The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge both to
category:Card game video games. We have clear consensus to rename both, and two approximately equally supported choices. As we have a number of potential closers weighing in on this, I'll go with the one that seems clearer to me, with no prejudice if someone wants to renominate.--
Mike Selinker18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. While "card video games" fits the more common naming pattern for the parent category, it is basically incoherent, whereas "video card games" is crystal clear. As for "cardplay", the word is not common, and virtually never used except in a bridge context, so that would not be a good solution.
200503:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, except few of them are for what this category is about. If you look, you will see that most of them are about video cards. The category name makes no sense.--
Mike Selinker05:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Hardly. There certainly are both, but its plainly clear that video card games is used about 100 times more often than "card video games" which of the 600 mentions only a small handful, maybe single digits, are for the confusing formulation suggested here. Video card games is straightforward, accurate, makes clear sense and is used far more than the alternative choices. We aren't here to invent things, or use non-standard terms. And of course the previous category has been there for some time. Merging should go from non-standard to standard, brand new to existing, not the other ways around.
2005
Merging should go from whatever doesn't work to whatever does, and if consensus is that "video card games" is ambiguous and "card video games" is not then "card video games" it should be. If "card video games" is somehow ambiguous (not quite sure how it could be, but if it is) then
Category:Playing card video games would be an acceptable final name as well.
Otto471118:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Playing card video games sounds fine. I suppose the anally correct answer could be "Card game video games".
200523:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge duplicate. To be more specific, I agree with the merge suggested by the nominator. It should have the title of the SECOND because "Card video games" sounds to me at least like a POKER video game.
Bulldog12310:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Then again, "video card games" sounds like card games on video. Wow, this is confusing. The thing is I believe they called them "card games" so it should probably be in that order.
Bulldog12308:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm okay with either merge, but I have to go with jc37 on this. These are card games. It's about the games themselves, so even though I like how "Playing card video games" sounds,
Category:Card game video games would be the most immediately understandable to anybody reading the name of the category.
Doczilla17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom and create a redirect, because "pub" is the widely-used abbreviation, so the categ will likely be recreated. --07:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge for consistency, with redirect for "pubs".
Belovedfreak15:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, and yes, we have an automated way of doing this. I suppose it should be "synonyMs" rather than "synonyNs".
>Radiant<08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There are over 600 entries (almost all redirects) in this category that would all have to be relabeled. In my opinion, this seems like way much effort for very little gain. However, if the entries can all be relabeled automatically with a bot, I would not be opposed. --
Jwinius21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. If you think you can pull it off without damaging anything or making a mess, you have my permission to proceed (no one else is involved). --
Jwinius23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. There are almost 130 entries (mostly redirects) in this category that would all have to be relabeled. In my opinion, this seems like too much effort for very little gain. However, if the entries can all be relabeled automatically with a bot, I would not be opposed. --
Jwinius21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. If you think you can pull it off without damaging anything or making a mess, you have my permission to proceed (no one else is involved). --
Jwinius23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Christian Right is certainly notable, but not being objectively definable is problematic for a category. Note that there's already a list on the topic at
Christian right.
>Radiant<08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong delete, but not as recreated (because the prev CfD was over 6 months ago and rather cursory). There is a useful discussion of the problems of this term at
Talk:Christian_right#Weasel_words, where to my mind the crucial factor is some research which supports claims that the term "Christian right" is predominantly used by opponents of the group they identify. That supports my personal experience that friends who might fit the general usage dislike the term (sometimes vehemently), so as far as I can see the evidence is that it's a contested POV term, and hence unsuitable as a category. Even if it wasn't contested, there doesn't seem to be any way of defining it tightly enough to make clear inclusion criteria, so it end up as a rather severe version of a categorisation-by-opinion category; this is actually a case of categorisation-by-label-which-someone-else-attaches-to-an-alleged-nexus-of opinions. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This does not work because it describes an approach to values and Bible interpretation, as opposed to political activity. "Generally those seen as belonging to conservative Christianity give priority to
traditional values and traditional
beliefs and practices. It is sometimes called conservative theology—is an umbrella term covering various movements within Christianity and describing both corporate denominational and personal views of scripture. ... It is often said that Conservative Christianity and
Liberal Christianity are polar opposites, though many liberal Christians would not agree. There is general agreement that their
[approach to Bible interpretation] are quite different."
[1]
Even though this contains a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues, it does not imply political activity. Additionally, as a classification, it excludes some
conservative Christian groups.
Even though this contains a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues and politics, it excludes many
conservative Christian groups. Many groups consider it pejorative, and self-identify as "conservative" or "evangelical".
I was unaware that "Christian right" was pejorative. I welcome renaming the category to something that is not pejorative!
Thank you,
Prove It, for opening this discussion. I value consensus.
Keep but rename - I think Christian conservatives makes sense. It's a highly notable intersection, and any POV issues can be solved by using a term like Christian conservatives that reflects how members of the group self-identify.
A Musing15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge the other way around. You've got it backwards: "British loyalists" is poor wording: All
Loyalists were British subjects; the modifier is redundant. In fact, "British" (or "American") is the completely wrong modifier for a very few Loyalists, like
Mary Brant. So, the correct procedure should be:
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Roman admirals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:How to
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This category encourages the listing of articles which violate
WP:NOT#HOWTO. The only two pages currently categorized here are: 1) a page currently listed for deletion at AfD (for the same reason,
WP:NOT#HOWTO), and 2) the user page of the category's creator
Nick—Contact/Contribs19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Peak Tram
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Electronic albums by artist
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Works of Polyclitus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Works by Phidias
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Treaties of Native Americans
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. There are vast numbers of Catholic schools, which have their own categories. Christian here seems to mean Protestant.
Johnbod19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral. There's a difficulty here in that some protestants prefer the term "Christian", and are wary of the "protestant" label, but other species of christian would object to the word being used in a non-inclusive sense. On balance, I think "protestant" is best, but I'm not sure if the categ has any room for expansion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The nom is to merge to plain "schools", which avoids all these issues (in fact plenty in that category are also Catholic, from their names). Keeping it as it is, with the highly POV implication that Catholic schools are not Christian, seems clearly wrong.
Johnbod21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge, as parent cat is empty, without prejudice against subcategorizing if and when this parent cat becomes too large.
>Radiant<08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The argument put forward makes no sense, as this category already complies with the form used in
Category:Hills of India. All types of geographical feature should be subdivided by state for such a large country as India. It might however make sense to merge the categories for hills and mountains across the board, as is already done for the UK, since over time more and more articles will be added about mere hills around the world.
Brandon9720:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Christian LGBT people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This is precisely one of those issues on which an RFC might be useful.
>Radiant<08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Irrelevant intersection. The category serves to promote a political agenda (mainly in the U.S.), as the introduction makes pretty clear. Non-neutral.
Brandon9713:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't see a neutrality problem here: Christian LGBT people may be condemned or praised by both sides. Since there is in many cultures a clash between Christianity and LGBT status, this seems to me to be a very notable intersection regardless of POV. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The issue is promoted by one side only. It is just another example of how Wikipedia has any number of categories that raise the profile of left-liberal points of view, but no balancing categories of the opposite persuasion. It is impossible to fail to notice from the range of categories on articles that Wikipedia has a systemic left-liberal bias, and that wrecks its chances of achieving neutrality.
Brandon9720:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that your assumption that LGBT christians are inevitably left-liberal is a rather sweeping assumption (I suspect that, for example, a lot
Log Cabin Republicans would disagree), but even if you were right your reason for deletion would still be bizarre. If you reckon that the category identifies one side of a political debate, then you are free to balance it by creating other appropriate category. Deleting a category because there is no "balancing" one would lead us to cut a swathe through category systems: if, for example, we had
Category:United States Navy but no category for he Russian Navy, your logic would lead to us deleting
Category:United States Navy, whereas what we should do would be to create
Category:Russian Navy. You appear to be saying that because you don't like this group, there should not be a category to note their existence; that's hardly the "neutrality" you claim to seek. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per BrownHairedGirl, this is a relevant intersection due to current events. Any POV issues with the text of the category page should be dealt with by
bold editing or discussion on the talk page, not by deletion of the category. --
Nick—Contact/Contribs20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The POV is in the name of the category, which is a crude assertion that this is relevant in all cases, not in the text, which is not seen at the bottom of the articles, where the category appears. There is no point in engaging in chatter on the talk page, which will have no impact on what readers see at the bottom of the article pages, and is in any case likely to be seen mainly be people with a strong bias, rather than by a balanced cross-section of objective people - an example of the systemic disfuntion of Wikipedia, which can only make one wonder if the whole project is a waste of time as it is blindlingly obvious that it will never achieve neutrality, but will continue to reflect the imposition of Western liberal orthodoxy on all readers.
Brandon9720:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - I do not see any POV problems with this category, but I also do not think that this is a remarkable intersection. All this category says is that LGBT people believe in Jesus Christ, just like any other Christians. I imagine that a large fraction of LGBT people from predominantly Christian countries would fall into this category. In this light, I also do not see the need for
Category:LGBT Jews or
Category:LGBT Muslims, either. If this is an issue about the discrimination that LGBT people have encountered from religious groups, then it should be discussed in a series of articles, as the lists of names in these categories really do not say anything about discrimination issues.
Dr. Submillimeter08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Reply The notability of the intersection is that LGBT lives are widely criticised by the Christian churches (let's leave aside anyone's POV as to whether or not this criticism is appropraite). Sure, articles could expand on the issues raised by all sides, but that doesn't invalidate the category, which is a parallel to
Category:Gay Republicans (United States), an intersection between two groups frequently in conflict which leaves the individuals concerned as a subject of controversy in both camps. On one side there's the "how dare you call yourself a Republican if you are gay" implicit in Ferrell Blount's remarks
here, and on the other side there are LGBT people who criticise gay Republicans for supporting a party which opposes LGBT rights. Exactly the same thing happens to LGBT christians, caught on the frontline of the
culture wars. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep with strong reluctance as I have a feeling this has been misused in the past. For example if a historical Christian ever expressed anything faintly homoerotic, even in a poem, they might end up here even if it has no bearing on their life. Still there are denominations where this matters.--
T. Anthony17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Extraterrestrials
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment - whats grey or black about any of these articles? If you apply
WP:RS then we can say something happened, but can't prove either way that Extraterrestrials exist. Hence my conclusion would be they are all grey incidents, and the mix is therefore more dark grey on light grey, and hence makes sence. Rgds, --
Trident1321:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would expect research on
back-contamination to receive substantial government funding and to be published in peer-reviewed journals, whereas I would expect research on
greys to be largely ignored or disapproved of by government agencies and to not be published in peer-reviewed journals. Maybe it would be appropriate to diffuse the articles into subcategories rather than deleting
Category:Extraterrestrials at this time. (Also note that
Category:Astrobiology can be used for some peer-reviewed scientific research on extraterrestrial life.)
Dr. Submillimeter08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Referendums by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British rugby league clubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's Rationale:Rename, Following the decision to upmerge
Category:Rugby league clubs into
Category:Rugby league teams, this name no longer follows the pattern. In addition, the category at present contains articles on academy teams which are different teams from their parent club but not a different club. It would be better to have the broader category.
GordyB10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
question to interested persons. Currently, there is a category for each US state in
Category:Companies of the United States by state showing which companies are based in each state. Should these defunct companies be included in these state Company categories or might there be categories for defunct categories by state? (not to level of department stores, however).
Hmains04:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Beatles with Tony Sheridan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - small category with no likelihood of growth. The song and album subcats are housed in the appropriate category trees and the articles are interlinked through the Beatles and Sheridan articles and elsewhere.
Otto471103:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Peak
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename to Victoria Peak per correct capitalization, although I'm not 100% convinced that the category is needed and would support deletion.
Otto471104:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.