The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Great Basin. — ξ^xplicit 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Escalante-Sevier region to Category:Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake subregion

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no main article here but the USGS apparently lables this region as Subregion 1603 -- Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake: The Escalante Desert and the Sevier Lake closed basins. Nevada, Utah. So at a minimum we should expand the description to include the desert and lake wording from the USGS. However I would more strongly favor an upmerge back into Category:Great Basin. Breaking the basin out into Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units and Cataloging Units is OCAT and would make navigation significantly more difficult. If anything we should have articles on these regions and subregions and they should be included in Category:Great Basin. If there is a need to navigate by hydrology areas of the Great Basin then we should use templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal regarding (AGAINST) RENAME recommendation: This weak idea is a knee-jerk reaction to User:Vegaswikian jumping to the conclusion with edit 366670971 on 23:15, 7 June 2010, that the name Escalante-Sevier meant "Escalante Desert": "no source to show that this [ Old Spanish Trail (trade route)] is in the Escalante desert". Of course, after the fix of that user's invalid revert that deleted the valid article category, the user realized that the word "Escalante" doesn't mean "Escalante Desert", and to ease a bruised ego, that user concocted the lame idea to add both "Desert" and "Lake" to the filename for the category, even though the category's associated region is much broader than the desert and lake (the river drains the predominate portion of the subregion). Moreover, that user apparently wants editors to make the same mistake (jump to the desert or lake conclusion) by introducing those extraneous words in the title of the category so they appear at the bottom of wikiarticles that are so categorized. Finally, that user creates an unrelated slippery slope fallacy that since "Breaking the basin out into Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units and Cataloging Units is OCAT and would make navigation significantly more difficult", but of course not all Great Basin subregions have been, or need to be, categorized: only 8 categories are used to fully-categorize the 14 different Great Basin regions, and already-existing subcategories are the majority (e.g., counties, metro areas, etc.). Hence, the hyperbolic chicken little inference that a subcategory is required for each unit is preposterously, and blatantly, false. Even if that user's recommendation and rationalization were just poorly thought out fabrications (like that user's faulty delete of a wikiarticle's category), the failure to sufficiently deliberate caused them (recommend-first-and-apply-critical-thinking-later--or-never). Hopefully the user didn't instead knowingly make this beyond-dubious-and-questionable recommendation (and 2 others) to waste editors' time assessing its invalidity so that time would not be used for editing (e.g., the problems with the content that user has posted.) Out of courtesy to those other editors, this rest-of-the-story is provided; and the renaming recommendation can be closed as unnecessary and unproductive (a waste of time). 71.219.172.174 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the two recommendations that are veiled/piggybacked in/with the rename recommendation are also invalid (even moreso). The "upmerge back into" recommendation to delete the category is even more preposterous--that user acknowledges the region is a bona-fide USGS subregion, and its area is as large as a state! Likewise regarding the "If anything" recommendation, wikiarticles for nearly all watersheds already exist for the associated/named bodies. For example, the Escalante Desert watershed, the Sevier River watershed, the Great Salt Lake watershed, the Owens Valley, etc. already exist as wikiarticles. Hence, the 3rd fabricated assertion that wikiarticles need created for each is absurd; even more absurd is the claim to include those hundreds of wikiarticles for "these regions and subregions" (communities, areas, counties, etc. in Category:Great Basin when they are in subcategories (e.g., county subcats include communities). Be prepared: with the 1st three recommendations having been debunked, that user will probably now jump to another conclusion, e.g., that political or other Great Basin subcategories are needed such as Category:Great Basin regions of California, Category:Great Basin regions of the Sierra Nevada physiographic section, Category:Great Basin regions of the Mediterranean California ecoregion, et al. 71.219.172.174 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to show how this improves navigate over a water basin template. Everyone knows about the Great Basin. How many people would want to navigate by the sub regions or even know about them? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME IS A DUMB IDEA The preceding from Vegaswikian was more asinine bunkum, as none of those fallacious claims have anything to do with adding "Desert" and "Lake" to the category name, the topic of this discussion section. "You^[who?] have yet to show^[specify] how this improves navigate over a water basin template"^{[citation needed]} is preposterously vague, false, & irrelevant, as categories are for grouping--& that user agrees the subregions are bona fide USGS groupings (he identified so in his recommendation)--so of course that valid categorization is how they improve the Great Basin category! Conversely, a reader navigates to a known wikiarticle or category using the name of the topic in which the reader is interested (there's a box in the upper right corner called "search" that allows only a part of the name to generate a list). Moreover, the preposterous Argumentum ad populum-style "Everyone knows"/"How many people" illogical claims are also irrelevant, even moreso for the latter as readers can (and will) be(come) informed when they open the Great Basin catmore, the subcategory pages, etc, and see the encompassing information and helpful introductory wikilinks. For example, had that user actually opened the subcategory for which he inaccurately assumed was for a desert, he would have seen that it was not described in any way as such, but that there were multiple ways to easily determine the scope of the subregion subcategory (e.g., read the description!). Again, the subregion subcategories are INDISPUTABLY THE BONA FIDE AND USGS-OFFICIAL GROUPINGS FOR THE SET OF WATERSHEDS THAT IS THE GREAT BASIN (Vegaswikian even cited the government source), so any more idiototic rationalizations by that user won't change the validity he identified for the subregion subcategories (but will continue to make that user look foolishly ignorant). But of course he will continue to do so... Debunkingly yours, (Hey, this is fun!) 71.219.172.174 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why 71.219.172.174 can't have a rational, normal, non-offensive conversation or debate about anything. Why must he or she bring this negative attitude to Wikipedia, when there are plenty of other places online for flame wars? Wikipedia is a respectful, cooperative community where this kind of interaction is not welcome. I hope he or she finds another website where they can pick fights, or better yet, just head down to the local coffeehouse. There are plenty of people wanting to rudely debate there, people that would adore you. You're wasting your talent for being a real ass on us Wikipedians who just get annoyed by it. I wish you the best, 71.219.172.174. Peace be with you. GreenGlass^(talk) 00:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Great Basin per nom. I don't think we need to catalog these down to the level that USGS does. Doing so does not enhance navigation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 16 June 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 17#Category:Flexible substrates. — ξ^xplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flexible substrates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The sole content is Polyethylene terephthalate. The category is grouped under Category:Semiconductors, even though the article Polyethylene terephthalate makes no mention of it being a semiconductor. Another one from Nopetro this is just puzzling. Is there a category on flexible coatings (the meaning of substrate, in this case, I'm told) we can merge to? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer my own question, yes, there is Category:Coatings with the subcat Category:Thin film deposition. I'll leave it to others to say whether the source category could be merged to one or both. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2010 (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: no consensus/nomination withdrawn. Courcelles (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Feed-in tariff to Category:Feed-in tariffs

Nominator's rationale: Nopetro created this but didn't bother adding it to any of the bona fide feed-in tariff articles, including Feed-in tariff. I've addressed that but think it should be pluralized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nopetro also created the sparsely populated Category:Net metering. Disconcertingly, the Net metering main article gives the impression that Net metering is very similar to the Feed-in tariff system, save for some monitoring and accounting methods. There's got to be a way to merge these two. I hope someone can provide some clarity: the category creator clearly cannot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I might like to withdraw this CfD and upmerge Category:Feed-in tariff and Category:Net metering to Category:Smart grid, to try to create a single valid category with adequate contents. Would people support this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 17#Category:Battery-charging infrastructure developers. — ξ^xplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Battery-charging infrastructure developers to Category:Electric vehicle infrastructure developers

Nominator's rationale: Another from Nopetro. I've tweaked the master cats but I think my suggested rename would be more precise as to what kinds of battery recharging designs are being undertaken by the two categorized corporations. Either that or delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (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; close is without prejudice to future nomination to delete the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting to Category:Commercialization of traditional medicines

Nominator's rationale: To match main article on topic (renamed for WP:NPOV reasons, I gather). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. The article still carries a POV cleanup and OR warning tags. That is, we cannot be sure that it's contents will remain what they are for long. It may be renamed, it may be deleted. It's not stable enough to be used for categorization. Its name appears neutral (isn't it great when proven traditional remedies become available over the counter) but inside it carries a clear anti-industry, anti-globalist, etc. negative message. So what should fall into the category? Should it list all topics relevant to commercialized traditional medicine, like fairly uncontroversial Valerian (herb), or only the alleged "piracy"? What it is all about? East of Borschov (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to East of Borschov: It must list all topics relevant to commercialized (or commercialization of) trandictional medicine, whether controversial or not, or it must be deleted per WP:NPOV policy. I.e., your question kinda answers itself. :-) Having a neutral category will help ensure having neutral articles. Anyway, if the rename doesn't happen, deletion is mandatory per policy, more or less. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:35, 14 June 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 17#Category:Camping equipment. — ξ^xplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Camping equipment to Category:Camping and Backpacking equipment

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Backpacking is a form of camping, and both share equipment, so separate categories would be largely redundant, and the category is already being used for both backpacking and camping equipment. Gjs238 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Shouldn't the proposed name be Category:Camping and backpacking equipment? Vegaswikian (talk)

• Oppose If backpacking is a form of camping, then the addition seems unnecessary. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fuel accidents to Category:Oil spills

Nominator's rationale: Another basically empty -- and particularly pointless -- one from Nopetro. Merge to Oil spills or just delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fuel accidents is grossly ambiguous. If could cover a car running into a gas pump with a resulting fire, a fuel tanker catching fire after an accident, a natural gas line explosion and the like. What is interesting is that the only article should not be included since it is not a fuel, but rather production of a fuel stock or the raw material used to create fuels. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fuel accidents are common in motorsports. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very radical Delete. per Vegaswikian + it unnecessarily enroaches into nuclear fuel-related troubles. East of Borschov (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Battery swapping

Nominator's rationale: And I would also suggest we delete this until such time as we have a sufficient body of bona fide articles on battery swapping or cars that do. Currently, Battery swapping is just a redirect to Electric vehicle battery, and other articles grouped here offer merely passing mentions of swapping as something that could take place. As is the case with many of Mac/Nukeless/Nopetro/Nudecline's categories, the editor's admirable enthusiasm for green technologies seems to take precedence over what actually exists in the encyclopedia, currently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hopelessly vague and ambiguous. I just did a battery swap for my fan controller yesterday? Oh you mean rechargeable batteries? Yea, I swap my nicads every month or so between device and charger. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2010 (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 to Category:Electric buses. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Battery swap buses to Category:Electric buses

also propose upmerging Category:All-electric buses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Battery swap buses and all-electric bus categories to Category:Electric buses. All were created by either banned user Mac or one of his suspected sockpuppets, Nopetro. The only contents of the two source categories is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. However, that articles states only that the company is "developing all-electric buses capable of battery swapping." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The company should not be listed in the proposed merge category since the text does not support it. Now, if we have an article on the buses being developed, then that should be in the proposed target category. The other option would be to expand the electric buses section in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries significantly and then provide a redirect for the bus which would have the category attached. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if I may add: the Electric bus article encompasses "all-electric" quite nicely. I don't think they'll ever be a need for an "all-electric bus" cat, as that's what an electric bus is. As for the battery swapping cat, there could be a need for a "battery swapping vehicles" cat down the road if that's the way technology goes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2010 (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 both into Category:Free, open source video games to match format of subcategories. It might make sense to add an "or" or "and" rather than have a comma, but that would require a broader nomination that would include the subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Free video games to Category:open source video games

Nominator's rationale: Excessive subcategorisation for a minor and largely unclear point of licensing; recommend that the new category be named "free, open source video games" to match the naming of the current subcategories. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. I can't think of many open-source games that are not free; or any closed-source free games that aren't just freeware. I can't even remember why I made this category. Marasmusine (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least according to Wikipedia since 2004 and Libregamewiki since 2007, "open source games" are those whose executable code is free software (e.g. games which are free software according to the FSF), and "free games" are those which also have all media under free licenses (i.e. games which are free content). --AVRS (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Would also support an "and" or "or" for clarity at the closer's discretion. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2010 (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 to Category:Wi-Fi devices and Category:Linux-based devices. — ξ^xplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Linux-based Wi-Fi devices to Category:Wi-Fi devices

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem a useful sub-categorization of Category:Wi-Fi devices and has no parallels for other operating systems. Brandon (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – if upmerged it also needs to go to Category:Linux-based devices (for which it is equally a sub-categorization). Occuli (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, good catch. Brandon (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (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 to Category:Anarchism and free love. If deletion is an option users seek, a subsequent nomination should be pursued. — ξ^xplicit 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anarchism and sex/love to Category:Anarchism and issues related to love and sex

Nominator's rationale: WP:SLASH and main article--which I just moved. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Anarchism and sexuality, perhaps? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The terms used historically in the anarchist movt was "free love", which is also one of the parent categories, so maybe Category:Anarchism and free love? AllyD (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category attempts to do too much. Category:Anarchism and free love, as suggested by AllyD right above, is a sensible option, but this particular category seems to have been intended to hold anarcha-feminist topics as a subcategory as well. Wouldn't it make more sense to have two different categories, one for something like the notable subject of anarchism and free love, and a separate one for the subject of anarchism intersecting with feminist issues? What would be the point of combining for the sake of combining? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2010 (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. I'll move the two remaining files to Commons shortly. — ξ^xplicit 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Flathead lake to Category:Lakes of Montana

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a lake which contains only the main article and two images, which may need to be moved to Commons. At this time, there is not enough content on Wikipedia related to the lake in order to necessitate an eponymous category. If there is no consensus for merging, then rename to Category:Flathead Lake (renaming originally proposed at WP:CFD/S). (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the proposal, one image already was moved to commons, for the map, which seems to be in the PD, I see no problem to move this also to commons. After that the category is obsolete and could be deleted. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2010 (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:  Relisted at 2010 JUN 24 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Converts to Rastafarianism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Converts to Rastafarianism from Christianity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Extremely provocative / bad idea for a cat; irrelevant, personal life info (BLP) and term 'RastafarianISM' is taken as patently offensive by Rastafarians - amazing people cannot even read our articles and learn something from them! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – given that we have Category:Converts from Christianity (to all of which the 'irrelevant, personal life info (BLP)' rationale would apply) is there a rename which is not 'patently offensive by Rastafarians'? (The article is Rastafari movement. Incidentally the Bob Marley article does not support his presence in 'Converts to Rastafarianism from Christianity' as there is no info that he was initially 'Christian' and there is info that he was baptised in 1980. Does the Rastafari movement consider itself necessarily non-Christian anyway?) Occuli (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "Converts from Christianity to Rastafari" would be an improvement, but it is still problematic, as they are not necessarily always considered mutually exclusive by all the adherents, as you pointed out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could one rename Category:Converts to Rastafarianism to "Converts to Rastafari" and merge the other one into it? Or do you argue that Category:Rastafarians is sufficient and that the category system does not lend itself to encapsulating the progress of an individual from one calling to another? I expect we could find 'converts from X to Y and then Z' with a bit of digging. Occuli (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's nothing wrong with Category:Rastafarians and including people in it, what's wrong with including people in Category:Converts to Rastafarianism or Category:Converts to Rastafari, just the same as for other movements, etc.? If some BLP subjects don't treat their beliefs as mutually exclusive with some other religion, we need not refer to them as converts from that other faith, so I'm willing to grant that Category:Converts to Rastafarianism from Christianity is potentially weaker than Category:Converts to Rastafarianism/Category:Converts to Rastafari. The thing that matters, however, is that Rastafari is generally described as a religious movement, does happen to be described as a type of system that one converts to, and I have found plenty of Google Books sources from reliable publishers discussing "conversions to Rastafarianism" -- so long as it's a matter of WP:RS. And if it's a matter of semantics, that, too, can easily be fixed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We have deleted some similar categories at cfd (eg Converts to Scientology) and kept others. A search for 'convert' on the invaluable page User:Good_Olfactory/CFD gives quite a few. Occuli (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bob Marley, whenever asked when or how long he's been Rasta, he would always insist that he became a Rastafarian at the beginning of creation, and thus did not ever "convert"...! At any rate, Category:Converts to Rastafari might be okay, but then it would largely duplicate Category:Rastafarians, since as you pointed out again, it is a rather "new" movement. A few exceptions might be younger generation people like Marley's kids who were born into it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (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.