The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep species. delete alien species --Kbdank71 15:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cthulhu mythos species
Category:Cthulhu mythos alien species
Delete. These categories seem unnecessary. Many of these articles could be merged into a single article, and larger articles could simply be marked with Category:Cthulhu mythos.
Weak Delete. My position has softened somewhat on this issue. I don't want to completely shut down the delete possibility; however, deleting both categories may be futile, because at least one (probably the former) is likely to get recreated anyway. RlyehRising 19:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate possibly. Merge into a single category, i.e., Category:Cthulhu mythos species
RlyehRising 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's too much material in these articles to meaningfully merge them, the result would just be gigantic articles with independant article-like subsections. The division between "fictional species" and "fictional alien species" is also useful, in that it keeps the parent categories for fictional species and fictional alien species neat. Bryan 01:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem is that it's difficult to decide which category to put them in. A few examples (this is about to get weird): In the case of the Deep Ones, August Derleth has them coming from outer space, yet Lovecraft's writings seem to suggest they are terrestrial in origin (in fact, he never actually said where they originated). The nightgaunts inhabit the Dreamlands—a parallel dimension—yet most mythos enthusiasts would object to classifying them as an alien species. The shoggoths were supposedly created on Earth by the Elder Things (making them terrestrial in origin), yet in Lovecraft's poem Fungi from Yuggoth, they are frolicking in an underground lake on one of Yuggoth's moons (so are they actually extraterrestrials?). The Serpent people could be terrestrial, but there are hints that they came from Venus. The same problem arises when classifying the Chthonians and the Yuggs—are they extraterrestrials or did they originate on Earth? (I warned you this was going to be weird.) RlyehRising 04:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess when in sufficient amount of doubt they should be bumped up to "fictional species", and if enough of them go up a level like that then merging the remaining alien species category into the parent category would be prudent. But the base "Cthulhu mythos species" category should remain one way or the other, there's enough articles to justify it IMO. Bryan 06:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cthulhu mythos species; Don't care about the other one. -- Mkill 00:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only CM species, and merge CM alien species into it. -Sean Curtin 05:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Alberta rivers --> Category:Rivers of Alberta
• Category:British Columbia rivers --> Category:Rivers of British Columbia
• Category:Manitoba rivers --> Category:Rivers of Manitoba
• Category:New Brunswick rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Brunswick
• Category:Newfoundland and Labrador rivers --> Category:Rivers of Newfoundland and Labrador
• Category:Northwest Territories rivers --> Category:Rivers of the Northwest Territories
• Category:Nova Scotia rivers --> Category:Rivers of Nova Scotia
• Category:Nunavut rivers --> Category:Rivers of Nunavut
• Category:Ontario rivers --> Category:Rivers of Ontario
• Category:Quebec rivers --> Category:Rivers of Quebec
• Category:Saskatchewan rivers --> Category:Rivers of Saskatchewan
• Rename all. Wiki-standard is "Rivers of Foo". See: Category:Rivers by country. - Darwinek 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. What standard is this? Anyway, save our endangered adjectives. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. It's the standard that we're using, clearly. :P And the above aren't unique adjective forms, they're just nouns being used adjectivally. Don't see any reason to make an exception for Canadian rivers (or "Rivers or Canada" :P) if this is the standard elsewhere. -Silence 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per policy. Carina22 09:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all standardisation is important, endangered adjectives isnt. Martin 16:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename allrivers of xxx sounds better imo. Arniep 22:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. Mindmatrix 02:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all CalJW 00:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as per the sensible comments by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters STopCat 00:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all--Jondel 08:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all It's policy. Golfcam 00:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an American category so it should say so. There are governor's mansions in other countries as well. Rename Category:Governors' mansions in the United States CalJW 21:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is completely unnecessary to add a geographical location to every category in the Wikipedia. That is the ultimate aim of a very small number of category-obsessed people. Anyone who bothers to read the articles or looks at the adjacent categories will be well aware that the mansions are in the United States. The silent majority should stand up now and be counted. We must prevent the Wikipedia concept from being ruined STopCat 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree. Categorization does seem to be getting out of hand on Wikipedia. RlyehRising 00:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So what if some non-USA governor's mansions get included, anyway? It's still a finite category, and if we add the Governor General of Barbados' official residence (probably not a mansion, but I don't know), no one will be confused. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename All categories should have clear names. The idea that you should have to read the articles to work out what the category is for is absurd. Carina22 09:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, although I think I'd prefer Category:Official residences in the United States, which would make it a better sub-cat of it's many parents. Category:Governors' mansions in the United States seems a rather prohibitive name, and doesn't strike me as a vital category. Hiding talk 10:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I'm sure other countries have governors and mansions for those governors, although wouldn't residence be a more neutral word? Arniep 22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no opinion on this. -Silence 23:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The term "Governor's mansion" may sound as American as apple pie to some people, but this is an internatinal encyclopedia. There are official governor's residences in many other countries, and these all deserve articles as well.--Pharos 22:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -Categorization is getting out of hand.--Jondel 04:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Tell's you what's in it. Golfcam 00:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both have one article. Given the rather diverse nature of research vessels, vessels would be more appropriate. Joshbaumgartner 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed. CalJW 21:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - merge per proposal. --G Rutter 14:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV. - EurekaLott 19:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Readers should be left to decide these things for themselves. CalJW 20:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, delete. --G Rutter 20:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category's very important. (Ibaranoff24 23:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. The category's very unimportant. If sources can be provided to show that these people are "legends", then listify so that citations and quotations and descriptions are possible; categories can't handle such nuances. -Silence 01:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pov as stated. Carina22 10:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inherently POV. —BrianSmithson 06:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly subjective. 06:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While some of them truly are legends, the whole category is potentially POV. --Beau99 1:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Jondel 08:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and only then, Delete, per Silence. Tomer^TALK 14:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Category:Pro-life politicians is nominated I'm also listing these to achieve a better consensus.

• Category:Pro-life celebrities
• Category:Pro-choice celebrities
• Category:Pro-choice politicians

I propose either deleting, or if they are of merit, renaming to reflect they categorise only Americans:

• Category:Pro-life celebrities --> Category:American pro-life celebrities
• Category:Pro-choice celebrities --> Category:American pro-choice celebrities
• Category:Pro-choice politicians --> Category:American pro-choice politicians

• Delete or rename Hiding talk 14:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as unverififiable. (or perhaps as "over verifiable"; most everyone can be quoted as saying "abortion is bad", but exactly how one says that, and in what context, is a political hot potato such that no one could be NPOV categorized). FWIW, I might be more sympathetic to cats involving "Abortion rights activists" or "Anti-abortion activists"... if, e.g. an actor heads some national organization or the like, that's a more clear standard than how they privately feel or passingly comment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify so that citations, specifics, and solid evidence can be provided on this very controversial topic, thus allowing us to make the page comprehensive and accurate. This is a highly significant topic, but categories are too simplistic and limited to allow us to provide the proper nuances and sourcing needed. Also rename to List of pro-life people rather than List of pro-life celebrities, because it makes no difference whether a noteworthy person is a "celebrity" or not in this context. See also Category talk:Pro-life celebrities. -Silence 17:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE ALL and use "abortion-access" and "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" (especially since many pro-life people support the death penalty, which is an anti-life position) 132.205.45.110 19:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All and see my reasoning relative to the Category:Pro-life politicians debate. Soltak | Talk 20:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Not verifiable enough. -- Crevaner 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the celebrities category, I started that category because there was only a category for pro-lifers at the time. Keep for the politician category, as that information is mroe relevant.--Fallout boy 05:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP ALL Informative categories that provide valid information. Stop with the censorship! Dwain 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP ALL Why all the hostility toward the pro-life POV? It exists. Why try to hide it? According to almost every mainstream poll ever taken (including polls as recent as 2004) more than half the people in the USA think abortion is almost always morally wrong and think that abortion should be severely restricted. Funny that such a viewpoint is seen as somehow worthy of censorship. Goodandevil 01:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. People articles should not be categorized by their position on an issue. However, if they are pro-life or pro-choice activists, then categorize them appropriately. Classify what someone does, not by what they say or allege to think. Opinions make for a poor classification, particularly on an issue that has so many possible variations of belief (only in cases of rape or incest? always up until viability?) and so many possible ways in which to express and found an opinion (personally opposed, but legally in favor; personally in favor, but believe it's not a constitutional right). And opinions change... Considering how we classify things by what they were at any time (George W. Bush will continue to be in Category:Presidents of the United States long after he leaves office), would the article of someone who then switches their stance then be categorized both as pro-life and as pro-choice? Postdlf 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Interesting and informative. AnnH ^(talk) 12:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dwain's comments on Category:Pro-life politicians, Soltak's comments notwithstanding. I don't think anybody is trying to hide anything, but clearly a lot of people think this is "uninteresting" based on their own personal point of view, while others think it is interesting based on theirs. Since it's clearly interesting to some people it should remain. Only people who want to minimize the importance of those who think it is interesting seem to want it out. This is a keep vote for the "celebrities" categories. I don't think the "politicians" categories are all that informative, actually, since it is usually either implicit in the politician's affiliation or else irrelevant. But let me editorialize a bit about why I created the celebrities category. I was writing somewhere else about Martin Sheen and making a point from the fact that he was (I presumed) pro-choice. Then I went to read about him and found out that I was wrong. This was very, very interesting to me, and I wanted a way to find other such folks in the entertainment industry who held this position, since they seem to be vanishingly rare. The irony is that later information surfaced that made Sheen's position appear more ambiguous, and he was (last I checked) removed from the category, appropriately, I think. But there are some very clear cut cases, and if it's significant enough to note in an entertainer's Wikipedia article, such as in the case of Kate Mulgrew, then it is significant enough to have a category to group these people. Perhaps the categories should be renamed to "Pro-life entertainers," since the term "celebrities" is a bit vague. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Categorizing "celebrities" on this is even worse than categorizing politicians. See also my reasoning at the other category. Listify if you want to, but don't overdo it.--Pharos 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if verifiable, and with current names (just because I like shorter category names). Tomer^TALK 14:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All The two views are most widely known as "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Down with PC-ness!! Borisblue 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address the arguments actually given against the categories—the problem isn't with terminology. Postdlf 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's important to know who the killers are so you can boycott them Golfcam 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, too difficult to verify, especially for politicians. --TantalumTelluride 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Silence, creating a list of people who are extremely outspoken for one side or the other might be acceptable. --TantalumTelluride 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming would be consistent with the article name and other top-level Indian categories like Category:Economy of India, Category:History of India,etc.,. Pamri • Talk 14:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The general form of the categories in Category:Cuisine by nationality is Fooian cuisine not Cuisine of Foo by a ratio of 74:3. While I would be neutral on the issue of renaming all of them to the Cuisine of Foo version, I can't see engaging in a single rename here. Caerwine 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Will nominate for mass renaming. --Pamri • Talk 15:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Ideally all Fooian cuisine pages on Category:Cuisine by nationality should be changed to Cuisine of Foo, just as we have categories History of Foo and not Fooian history, Economy of Foo and not Fooian economy, etc. If at all it is possible to run all these 74 CfDs, I think the rename should happen. Aesthetically speaking, it is important to have some uniformity. If we are going to end up with half articles named in either style, it won't make much sense. deeptrivia 14:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's the cuisine of the Indian people rather than the country of India, isn't it? Hiding talk 15:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No...The cuisine of India includes the cuisine of the Indian subcontinent and also Indian cuisine abroad. --Pamri • Talk 15:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are confirming what Hiding said! Surely the first word of your comment should have been "yes". CalJW 17:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As CalJW notes, at least we agree it's Indian cuisine. Hiding talk 17:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Better to preserve the ambiguity as it is more inclusive. It is also what people normally say, at least around here. Carina22 16:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Help save our endangered adjectives. "Of" is less sinful than "in", but still no virtue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pamri has confirmed above that the nomination was inappropriate as it is not a country category. CalJW 17:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE this is a culture/ethnicity category, not a country/region category. 132.205.45.110 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The two are different. Indian cuisine refers to food originated from India and/or the Indian people, while cuisine of India refers to the food and eating culture in India regardless of origin. — Instantnood 16:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pointless to try to make subtle distinctions with the category system as they will not be generally understood or observed. They are matters for articles. In this case the amount of overlap would be enormous. CalJW 11:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case isn't Indian the broader more inclusive category? 132.205.44.134 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's why I supported it. CalJW 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The distinction is not difficult to be understood, and the difference between them does matter. (Is the difference between French language and languages of France subtle and not easy to be understood and observed?) — Instantnood 21:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category either needs a rename or a merge depending on how "filmmaker" is interpreted. At a minimum it needs a rename to Category:American filmmakers to conform with the capitalization rules that are followed by the other children of Category:American people by occupation and at most it needs to be merged into Category:American film directors. In the article space filmmaker is a redirect to film director, but the term can also apply to film producers, especially director-producers. I would prefer a rename but would find a merge acceptible if needed to reach consensus. Caerwine 13:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It has been established that "filmmakers" categories are not a good idea. Merge into Category:Cinema of the United States and the articles can then be moved on to their final destinations, in directors, producers or wherever. CalJW 13:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you point out where that has been established? Caerwine 14:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By precedence on this page. Not everything gets written down as a policy. CalJW 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate first and add to either directors or producers and delete. -Mayumashu 14:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you offering to do it? It shouldn't hold things up when they it can be merged.
• Delete Tiny relative to the major U.S. film categories so obviously a little known duplicate. Carina22 16:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've depopulated it as requested. I've created Category:American documentary filmmakers and Category:American experimental filmmakers, so with the pre-existing categories I think we have everything covered now. CalJW 22:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was recently created by an anonymous user. While it may reflect a trend in pop culture it nevertheless poses a huge problem from a scholarly point of view. It is a patently silly category. Is Wikipedia now in the business of "categorizing" the personal habits and crazes of celebrities such as Britney Spears and Demi Moore who are not even Jewish? How about millions of other genuine followers and rabbis throughout the ages, will they eventually be put into this "category" as well? Will Ashton Kutcher and Madonna "come together" with Rabbi Isaac Luria and sainted Hasidic mystics? The thought of this happening is too ridiculous for words. This absurd category should be deleted ASAP. IZAK 10:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as stated above. IZAK 10:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. CalJW 13:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more frivolous Jewish-classificationamizing category-cruft. Tomer^TALK 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category:Hollywood VIP Kabbalah followers. Note there is a similar problem with Category:Buddhists, there is also lots of Hollywood starlets in there who just needed an excuse to be vegetarian. -- Mkill 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, they deserve their own category like any other religion. --Fallout boy 05:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fad not religion. Loopy new age silly celebs. Golfcam 00:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was nominated for renaming on 14th September. It was agreed that the present name is POV, but not what to change it to. This name was suggested towards the end of the vote, so I am renominating this category to see if consensus can be reached. G Rutter 09:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to suggest renaming Category:Relics associated with Jesus as I feel the name currently suggested still has a Point of View attached to it. Hiding talk 14:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Either suggestion is better than the current one. - SimonP 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Attributed to" sounds more encyclopedic than does "associated with", and is not POV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, attributed means they have been assigned an association, and therefore suffers the same POV as alleged, because it are casts some doubt on the possible authenticity. Hiding talk 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: I read alleged as meaning "probably isn't" and both attributed and associated as meaning "might be". So, I don't really see any difference in meaning between them but I do agree with Lulu that attributed sounds better. --G Rutter 20:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed is quite neutral. For example the remark about "I didn't have time to make it any shorter" is often attributed to Fermat. Did he write it or not? I dunno. But by stating the attribution I am not prejudging the accuracy of the attribution. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was attempting to say! --G Rutter 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's possible I have a tin ear on this, so I am happy to Rename per nom. Hiding talk 18:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think both offers here are pretty much factual, or at least have the same kind of POV insofar as they directly promote these objects to the status of relics of JC. That's only possible if you, or someone else, accepts that by belonging to the person JC they acquire some particular properties: my theology is weak to non-existent, but I would imagine that non-Christians do not assign any special status to these objects. Perhaps its the use of the word "relic". But there's no other palatable suggestion, so rename, but I don't mind to which. Some more precise title altogether, stating which organization has declared them to have such an association? That wouldn't be POV, it would be a statement of hard fact. -Splash^talk 14:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that we'd have to create a number of sub-cats as different organisations/churches recongise different relics as being true (and some individual articles would probably end up in multiple sub-cats!). The advantage of the cat saying attributed to is that each article can then state how and why the particular relic has been attributed to Jesus. --G Rutter 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Relics attributed to Jesus, which at least doesn't sound like Wikipedia is putting the "alleged" relics before a Vatican-style tribunal. I still think, though, that Category:Relics of Jesus would be simpler and preferable; relics are by their nature religious items taken on faith.--Pharos 22:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted category (see [1]). Reasons for deletion still stand: redundant with Category:Machine learning and Category:Classification algorithms, ambiguous (do we mean human pattern recognition or machine pattern recognition?), empty/deleted for several months now. -- hike395 04:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This was an attempt by a new user to restructure Category:Computer science. —R. Koot 2:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Delete' confusing, too - pattern recognition is a subject in cognitive psychology as well. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that debate was over whether to delete the cat or not and in the midst of it this cat name was proposed and adopted. the debate this time is focussed solely on the name, which, again, sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. -Mayumashu 03:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to fall in line with naming of categories for place + occupation. every state and province, not to mention country uses a "place+occupation" pattern. -Mayumashu 04:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. My crusade against "in" only loosely applies to "of" :-). The the new name is still better. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this debate occured a month ago at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 7#Category:Ontario writers. --maclean25 00:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(that debate was on whether to delete the cat and the renaming came about part way through it. at any rate, -Mayumashu 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Rename to standard form. CalJW 11:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 14:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional books within the Cthulhu mythos —> Cthulhu mythos fictional books
Changing within to in would make the category name more concise. RlyehRising 04:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it might be better to drop the adjective phrase altogether. This new category name would be consistent with the categories listed under Category:Cthulhu mythos.
RlyehRising 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After spending nearly two hours trying to work out the grammatical niceties of this, all I got for my trouble was a splitting headache. Besides, the categories under the parent category (Category:Fictional books) seem to have no consistent naming standard anyway. Withdrawn. RlyehRising 18:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "Fictional books within [series]" is clearer, less grammatically unsound, and used in other series' article titles. "Cthulhu mythos books" is ambiguous, and could be read as covering actual books that contained Mythos stories. -Sean Curtin 05:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to verify and slightly POV. Also there is a existing list, List of anti-abortion people. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too fuzzy and politicized. Can't really meet WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is definitely "politics by categorization". I just removed Susan B. Anthony from the cat, who died seven decades before there was a "pro-life" movement (per cat description). With cats like this its always a matter of labelling "the folks we like" or "the folks we want to be associated with". Essentially every politician has said "abortion is bad" in some context, but you can't say which context "counts" and follow NPOV. Does Bill Clinton's "make abortion safe, legal, and rare" count? Why? Why not? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Stands on abortion are a key touchstone among US politicians and is very often used to group them. In most cases a politician will have a well stated position on the issue. --StuffOfInterest 12:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course it's politicised, it's for politicians. Lists and categories are complementary. CalJW 14:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "pro-life/pro-choice" divide in the United States (the largest by bounds of English-speaking countries) is crucial to the country's politics. --Jakes18 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or Rename to Category:American pro-life politicians if that is what the category is for, as suggested by above votes and the category placement. (Hiding, who shamefacedly forgot to sign.)
• DELETE and use "abortion-access" and "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" (especially since many pro-life people support the death penalty, which is an anti-life position) 132.205.45.110 19:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an unnecessary category that starts us on a slippery slope. For those that support keeping this, I would ask what's next? Category:Pro-education politicians, Category:Pro-tax politicians, Category:Anti-spending politicians? There's no need for this or any other such category. Soltak | Talk 20:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Pro-life" is a deliberately POV name (see pro-life). IMO its use as a Wikipedia category name directly violates WP:NPOV. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Soltak. Not only is "pro-life" a possibly POV and very hazy categorization, it would be far too specific to categorize all politicians on individual policy stances.--Pharos 21:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already stated here: US-only issue (here in Germany we have our abortion laws and the issue is settled), category name is not understood by people not affected by american politics (pro-life? is that about saving the environment?) -- Mkill 00:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that it is too specific, therefore really a waste of time for a category. -- Crevaner 22:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Informative list. Only people who don't want this information out would vote against it. Dwain 00:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due to respect to Dwain, that's probably one of the least intelligent comments I've seen in a debate like this. If you'd have even bothered reading the rationale for the majority of the above votes, you'd see that motivation for "Delete" votes has absolutely nothing to do with any hidden agenda: 1. This list has no significance outside of American politics and 2. Single issue lists like this are unnecessary in any case. Regardless, your obviously uninformed statement that your opposition is trying to hide information is completely unfounded. I challenge you to back up you comment with some evidence. Failing that, I would urge you to be more thoughtful when making comments in the future. Soltak | Talk 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Especially when this list is less POV than the "anti-abortion" list (which is also inaccurate in some cases). GreatGatsby 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEPDitto GreatGatsby.Goodandevil 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't categorize people based on their alleged position on one issue. There are too many nuances to abortion beliefs, not to mention too many evasions and misleading statements in abortion politics for classification to be appropriate. Listify, with explanatory notes and cited sources, if you prefer. But this is not an appropriate subject for a category. Postdlf 02:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting and informative. AnnH ^(talk) 12:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Gatsby. Categories are always painting with a broad brush - Details are found in articles. Str1977 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Informative and verifiable. If a politician publicly takes a postion, how could it be POV? --Elliskev 14:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This discussion is ridiculous. Instead we should be discussing getting rid of List of anti-abortion people. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to decide that people who call themselves "Pro-life" are really "anti-abortion". You don't like the term "pro-life"? Fine. You can have your POV. That doesn't give you the right to categorize people according to your POV however. If politicians identify themselves as "Pro-life", that's how they should be categorized. If they identify themselves as "Pro-gun-control", that's how they should be categorized. I imagine that everyone here who's saying "but they're anti-abortion, not pro-life!" would raise an unholy uproar if the proposal were made to change Category:Gun politics to Category:Gun-stealing Commie pinkos. In a word, this is hypocrisy. Just because opposition to abortion is the most widely-covered aspect of the Pro-life movement (btw, that article is obscenely POV) in the U.S. media, does not mean that it is the one and only issue of interest to that constituency. And just because an editor is pro-choice does not give them the right to recategorize people who claim to be "pro-life" according to their view on the accuracy of the appellation. Tomer^TALK 00:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my above rationale for deleting the category—it has nothing to do with whether "pro-life" is appropriate terminology (and I happen to believe that it is simply because abortion foes were successful in appropriating that term for themselves...and we simply take the language as we find it here). I believe the category is inappropriate because positions on issues should not be used to categorize articles on individuals. Postdlf 01:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you would also vote Delete for List of anti-abortion people? Tomer^TALK 06:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because lists and categories function very differently. A list article doesn't impose an unannotated label on an article as do category tags. List articles can explain nuance and cite sources; categories have no nuance. List articles can also collect together intersections of information that may be of little significance to the separate subjects referenced without burdening those separate articles. Categories instead force labels on each article of how the subject is to be classified, and those labels become a potential flood if they are not limited to the most significant and objectively definable. Why not categorize every politician by their position on every controversial issue? Category:Anti-death penalty politicians, Category:Anti-protection of flag burning politicians, Category:Anti-progressive tax politicians, Category:Pro-automatic handgun ban politicians... Why stop with abortion if you're going to categorize by positions on issues? Postdlf 00:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 07:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. --Kbdank71 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason to delete. Borisblue 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --TantalumTelluride 00:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.