which is also a discussion on multiple categories).  This has been discussed before, with the vast majority deciding to upmerge for various reasons that are not worth repeating again.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' because if we do not, then we must delete all similar categories of all similar religious articles.  That would make wikipedia much poorer.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 14:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**Why?  Sub categories are set up when the parent grows so large that it needs to be split.  The issue here that has been raised is that there is no need to create the sub categories at this time since there are so few articles. The disadvantages outweigh any possible advantages.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 00:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' per nom.  Given the size of these categories, the suggested organisation by jurisdictions is much better.  Note: As of two days ago when I looked through allpages, the following additional categories of this type have been missed in previous nominations: [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Bombay Area]], [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Boston Area]], [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Calcutta Area]], [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Florida Area]], [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Kansas Area]], [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Oklahoma Area]], and [[:Category:United Methodist bishops of the Portland Area]]. --[[User:Alynna Kasmira|Alynna]] 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' per nom, as before. [[User:Pc1dmn|roundhouse]] 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''', no need to split that. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' per nom.  --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 13:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Captain Jack Sparrow]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', all current members covered by [[:Category:Pirates of the Caribbean]] or [[:Category:Pirates of the Caribbean characters]].''
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] 08:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. The bar to entry for a fictional character to have his own unique category needs to be somewhat high, to avoid categories like "Category:Aunt May" and "Category:Norm (Cheers)". [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Mike 7|Michael]] 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Arab fashion designers]]====
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Fashion designers]], is ethnicity relevent here?'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', we already have [[:Category:Fashion designers by nationality]] into which they can be grouped. Congrats on the first CfD nom of the new year! --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.  Arab isn't a nationality, and putting them in [[:Category:Fashion designers by nationality]] would require the creation of 3 new subcategories for these 4 designers, leading, probably, to 3 more CfD discussions.  It's a large region, with not many internationally known fashion designers.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Tjstrf.  Nationality is a well-established and sensible subcategorization scheme for occupations; broad ethnic groups less so, unless the particular intersection of ethnicity and occupation has a recognized significance...which this does not.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''It might, as most Arab nations are dominated by Muslim culture with stricter dress codes enforced than most non-Arab Muslim nations, which would apply to fashions worn by Arabs in Arab nations, specifically joining Arab fashion designers in a way non-Arab fashion designers and Muslim fashion designers  are not necessarily joined.  And Western fashion is international in scope, stores sell designs by Italian, by Spanish, by French, by American, by Brittish designers based on factors not associated with nationality (couture, ready-to-wear, sportswear, evening, bridal).  So, while nationality may be a "well-established and sensible subcategorization scheme for occupations" in general, it is not necessarily the senible one for subcategorizing fashion designers.  Two designers of haute couture in French houses might be distinguished artificially in Wikipedia by ''their'' nationality, when it would make more sense to distinguish them into high fashion designers as opposed to French fashion designers and Brittish fashion designers--where the occupation and the market intersect.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
***That you're of Arab ethnic heritage doesn't guarantee that you're also of a Muslim cultural background.  I'm also not convinced that a fashion designer can be as provincial as you suggest and yet be notable enough to merit an article.  Unless you can establish that the fashion world does in fact recognize such divisions, and can demonstrate that these are substantial enough that an article could be written on their distinctions, subdividing by nationality is the presumptive and only way to go.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge per nom''' [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Merging is usually done to reduce the number of categories.  In this case, it will create 3 more, because each Fashion designer by nationality gets their own nationality.  So, instead of Arab fashion designers, you will have Lebanese, Saudi, and one other additional nationality category.   If it's more appropriate this way, go for it, but it seems to unnecessarily create additional categories that will have only one or two people in them. [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge and subdivide by nationality''' The small size of the resulting categories is not a problem. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' These categories won't be subsequently put up for deletion for having only one member?  That's often a criterion for deletion, here, that the category is too small.  I'm fine and agree with merging and subdividing by nationality, if it won't increase the number of CfD discussions, although no one has addressed my comment that these designers do have something in common due to their being Arabs that unites them.[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**Categories that function as part of a system should not be deleted, even if some members have very few entries, because omitting the smaller groupings just leaves them with no place to go and hinders navigation.  Feel free to let me know if someone ever does challenge [[:Category:Lebanese fashion designers]], etc., and I'll be happy to vote "keep."  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
***Ah, I think the whole CfD is out of control, with rampant deletionists on one side, and rampant keepers on the other.  Someone else is arguing that Prisoners of Leavenworth should be deleted because it's too small of a category--and it has a handful of prisoners.  Still, do you disagree that being Arab unites this group of designers, as it does because of dress codes in Arab countries?  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
****What about this category says that the included members design within certain countries and/or cultures?  It just requires them to be "Arab."  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*****But that's the point of an category, that the things in it are related in some way.  I already argued against the categories of fashion designers by nationality above, because it's not real in the world of fashion.  While an haute couture Spanish designer will have his clothes more prominantly displayed in Spanish stores and his shows more prominent in Spanish shows than a French designer, in fact, when it comes to boutique clothing sales their nationalities will not be the deciding factor, but rather their prominence and reputation in the world of fashion outside of their nationality.  In fact, these categories, in terms of many of the designers who could be put in them, are meaningless.  However, unlike these international high level designers, Arab fashion designers in the Arab world have a binding tie, cultural clothing restrictions, that can dictate the type of clothes they designe, particularly in ready-to-wear lines, that doesn't exist in the rest of the West.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
******You missed my point: being Arab doesn't mean you live in, work in, or design for "the Arab world" or an Islamic culture.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*******Ah, yes, I did.  However, being Spanish doesn't mean you live in, work in, or design for "the Spanish world."  Not all Arabs are Muslims, so that doesn't matter.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
********That's not why we'd subcategorize fashion designers by nationality.  We'd do it the same as why we do it for ''all'' occupations&mdash;it's the easiest and most logical subcategory for people because it's one of the most defining facts about an individual, and typically one of the first descriptive words in a biography article.  Subcategorizing occupations by nationality is the norm.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*********Okay, so it's done by nationality because it's the norm, there's no reason for it. Or there are reasons, yet the apply equally well in this case to being Arab, and could tie the designers together more than country ties two of the biggest (the English McQueen for example and the stir when he replaced the Spanish born Galliano at the French fashion House of Dior) French fashion designers together, being Arab could be one of the defining facts about an individual, and, in dealing with Arab fasion designers it could be one of the first descriptive words in their biography article, just like Middle Eastern or South Asian might be a logical grouping of peoples when talking about certain things.  The foods of South Asia have a lot more in common with each other than with the foods of the Middle East, for example, so making a category, Foods of South Asia, might seem as reasonable as the Food of Afghanistan.  I think that a categorization scheme that rigidly bypasses the reality of what it is categorizing can be difficult and seems without purpose.  When McQueen was at Dior he was a French Fashion Designer, in spite of being a Brittish Fashion Designer, and Galliano at Dior was also a Brittish-born-of-Spanish-parents-French fashion desingers.  The world of fashion does not tuck neatly into the categorization scheme.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
**********Grouping certain scientist categories together by nationality has sometimes been criticized as meaningless, because there's no such thing as "American physics" or because the work of a "British biologist" has no actual relationship to Britain.  But I think these categories are easily understood as "American who is a physicist" or "Spaniard who is a fashion designer" rather than "a practitioner of American physics" or "a designer of Spanish fashion," and the benefits of subcategorizing nationality by occupation and vice versa are substantial.  BTW, I personally have no problem with supercategories such as [[:Category:European fashion designers]] or [[:Category:Middle Eastern fashion designers]] to group regionally related nationality subcategories (not articles directly, mind you), but others may differ on that.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per KP Botany. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Recreate by the 3 nationalities''' I had to think about this for a while.  Although there is no meaning to Spanish Fashion designer in certain levels, it is fine to divide by this, as these nations will claim each designer as their own.  Middle Eastern and Arab are both problematic, because all that unites the Arab nations in fashion consensus also applies to all Middle Eastern countries, not just the Arab ones, but Middle Eastern removes some major North African countries that would be covered under Arab, but not Middle Eastern.  So, please just delete this one and add Saudi fashion designers, Lebanese, and whatever the other one is as categories instead.  I point out that American physicists and British physicists do serve a greater purpose that isn't shown in fashion designers by nationality.  If I'm speaking to two physiscists, both 35 years old, professors at major universities, both with extensive prestigious publication lists, I can readily guess by nationality that the American physicist is a tenured professor and the European not, and the American physicist is working on projects of her design and choosing as are her graduate students, while the European physicist may not be, and this won't tell me that this is because the American is doing better work, but simply that the American is American and the European is European.  So, with scientists it can be informative.  For a Nigerian scientist I will know he can pay less for journal subscriptions, and probably has significantly lower access to the latest equipment.  Thanks, Postdlf for actually discussing the issue, which appears not too common in the cfd.[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>