Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 18

< March 17	March 19 >

March 18[edit]

Category:New International Encyclopedia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another of these category clutter generating by-source categories. As pointed out before, most frequently used references such as news sites don't have related categories, and categories of this sort impede navigation to more useful categories. CalJW 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete it or move the category to the articles' talk pages instead. Note: it's Template:NIE that drops this category so it will have to be removed from that template. — coel acan — 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are quite a few more of these out there. Abberley2 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These sort of categories, if they exist at all, are essentially administrative in nature. As such they really ought to be applied to the talk page, not the article (like internal WikiProject categorisation).

Xdamr^talk 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Indian immigrants to Canada[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Xdamr^talk 12:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian immigrants to Canada to Category:Indo-Canadians

Category:Anglo-Indian migrants to Canada to Category:Indo-Canadians
Category:Indian expatriates in Canada to Category:Indo-Canadians
Category:Indian expatriates to Category:Indian diaspora
Category:Canadians of Indian descent to Category:Indo-Canadians
Merge, per WP:OCAT this is rampant overcategorization. The term Indo-Canadian refers to a person whose origins or family's origin is India. No other cat (Category:Indian Americans, Category:Indian-Germans, Category:Indo-Trinidadians, Category:Indian South Africans, Category:Indian French people, etc) are split by immmigrant cats.Since "Indian" is not an ethnic group (rather a national one), Indian descent is a p[urely subjective term.Baka man 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Indian expats are not Canadians firstly, neither are they "diaspora", and there is a whole set of Category:Expatriates in Canada and Category:Expatriates by country of residence. Secondly and similarly, there is a whole collection of Category:Immigrants to Canada category pages - a nomination should be made for the whole lot, not just one member. Mayumashu 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate means they are living in Canada. Therefore they are Indo-Canadians.Baka man 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The different sub-cats are covered by the "Indo-Canadians" tag. Ekantik ^talk 01:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this requires a much larger discussion about the merits of all of these expatriates and immigrants categories; but renamethe second one to Category:Anglo-Indian immigrants to Canada for consistency. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mayumashu, and Rename the one per SMcCandlish. Kevlar67 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree too to rename of second one listed Mayumashu 10:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge per nom: I can't believe the extent of over-categorisation sometimes. Ekantik ^talk 01:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and discuss The existing consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) covers a consistent treatment of Heritage and Residence. Take up discussion at the project page to see if there's any wiki-wide merit in Immigrant categories. Mereda 07:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's overcategorization here, a more thought-out proposal needs to be made. Residency in Canada does not make someone a Canadian, Indo or otherwise. Bobanny 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. - Privacy 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bigamists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - We currently do not categorize people by marital status, so we should not have categories for bigamists. This category may also become problematic if used to categorize every adulterer or adulteress. (Insert joke about U.S. Republican presidential candidates here.) Some of the reasons given for deleting Category:Polygamists probably apply here as well. Dr. Submillimeter 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike marriage, adultery and indeed polygamy, bigamy is by definition a crime (multiple marriages in polygamous societies are not bigamous). Dominictimms 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be overly quibbical but in many jurisdictions adultery is a crime. Otto4711 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed Dominic's point. Adultery is a crime only where it is legislated as a crime, but it would exist even if no such legislation had ever existed anyhere (same as homosexuality), but bigamy, as a distinct concept from polygamy, exists only because it is a legal concept. Honbicot 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to "...polygamists". It's okay to use western biases in an English encyclopedia. It's a crime almost everywhere this encyclopedia is used, and the header is very clear that it's only used where the act of polygamy is illegal. However, we shouldn't limited this category to two spouses per person, in the same way we decided a long time ago that Category:Multilingual songs shouldn't be "Bilingual songs."--Mike Selinker 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We deleted polygamist categories here and here. Renaming these categories as suggested by Mike Selinker would effectively be the recreation of deleted content, which does not seem appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: per Dr. Submillimeter. --Ragib 01:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I've looked at the three articles in Category:English bigamists, and bigamy is arguably the most notable thing about all three of them. Abberley2 12:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per discussion above. This is not a recreation of Category:Polygamists, it a legal category; it should be restricted to those convicted of bigamy and made a sub-category of Category:Criminals. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If kept, then perhaps renaming these categories using "convicted bigamists" would be appropriate, as these categories are for people who committed criminal acts and not just people who are polygamists. Dr. Submillimeter 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will add these categories to the global and national criminals categories. Olborne 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now done, but four of the seven were in criminals categories beforehand. Olborne 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mountains in Nordland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Erroneously created. Should have been Category:Mountains of Nordland. Berland 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per creator's request (WP:CSD - G7. --Xdamr^talk 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Soviet law[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Soviet Union law to Category:Soviet law. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet law to Category:Soviet Union law

Merge to explicitly specify the country. Cmapm 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have Category:French law, not Category:France law, etc. Unless there was some other country also called "Soviet" (Canada?) then there's no confusion here. — coel acan — 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed the obvious earlier, that this was a merge and not a move. So merge the other way, into Category:Soviet law. — coel acan — 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well there have been some shortlived. 'Soviet Republics' outside of the Soviet Union, but common sense should probably prevail here. The likelyhood that someone will be confused whether this category relates to USSR or the Bavarian Soviet Republic is very limited. My vote is reverse merge. --Soman 08:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Soviet law, which is normal usage. The alternative is the rather cumbersome Category:Law of the Soviet Union. Dominictimms 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per Dominictimms. Otto4711 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge' to 'Soviet Law' per convention. Hmains 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per above. David Kernow (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per above --Xdamr^talk 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Members of private clubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People aren't notable for their membership of private clubs, but this category - thankfully almost unused at present - might encourage people to think that club membership is a suitable way to categorise articles. CalJW 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dominictimms 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I created this category to parent several others ... if they go away this one is not needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Appleton's Cyclopedia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Following up on recent nominations, here is another source category that does nothing for readers apart from impede the use of more relevant categories for navigation. CalJW 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization by source material is a bad idea. Articles with material that comes from a common source are almost certainly unrelated, but the categories could easily contribute to category clutter problems. Would any normal person use these categories to navigate among articles? Dr. Submillimeter 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominictimms 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete it or move the category to the articles' talk pages instead. Note: it's Template:Appletons that drops this category so it will have to be removed from that template. — coel acan — 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps alter template so that it categorises talk pages instead? This sort of categorisation certainly has no place within the main article, but if it is of some use then it ought to follow practice for internal categorisation (eg WikiProjects).

Xdamr^talk 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Zeta Psi brothers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Also noting Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 15#Category:Sigma Chi brothers and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 16#Fraternaties, per the requests below. - jc37 09:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another of these cluttersome society categories. People are not notable for the clubs and society to which they belong. CalJW 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't this covered by another discussion? Dominictimms 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Treat consistently with fraternities nominated March 16 and more thoroughly discussed. A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wilchett 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Treat consistently with fraternities nominated March 16. Moreover, that discussion notes that an attempt was made previous to it, with the result of keeping the category. The preponderance of the discussion of March 16 echoes the same concerns as the original discussion and appears weighted towards keeping such categories as a useful statement of a substantive part of person's lives. As a regular user of the same, I certainly find them notable. In accordance with the above, therefore, Keep. At the least, wait for a disposition of the subsuming question of fraternity membership categories in general. Citizen Sunshine 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sports broadcasting families[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these categories are to capture members of families who share a common career of sports broadcasting. Like other eponymous categories, there needs to be significant material to justify it. The articles for the various people are interlinked with the articles for other members of the family so all of these categories and the parent are unnecessary. Note that Category:Kelly family is nominated elsewhere. Otto4711 15:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The family relationships can be explained through links. Placing all people who are related together in Category:Sports broadcasting families makes no sense, and having categories for individual families with two or three people each is not useful. (Do we need a category to say that Joe Buck is Jack Buck's son?) Dr. Submillimeter 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most category topics are interwoven into well-written articles. Nonetheless, they aid in navigation and are informative. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All family categories are marginal, and these examples are at the bottom of the merit scale. Wilchett 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all plus Category:Sutton family as well. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hungarian agriculture[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Hungarian agriculture to Category:Agriculture in Hungary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hungarian agriculture to Category:Agriculture in Hungary

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Agriculture by country. Haddiscoe 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Wilchett 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiProject Big Four of Thrash Metal[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Four of Thrash Metal. If there is a replacement later, the assessment cats should become renames. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per MfD. ~ trialsanderrors 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles containing IAST[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is category clutter that has nothing to do with the category systems role as a navigational tool for readers. CalJW 12:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first, I thought that this category may be useful for maintenance-related issues. However, a quick inspection of both the category and articles on Chinese and Japanese people reveals that a similar system is not in place for other languages with non-Roman characters. Therefore, I must agree that this categorization serves no maintenance role. Since it serves no practical role, either, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominictimms 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Economy of mainland China[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior deletions overturned per decision at deletion review, the discussion on the ultimate fate is moved back here. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion.trialsanderrors 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Is Hong Kong part of the People's Republic of China	Yes
Is renminbi the currency of Hong Kong	No
Is renminbi the currency of Mainland China	Yes
Is Hong Kong a separate economy from the Mainland	Yes. See one country, two systems

HK has its own currency, its own monetary policy, custom, court of final appeal, etc. Many things that would belong to the category in question would not apply to Hong Kong. Therefore, these things would be mis-categorized under Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, it is necessary to make a separate category for Mainland China. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The renminbi most certainly is an acceptable currency in Hong Kong. Since 2003 HK residents can maintain RMB bank accounts. HKD is still separate but it is absolutely false to state the renminbi is only a currency in the mainland and not a currency in HK. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Renminbi, Renminbi makes up 60% of circulation in Mongolia. Therefore it is absolutely false, too, to state the Renminbi is only a currency in the People's Republic of China, if your logic is correct. - Privacy 08:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the still active discussion about naming conventions on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Naming_conventions. The project asked for an opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mainland China is a separate economy. The government of the PRC publishes separate data for Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. There really shouldn't be an issue here. CalJW 12:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the PRC government publishes separate data for China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Notice the missing "mainland" word. SchmuckyTheCat 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It publishes data for Mainland China (except for, e.g., military), tho "China" is rather often used in place of "Mainland China" when the contexts concerned are not ambiguous. Hong Kong and Macau publishes their own figures. - Privacy 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of hits from the National Bureau of Statistics of China for the term "mainland China" ZERO. Using just "mainland" shows six total hits, out of several hundred for "China" with no usage as you describe. SchmuckyTheCat 02:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely wrong. [1] - Privacy 07:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Apples and oranges search. Mine was a internal search of the statistics, yours is a external search of the site. In either case, your result still says what I have been saying "mainland" is only used as a term when necessary to distinguish internal divisions. It is not the official name of the jurisdiction and isn't used outside officially outside of the country. SchmuckyTheCat 23:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. For trade figures, which made up the almost all of the first ten hits, Hong Kong and Macau are not even mentioned. It is used officially. - Privacy 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hong Kong, Macau, and Mainland China division is one observed by the Chinese government for economic purposes. As a result I consider this to be a valid basis for categorisation. These are all sub-categories of Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China, which is the category listed within Category:Economies by country. So long as these parent/child relationships are maintained between the categories I think that this is a viable, and logical, structure.

Xdamr^talk 14:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xdamr and one country, two systems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE in the strongest terms This is a POV fork. The economy of the People's Republic of China is the economy of the People's Republic of China.

This has nothing to do with Hong Kong. Hong Kong wasn't part of the PRC economy in 1996, and it isn't in 2007. That Hong Kong was returned from the UK to China does not affect the name of the parent country. The PRC uses the term "mainland China" only within its national borders when distinguishing the parent country from its constituent parts. In international contexts it uses the term "People's Republic of China" or simply "China".

The outcome of this should not be based on editors political POV. It should be based on Wikipedia policies. This, this is an issue of attribution and NPOV.

Attribution: the PRC does not use the term mainland when it is not necessary to distinguish itself from some other part. Is the Ministry of Commerce the "Ministry of Commerce of mainland China"? No, PRC. Is the Ministry of Finance of "mainland China"? No, PRC. Does either state organization use the term mainland? No.

NPOV: The term "mainland" is often a POV term (it was originally coined on Taiwan, which is ruled by the exile government of an unsettled civil war).

We do not treat any other country in this way. We don't rename Economy of France to "Economy of Metropolitan France" because of the existence of Réunion. We do not rename Economy of the United States to "Economy of the United States Mainland" because of the existence of Puerto Rico. Though, you will find the United States refer to itself as the US Mainland in treaties and legal matters dealing with Puerto Rico.

SchmuckyTheCat 16:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Puerto Rico part of the United States? Is the Falklands part of the United Kingdom? Are Hong Kong and Macau part of the People's Republic of China? Is there a Mainland Chinese government? Are there Mainland Chinese ministries? Did the Chinese ministry of health provide figures of SARS victims for China or for mainland China? - Privacy 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Yes, the Falklands are part of the UK. Yes, HK and Macao are part of the PRC. No, there is not a mainland Chinese government, the government calls itself People's Republic of China. No, the ministries are functionaries of the PRC. Who cares about one single statistic. SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the Falklands is part of the United Kingdom? Do ministries or equivalence of the People's Republic of China possess any duties in the special administrative regions, other than matters related to foreign affairs and military? Is number of SARS victims "one single statistic"? [2]

Read [3] [4] to see what is "foreign". - Privacy 07:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland China is not a fork of People's Republic of China. They do not mean the same thing. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China since 1997 and 1999. They remain not part of Mainland China. In the case of "Economy of the People's Republic of China", it is true "People's Republic of China" and "China" are very often used in place of "Mainland China". But only when the contexts ensure there is no ambiguity. - Privacy 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what categorization system you believe would be preferable? — coel acan — 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of the People's Republic of China, which has been the correct category for years. SchmuckyTheCat 05:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addendum

Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Resolving_disputed_names_within_articles is our guideline with naming disputes. It has this handly little table.

Criterion	China/People's Republic of China	mainland China
1. Most commonly used name in English	Yes	No
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	Yes	No
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	Yes	No
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

--SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "having the cake and eating it" possible, e.g. parent Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China including subCategory:Economy of mainland China, subCategory:Economy of Hong Kong, etc...? Apologies in advance for any naivety, David Kernow (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with David Kernow's proposal. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I misunderstand you, but that is exactly the situation that we have at the moment. --Xdamr^talk 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is not NPOV. That is defining the Economy of the People's Republic of China as "mainland China" which is the position of those in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, but not the position of the People's Republic of China or any international organization. SchmuckyTheCat 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SchmuckyTheCat has just spelled out that he wants Wikipedia to favour the position of the PRC, ie to take sides without regard to the neutrality policy. As for the international organisations, well they all cut deals with the PRC for cash, favours or an easy life, so their position is simply whatever it has to be to keep Beijing happy, rather than anything based on logic or reality. But Wikipedia has the honour of being banned in the PRC, so it can follow reality. Choalbaton 17:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? International organizations take a pro PRC position by calling it the PRC? What? Do they then take a pro US position by calling the United States by United States? SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Handbook of Texas citations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another cluttersome by-source category, to follow up recent nominations. The vast majority of things that are used as sources don't get a category, eg prominent news media sites, and this one shouldn't either. CalJW 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominictimms 21:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Latin phrases[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Latin phrases into Category:Latin words and phrases

Category:Latin phrases to Category:Latin words and phrases

Merge - per all recent similar CFMs establishing consensus on the preferred "words and phrases" construction. Otto4711 03:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and keep as a redirect. Greg Grahame 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Car TV shows[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Car TV shows into Category:Automotive television series. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Car TV shows to Category:Automotive television series

Both names are semantically identical, some articles are in both categories. Category hierarchy is different, though. Suggest that it should be merged to the former. kelvSYC 03:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Automotive television series. The other name is too informal. Recury 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comic Book characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, will add Comics characters cat to any entries that don't have it already. NawlinWiki 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Comics characters, convention of Category:Fictional characters by medium. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge redundant and incorrectly capitalized category that was created by someone whose edit history would fit that of yet another Fatone411/Poker Master/EJBanks/Creepy Crawler sockpuppet.[5] Doczilla 08:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Heiresses[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Heirs and heiresses, as gendered category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Heirs and heiresses are very different things, especially in outside of the recent era in the developed world. There are tens of thousands of articles about heirs - male royals and aristocrats by the lorry load, and every businessman with a rich father. King Henry V and John D Rockefeller Junior should not be in the same category, but there is both human interest value and social history value in grouping women whose lives were greatly influenced by heiress status, and who are often famous primarily as heiresses. CalJW 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ill-defined and virtually unlimited category. Any woman who inherits something is an heiress. Renaming would only compound the problem by opening it up to any man who's ever inherited anything. Otto4711 03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711. A category which could potentially encompass just about every woman. Criteria for inclusion, as expressed on the category page, suggest that it is for 'prominent heiresses'—this is a POV judgement.

Xdamr^talk 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being an heiress is the primary defining characteristic of some women. This category should exist in a professionally edited encyclopedia, but one can have no confidence that it will be used in an appropriate fashion in wikipedia. Honbicot 11:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 and Honbicot. Choalbaton 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alleged Alumnus of a suspicious Afghan training camp[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category contains two POV words ("alleged" and "suspicious"); info. is captured in other categories. UnitedStatesian 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lol. POV crap.
Delete inflammatory, unnecessary, doubly speculative cat. Doczilla 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. Possibly merge to Category:Guantanamo detainee alleged to have attended a suspect military training camp, which seems to be sources-based. --rimshots^talk 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mudslinging category. Greg Grahame 14:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR/POV. --Xdamr^talk 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Purported spiritual mediums[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Purported spiritual mediums to Category:Spiritual mediums and/or purported spiritual mediums

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Please see my argument re "Purported psychics" below. Caleb Murdock 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the category can't be deleted despite there being no scientific evidence for the existence of mediumistic powers, "purported" is the best compromise between those who believe in such things and those who don't. The suggested rename is horrible. Otto4711 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rename to more app. cat. Bigman17 05:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you vote Delete or Rename? --rimshots^talk 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't delete, because being purported mediums is the defining characteristic for many of the category's members. Keep the name because it is the best compromise between being precise and being concise. --rimshots^talk 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. --Xdamr^talk 14:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent discussion to move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Psychics --Minderbinder 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments by Rimshots and Minderbinder. — Elembis (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No category should validate the existence of things that aren't provable.--Mike Selinker 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether they're mediums or not, they're purported. The sky is reported to be blue, which is true to the best of my knowledge. Doczilla 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This name is more neutral than the former name. We need to keep credulous nonsense out of Wikipedia, or it will become a joke. Honbicot 11:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mediums or Category:Spiritual mediums. See my argument in the below discussion; like "psychic", "medium" is an occupation, and being a medium does not necessarily imply one is a true medium who can actually produce paranormal effects. Λυδαcιτγ 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below under "psychic". As in that case, WP defines Mediumship as actually having the power and able to produce the effects, not as someone who poses as one for their job. (And as with psychic, I find that definition POV and disagree with it). --Minderbinder 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there did not seem to have been a previous consensus either way, I changed Mediumship to define a medium as someone who claims to be able to conduct mediumship. Perhaps others will reconsider their "keep" votes in light of this definition? Λυδαcιτγ 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Cateogry:Mediums There will be no confusion; those who believe such people exists and those who don't will equally find it appropriate. .DGG 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Category: Purported spiritualists and or purported mediums and or purported scammers and or purported hoaxters and or people who are purported to have "real" purported mediums. Puddytang 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposed name appears to claim that there are some real mediums. Osomec 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Category:Mediums or Category:Claimed mediums as a more neutral term, removing the word "purported" which carries a presumption that the claim is false. The POV of editors wrt to whether mediums actually have their claimed powers should not be used to name categories or articles, or we will open the floodgates to other POV namings; e.g. purported pro-life campaigners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Purported" is not quite neutral, but it is closer than most other options. "Alleged" would also be appropriate, but no one has suggested that yet. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Purported psychics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Purported psychics to Category:Psychics and/or purported psychics

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category was recently renamed "Purported psychics" from "Psychics". I was not aware that that rename was taking place; otherwise, I would have participated in the previous discussion.

The word "purported" is not in any way neutral. The dictionary at www.tdf.com gives this definition of purported: "commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds". That's all well and good. However, the dictionary at www.dictionary.com gives this definition: "reputed or claimed; alleged". Another poster (below) found another definition which was even worse. All these words are on the Wiki list of Words to Avoid: "purported", "claimed", "alleged". They are on that list specifically because they imply falsehood, and such an implication is not a neutral POV. Here is a quote from the Words to Avoid page: "These [words] all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications." Given the fact that "purported" is a Word to Avoid, it makes no sense to include it in the name of a category. However, I have nonetheless proposed the name "Psychics and/or purported psychics" to satisfy those who believe that all such phenomena are fraudulent. That name may be long and ungainly, but it covers all bases and points of view. By using "and/or", the name makes it clear that the validity of psychic phenomena is in dispute, and therefore this new name is absolutely neutral.

In the previous discussion, the person who proposed the name "Purported psychics" said something to the effect that no psychic phenomenon has ever been proven valid, but to the best of my knowledge, that simply isn't true.

What's really happening here is that the skeptics on Wikipedia are trying to "get their way". They are not always successful at changing the articles, so they see an opportunity to invalidate entire categories of individuals (psychics and mediums) by means of derogatory category names. --Caleb Murdock 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in the previous discussion I said "nobody has been verifiably proven to have actual psychic powers". Please be more careful when quoting other editors. And if you have reliable sources showing that someone is verifiably proven to have actual psychic powers, I'd love to see them. --Minderbinder 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same difference!--Caleb Murdock 07:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the category can't be deleted despite there being no scientific evidence for the existence of psychic powers, "purported" is the best compromise between those who believe in such things and those who don't. The suggested rename is horrible. Otto4711 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that a statement like "despite there being no scientific evidence for the existence of psychic powers" is nothing more than opinion. My experience with most skeptics is that they assume this to be a fact, though they often know very little about psychics and their abilities. The role of skeptics on Wikipedia seems to be that of censors, naysayers and qualifiers; they don't bother to learn much about the subject they are censoring since they don't believe in it. My proposed category names may be long and awkward, but they are inclusive of all viewpoints, and they do not contain negative POVs or Words to Avoid. If they are too unwieldy, then I think we need to return to "Psychics" and "Spiritual mediums".--Caleb Murdock 05:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the peer-reviewed literature that supports the claims of any of these people of having psychic powers? The existence or non-existence of psychic powers may be a matter of "opinion" but the existence or non-existence of scientific literature is not. Encyclopedias should be based in fact. It is fact that the people categorized here purport to have psychic powers. It is not fact that they have them. Categorizing them as being either psychics or purported psychics pushes the POV that psychic powers exist and there is no empirical evidence that they do. "Purported psychics" may also be POV pushing and it may be that it's not possible to categorize these people without some measure of POV pushing, but given the choice between pushing a POV that psychic powers do exist and a POV that they might not then the choice is pretty clear that we should choose the option which does not present conjecture as fact. Otto4711 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting that my proposed name is inclusive of both points of view: "Psychics and/or purported psychics". Although I say in other parts of this discussion that "and/or" could be replaced by "and", I think that keeping "and/or" is important because it makes it clear that there is, in fact, a difference of opinion on this issue. The name "Psychics and purported psychics" gives the impression that the category includes "real" psychics and "fake" psychics, when in fact there is a disagreement about whether the phenomenon exists at all.

Tell me, why do you resist allowing MY point of view to be reflected in the name, even when I phrase it so that your point of view is also reflected? Why can't both points of view be reflected?--Caleb Murdock 10:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a proposed name maybe Category:Individuals claiming to have psychic powers? I do understand your objection. I was part of the group that was responsible for paying Kreskin at a late 1960s performance. So I know what was done to hide the payment and knew and trusted everyone involved. Yet the payment was found. Does that prove psychic powers? I don't know, but it did make me wonder. Vegaswikian 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "claim" is even worse than the word "purport". I don't know anything about the incident you mentioned.--Caleb Murdock 06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its covered in the Kreskin article. Vegaswikian 07:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. They're all purported, whether they're really psychics or not. On that side note about Kreskin, I read one of his books in which he stated that there is nothing psychic about how he finds those checks. Doczilla 08:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Doczilla --rimshots^talk 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of psychic powers is scientifically unproven. As such the use of 'purported' is eminently justified. This is a case where it is justifiable to suggest 'that a given statement is not necessarily factual'. As far as I can see the only alternative is to delete the category as OR and POV.

Xdamr^talk 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent discussion to move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Psychics --Minderbinder 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No category should validate the existence of things that aren't provable.--Mike Selinker 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments by Doczilla, Xdamr and Minderbinder. — Elembis (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You are correct that "purported" carries an implication of falsehood. However, "purported" is only a word to avoid when it is inserted only to bandy about "murky implications." In this case, there are plenty of direct citable doubters (namely, nearly the whole of the scientific community) and reasons to suspect claims of psychic power. This can be done in the Category description, actually, rendering this statement a perfectly neutral rendition of the current scientific opinion. SnowFire 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that SnowFire says it all. If "purported" does indeed imply falsehood, then it is improper and prejudicial to use that word in a category name. All these assertions that psychic abilities have never been proven are just opinion. There is significant evidence that both Edgar Cayce and Jane Roberts had genuine psychic ability. My proposed category name "covers all bases" because it says "Psychics AND/OR purported psychics" (although just "and" would be fine). There's no good reason to adopt the skeptical point of view just because skeptics swarm over Wikipedia like ants on an anthill.--Caleb Murdock 03:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask again for the independent peer-reviewed literature that supports the notion that anyone, let alone Cayce or Roberts, have psychic powers. Otto4711 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an academic. I've read dozens of books over the years, but I don't have them at my fingertips -- and you wouldn't accept any evidence anyway since your mind is all made up. Incidentally, if you are going to insist on a biased category name, then it is up to you to prove that all psychics are frauds, something that you can't do.--Caleb Murdock 05:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you don't really know me well enough to decide that I would reject peer-reviewed scientific literature. Nor is it up to me or anyone else to prove that all psychics are frauds for the purpose of this discussion. Otto4711 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Peer-reviewed scientific literature" -- what a laugh.--Caleb Murdock 09:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's just so inconvenient that people who don't believe in tea leaf readers or fingering chicken entrails expect that those who do provide evidence... Otto4711 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every phenomenon can be reduced to a double-blind study, or whatever strict scientific evidence you are looking for. 90% of what we accept as true about ourselves cannot be proven, a good example of which is emotions -- we all believe in emotions because we all experience them, but they will always escape scientific validation. Skeptics set the standard of proof so high so that they don't have to consider evidence that might upset their limited world view.--Caleb Murdock 11:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK Caleb, this is not the time or place for a protracted debate on the scientific method as it applies to the study of psychic powers (but you might want to brush up on your reading about the scientific research into emotion). The point still stands that this category name is the best among various alternatives to satisfy people on both sides of the belief fence. Otto4711 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This name is more neutral than the former name. Honbicot 11:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete or rename. The word “purported” clearly implies falsehood. If you read the Webster’s online definition of purported, it states:

to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) <a book that purports to be an objective analysis>; also : CLAIM <foreign novels which he purports to have translated -- Mary McCarthy>

Webster’s defines specious as:

2 : having deceptive attraction or allure

3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC <specious reasoning>

With these definitions, there can be absolutely no doubt that “purported” is a word loaded with bias and should not be used – especially as a category.

Purported is also listed as a WP:WTA. I do not think even WTA goes far enough in limiting the use of purported considering the widely used definitions above, and I believe we need to revisit that entry. I’ll take that on when I get back from Wikibreak.

At worst, the category should be named “Professed psychics”, which I think is also incorrect because it completely ignores the fact that these psychics are not just simply “professed”, but have a large number of people who believe in them and a number of people who don’t. We cannot make that judgment, especially in an unexplained category. “Psychics” would be the best choice – then let the readers make the judgment themselves by actually reading the articles in the category. It’s not our job to make this kind of judgment, that would violate NPOV.

In sum, I do not see the problem with the category being merely named “Psychics”, our readers are sophisticated enough to determine the truth of the matter for themselves and would not believe that Wikipedia is making such a judgment. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I think an instructive comparison would be with Category:Self-declared messiahs. Suppose someone decided to make a subcategory based off List of people who have claimed to be Jesus; would that category be called "People who are also Jesus" or "People who have claimed to be Jesus?" I think you can guess what would happen if the first suggested name were used and the rain of complaints that would follow from Christians. Well, it's the same problem with "Psychics" (which can be interpreted as "People who have psychic power"), except coming from everyone who doesn't believe in psychic power. Both "claim" and "purport" lightly imply falsehood (or at least a lack of proof) while leaving open the possibility for truth. That seems neutral to me.

I would have no problem with a rename to "Self-declared psychics," bearing in mind that would probably entail the removal of a few modest types whose followers say that they're psychic. SnowFire 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, "professed" is a much better word - far more encyclopedic than "self-declared" or "self-described". I'm not so sure the wording on the "Jesus" or "Messiah" entries are the best descriptors either, but that's not the issue here. The use of "Purported" is the issue here - and it's the wrong word to use in this case. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, you have a point; "professed" would be fine as well. SnowFire 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that SnowFlake's comment about "Self-declared messiahs" needs to be addressed a little further. First, religion is wholly non-scientific and based entirely on faith, whereas psychic phenomenon may be scientifically validated some day. Furthermore, a true messiah (if there is such a thing) is someone who comes once in a century at most, whereas psychic ability is something that many people believe they have to some extent. Even I have had moments of knowing something before I could have known it, and I don't consider myself to be gifted. Calling psychics "purported" is not just an insult to psychics who may have real ability, but to the millions of people who believe they have a little ability in this area, and also to the millions of people who believe in the phenomenon in general. That's why the name "Psychics and/or purported psychics" covers both points of view, whereas "Purported psychics" does not. In an area where man does not have difinitive knowledge or understanding, it would be a mistake to allow a minority viewpoint -- in this case, the view of skeptics -- to prevail over the more widely accepted view. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to promote minority viewpoints on controversial issues.--Caleb Murdock 09:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all minority viewpoints are created equal. You wouldn't ask a person on the street for details of Namibian culture, would you? It doesn't particularly matter what random citizens of not-Namibia think it's like; actual Namibians and people who have studied the issue are the only ones who need to be consulted and whose opinions "count," despite the fact that they are a tiny minority of the world's population. The public is ignorant on lots of things (Dragonflies sting people, despite biologists saying otherwise? Various facts on how long it takes for the earth to revolve around the Sun?) and no matter how many people think that Omaha is the capital of Nebraska, it doesn't change the fact that "qualified" people know that it's Lincoln. It's the same here; it doesn't matter what a majority of the public believes, but a majority of people who have seriously studied the issue have come to the conclusion that any true psychic has not yet proven this in the public arena. Trust me, the religion comparison is better for your side. You've already admitted that psychic phenomena so far has not held up well to a double-blind study; don't fight this on scientific grounds. SnowFire 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake, you talk as if psychic phenomena were well-understood by scientists or experts in the field, but it isn't; thus your Namibia comparison is flawed. The reading that I've done indicates that there is much psychic phenomena which, although it can't be proven absolutely, cannot be disproven. You forget that it is not the role of science to validate reality, but simply to study it and elucidate it. If science hasn't come to understand psychic phenomena yet, that doesn't mean it won't in the future. Furthermore, by implication you equate scientists with skeptics, yet the two groups are not the same. A large percentage of scientists (if not a majority) are religious, whereas skeptics tend to be atheists, viewing religion as just more bunk. In my opinion, skeptics should stop leaning on science for "proof" because many scientists would not agree with them. MY experience with skeptics is this: they periodically swoop in on the article I regularly edit -- Jane Roberts -- and "fix" it by adding "neutral" language (which is never neutral). But when I question them, it turns out that they don't know anything about Jane Roberts. They haven't read her books; they haven't read her biography; and they don't know what she said when she was in trance. They make their edits from a place of ignorance. Believing as they do that psychic phenomena is bunk, they haven't bothered to learn about it. And since Wikipedia allows people to edit subjects of which they are ignorant, skeptics feel free to "correct" the writing of people who are truly knowledgeable. No good scientist would do that.

As for double-blind studies, the "proof" of psychic phenomena may always be anecdotal and personal in nature. Not every aspect of reality can be subjected to such narrow scientific methods. I can give you examples of what I mean if you wish to contact me privately.--Caleb Murdock 08:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If science hasn't come to understand psychic phenomena yet, that doesn't mean it won't in the future." Entirely possible, and when it does, Wikipedia should be updated to account for it. However, Wikipedia's No Original Research comes into play; Wikipedia will wait for those journals and studies to be published that validate psychic phenomena as being real. The whole verifiability, not truth thing; Wikipedia 500 BC would list the Earth as flat with the Sun revolving around it, despite Pythagoras already thinking otherwise, because it wasn't verified for sure yet even though it ended up being true. SnowFire 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: 1) Purported is a very accusational word. It can be used both to discredit somebody by implying that they are not really psychic, and to discredit somebody by implying that they they are/have been outed as being psychic. Who here would stand for a category labeled "purported war criminals" with President Bush in it (he's been accused of being one, so it's terminologically accurate), or a category "purported homosexuals" with a non-out celebrity in it? 2) Psychic isn't a "scientific" category, it's a "paranormal" category. As such, certain things are already implicitly stated. We all know that nobody has actually ever been proven to be psychic (or being psychic to be possible) so it doesn't need to stated explicitly, that would be POV Pushing. For this very reason, there is not category for "purported contactees", "purported abductees" or "purported extraterrestrials". If you keep this category you might as well relabel every paranormal category "purported X" perfectblue 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single person in the category "accused" of being a psychic? A comparison to putting Bush in "purported war criminals" is ridiculous since most if not all those listed in Purported psychics are individuals who make that claim themselves. And by your logic, how would renaming the hypothetical category Purported war criminals and containing Bush to simply War criminals make it better? If "purported psychic" is an accusation, why aren't you voting to delete the category since accusing someone of being a "psychic" is an even stronger accusation? If we did have categories of people claiming to be contacted by, abducted by, or actually being aliens, I certainly hope they would include a word like "purported". If such categories exist, let me know and I'll put them up for renaming immediately.--Minderbinder 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; as per discussion above, "purported" is too loaded a term, and carries a presumption that the claim is false. Personally, I would much prefer that the category naming system as not used to make judgments on whether a dispute as to whether a particular field of human endeavour is useful: my strong preference would be to rename back to Category:Psychics, and note on th category page that there is a dispute as to whether psychic powers really exist. However, that's not an option so soon after the previous CFD, so the prosed renaming is the best on offer to restore some semblance of neutrality about whether psychic powers actually exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) --11:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oppose renaming - This is ridiculous, now Wikipedia is going to assert that these individuals are indeed "Psychics" ? Let's not provide a misleading service to the public and consumers please. Thank you. Smee 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep oppose renaming. (Wikipedia cannot certify that there are "genuine" psychics.) LuckyLouie 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Psychics. Many of the above comments are made on the assumption that the existence of psychics implies the existence of psychic phenomena. I don't think this is necessarily true. Dictionary.com's Random House-based dictionary defines a psychic as "a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces; medium". "Allegedly" is the key word. I would expect members of Category:Psychics to be those who claim (or claimed) to have psychic powers. For example, I don't dispute that Sybil Leek (picked at random out of the category) was a psychic — I simply doubt that she could "produce psi phenomena". "Psychic", I would say, is an occupation, like "witch doctor" or "tarot card reader". So: Rename the category to Category:Psychics. Also, change the definition of psychic to "a person who claims to be able to produce psi phenomena" (from "a person who can produce psi phenomena"). Λυδαcιτγ 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC) ~~Changed to Keep, unless Wikipedia's definition of a psychic is changed. Λυδαcιτγ 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Changed back: dual definition is meeting with consensus. Λυδαcιτγ 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. Problem is, wikipedia doesn't use that definition. Psychic defines the term as someone who actually has those abilities, not someone just claiming them or putting on an act: "the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena". I don't agree with that definition and think it's POV, but that's what the consensus at that article ended up with. With the current definition, Category:Psychics would be telling readers that WP says that those people have psychic powers. --Minderbinder 13:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and for now I've changed my vote. But I brought up this issue again at Talk:Psychic, and I'm hoping that the consensus will reverse. Λυδαcιτγ 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder, I could go to the Psychics article and change the whole thing right now if I wanted to. You can't win an argument like this by referencing an article on Wikipedia, since every article is written by readers!--Caleb Murdock 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Having the category called "purported psychics" makes it NPOV. Having a category called "Psychics" makes it seem as if the people in the category actually have 'psychic powers' which is totally misleading.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- purported psychics is exactly what these people are. Trying to claim that purported is a weasel word is ignoring the fact that this is the most neutral and apt descriptor for the subject of the related articles. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Psychics. I think this is the most neutral term. To me and those who think like me about this, it means "purported psychics" because the just isn't any other kind. To those who for whatever reason think such abilities possible, it means "psychics", also, but to them they are real. The only people who might actually need "psychics and/or purported psychics" are the ones who think some real and some fake, and they can interpret the category to please themselves. I see no reason to emphasize that the people in this category might be fakes, because it is obvious to me that they every one of them are. DGG 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Rename All psychics are purported psychics, so there is no reason to divide the purported psychics from the real psychics since everyone here agrees that real psychics don't exist. Psychics -- why make it more complicated than it really is? Puddytang 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is not entirely true. If someone were to step forward and prove psychic ability in public to a skeptical audience, they are more than welcome to put themselves into the vanilla "Psychics" category. Moreover, in writing, if I say "Bob is a psychic" it implies he's the real deal. Maybe you read that as "Bob is a lunatic," but that's not true of myself or most people. SnowFire 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why make it more complicated than it really is? If there's aa problem with the definition, then that needs to be dealt with no reason to change the category. A psychic is someone who can do psi or someone who is purported to do psi-- just because Edwards is a faker doesn't mean he's not a psychic! Lets just all agree to change the word psychic into notpsychic so we don't confuse anyone. HELP ALL THE WIKIPEDIANS HAVE VOTED TO TO PUT PURPORTED ! this category has said psychic for years it muct have confused thousands of people by now into thinking psychics actually exist! Just because psychics aren't real is no reason to make the Wikipedia stupid. Psychics: antiquated has been replaced by purpopyscics--people who, purportedly, were purported to have purported "purpopsychic powers".Puddytang 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all readers agree that psychics don't exist, and anyone who claims or makes a claim that anyone is a psychic is claiming that they do. Osomec 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it stop? Purported Prophets of the Old Testement after all prophecy has not been scientifically verified. Purported Hindu Dieties? How about Purported Catholic Saints? can't we all agree that they are still catholic saints even if they can't really intercede on behalf of us mortals? Puddytang 05:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, the prophets of the old testament weren't insisting that their abilities were proven by science. --Minderbinder 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puddytang makes an excellent point. Both religious people and psychics believe they are tapping into the "beyond" -- in the case of prophets, they say it is the voice of God; in case of psychics, they say it is a deceased spirit, or the inner soul, or the Akashic Records. Incidentally, psychics insist that their talents are real, not that they can necessarily be proven.--Caleb Murdock 06:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Purported" is not quite neutral, but it is closer than most other options. "Alleged" would also be appropriate, but no one has suggested that yet. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Marianne[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this category is for women who have posed for various representations of a particular French symbol, making this a variety of performer by performance categorization. This is one of many jobs or projects that these women have been involved with over the course of their lives and careers and I see little utility in having a category for it. The article Marianne has a section listing off the models which is sufficient for preserving the information. Otto4711 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although a rename might be in order. This is not a performer by performance category, this is a major publicly bestowed honor in France, putting this more in line with Category:Légion d'honneur recipients. ~ trialsanderrors 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marianne does not support the notion that this is a major publicly bestowed honor. Otto4711 12:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Among many other things it links to the French Prime Minister's site, which states, "Marianne is the embodiment of the French Republic". Greg Grahame 14:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that being selected to model for this personification is an honor at all, let alone an honor equivalent to the Légion d'honneur. The first woman in modern times to model, Brigitte Bardot, looked upon it as a joke, not an honor. None of the other articles that even mention it indicate that the job is an honor of any sort or that the women so chosen consider it to be an honor. Otto4711 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then the article has to be improved. Being picked for the Marianne is huge in France, with all kinds of public discussion and controversies surrounding it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even granting that, I still say that the list of models in the main article is sufficient to link together the models, just like the main articles for dozens of eponymous categories have been deemed sufficient for navigational purposes. Otto4711 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind deleting it if someone creates a navbox template in its stead. But having to go to the list buried in the Marianne article is a bit too cumbersome if you want to surf from subject to subject. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That wasn't so hard. ~ Bigr Tex 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comment above. Greg Grahame 14:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a defining characteristic. ~ Bigr Tex 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being hailed as the epitome of French womanhood is a defining characteristic of a Frenchwoman. This category says more about her status in her home country than any other category. Olborne 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Olborne Jheald 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities on the Susquehanna River[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to rename as nominated. However, since the corresponding list page is: List of cities and towns along the Susquehanna River, and since the intent of this nom was that more than just cities were involved, Rename Category:Cities on the Susquehanna River to Category:Cities and towns along the Susquehanna River to match the name of the list, and to take into account the nominator's rationale, and the commenters' concerns. - jc37 09:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities on the Susquehanna River to Category:Municipalities on the Susquehanna River

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Category has communities that are definitely not Cities. I suggest renaming accordingly or being more selective in articles included. I previously discussed this with the editor who populated it here: User_talk:Wrightchr#Category:Cities_on_the_Susquehanna_River, but he seems to have brushed the matter off. There are a few other related categories that should be affected by the pending decision (Category:River_cities) ccwaters 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is this really a defining category for a city? Isn't it task of Susquehanna River to list the important cities (and better ordered than category can do)? Do we really need thousands of new categories like this? Pavel Vozenilek 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd say yes, this is likely among the most defining features for municipalities, since where municipalities historically located and why they grew usually was heavily influenced by the river system; thus, the growth of NYC is intimately related to the Hudson, Mohawk and Erie canal, and the fact that the Susquehanna flows southerly means an entire swath of New York State was more influenced by the Philadelphia rather than New York economy as it grew (or, rather, as it stagnated).A Musing (formerly Sam) 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep original name - The other categories in Category:River cities are named as "Cities on the X River". All the categories should be nominated simultaneously if this change is desired. Dr. Submillimeter 20:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... I thought it was implied previously, but I hereby nominate them all. ccwaters 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename for purposes of accuracy and completeness. A Musing (formerly Sam) 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Underpopulated Music categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Underpopulated Music categories to Category:Underpopulated music categories

Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underpopulated Music categories to Category:Underpopulated music categories CalJW 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only to the extent that this, the Sports category listed below and Category:Underpopulated Politics categories should all be the same and so should all be discussed together. Otto4711 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is the most obvious speedy. The fact that a related category is misnamed is completely irrelevant. Cloachland 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Greg Grahame 14:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Underpopulated Sports[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Underpopulated Sports to Category:Underpopulated Sports Categories

Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underpopulated Sports to Category:Underpopulated Sports Categories I created this category last night to help divide the underpopulated categories category request that it be changed to better describe what it is for. Requesting speedy renaming so it is done before people decide to retag underpopulated categories to this subcategory. Irate velociraptor 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can't say as I see much need for this category, but if it's kept it should be renamed Category:Underpopulated Sports categories per correct capitalization (see Category:Underpopulated Music categories). Otto4711 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not correct capitalisation. CalJW 00:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are dozens of sports related underpopulated categories waiting for name change to put them in this category, capital or lower case c either is fine.
Delete We really don't need a hierarchy for underpopulated categories. CalJW 00:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Underpopulated categories curently has 1178 this is a very over populated category it would be nice if it had some sub categories to make it easier for anyone who wishes to populate underpopulated categories Irate velociraptor 08:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename to Category:Underpopulated sports categories to comply with capitalization policy. Cloachland 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy since that is a name change and not a caps change. Vegaswikian 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Underpopulated sports categories as the present name appears to describe sports where the organisers often have trouble making up a full team. Dominictimms 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that there are two discussions here. One is if the category is kept, it needs to be renamed. The other is that that category should be deleted. Are the renames support for keeping this as a category? Vegaswikian 02:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Underpopulated sports categories as per capitalization conventions. Note that there is a CfD for Underpopulated Music categories as well. --rimshots^talk 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Underpopulated sports categories. Decapitalisation is a speedy, and the other change is just darned obvious. Abberley2 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Muslim activist organizations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Islamic activist organizations. Vegaswikian 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Muslim activist organizations to Category:Muslim organizations

Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy Vegaswikian 00:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim activist organizations to Category:Muslim organizations. No need for specific category when general does not yet exist. --70.48.240.174 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not eligible for speedy renaming. It's debatable whether it should exist at all. CalJW 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename to Category:Islamic activist organizations, to fit into Category:Islamic organizations. There might be some POV conflict in putting a group in either Category:Islamist groups or Category:Muslim activist organizations. --rimshots^talk 14:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on merging/keeping as spelt out below. --rimshots^talk 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Islamic organizations. I really do not see what the distinction is between this category and that one. However, if others think I'm missing something important, I wouldn't oppose the rename to Category:Islamic activist organizations that Rimshots is suggesting. — coel acan — 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An activist organization seeks to bring about (usually significant) political changes. By the definitions given for the categories, Islamic activists seek to improve the general climate for islamic people, while islamists try to bring about an order which is governed by conservative Islamic law, in certain countries or worldwide. The latter groups often use violence for their goals, while the first don't. I voted weak rename because I am not so sure about a need for this category either. I am neutral on keeping/deleting the category. If it is kept, it should take the name I suggested. --rimshots^talk 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. Category:Islamic activist organizations is fine too. Although I'm still not sure what is wrong with just Category:Islamic organizations. It's not Category:Islamist organizations. — coel acan — 03:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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