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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is not a singular concept within the Buffyverse, much less outside of it. Some editors decided that these disparate articles and concepts were "powers" by whatever definition they landed on and made up the category accordingly. Everything is already well categorized in terms of the Buffyverse so no merger of anything to anything is needed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Non-defining characteristics. I've checked the articles and it seems that their categories can still serve our readers even without this one.--Lenticel(talk) 05:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:MERGE as nominated; there seems minimal support for retaining this particular 'formers'. -Splash - tk 21:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't usually classify by former political bents or ideologies - the one exception seems to be religion; otherwise there is a general consensus against having current and former X categories for people's jobs and philosophical leanings. If these cats were kept, we would also per NPOV have to start classifying people who were former capitalists, or former believers in the inequality of women - such shifts from capitalist to communist thinking, or from non-feminism to feminism would be also significant, but I don't think that's a good path. -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They don't look like especially useful categories. I would suggest deleting instead (or at the very least emptying out the BLPs before merging), as somebody considered an ex-"x" would probably not like being labelled an "x" without visible qualification. It will also lead to confusion for users if someone is using the category to find an example of a communist and having to pick through people more notable for not being communists. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards merger. The problem in deciding the fate of these categories is that they don't distinguish between those who simply abandoned an ideology (or drifted away from it) and those who became active opponents of their former beliefs. Some people are very strongly defined by their pursuit of that renunciation, such as Max Eastman, or Arthur Koestler and the other authors of The God that Failed. Categorising them as communists would be accurate, but it would overlook the crucial point that their role as denouncers of that ideology was more significant than their previous advocacy. The difficulty with this form of categorisation is that it is hard to see how to create a category whose title is clearly restricted to people like Koestler. Without an unacceptaby verbose title such as Category:Former communists who became notable as anti-communists, the category would fill up with people like Eric Hobsbawm, who remained Marxists. I think that a list might do the job better. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like many of these subjects are covered in Anti-communism#Ex-communists. Again, they are listing people with specific notability for being former communists, not attempting to document every person who used to be a communist. I think it would be a mistake to include the denouncers where that position is more strongly defining. The unqualified label communist is probably not going to last very long on articles such as David Horowitz, for instance. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is categorized under the Category:Anti-communists tree in Category:Russian anti-communists. The best way to remove the "Former" is to sort the articles between Category:Anti-communists, Category:Communists, and de-categorize if not defining either way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say all in Former communists should be tagged Anti-communist, just those with notable opposition. The non-notably-lapsed or otherwise-neutral still wouldn't fit there, as it's non-neutrally overstating their opposition. Max Eastman is an interesting case, as he was a notable Communist who became a notable Anti-communist then became a notable Anti-anti-communist. But Category:Anti-communists is still a good fit for many. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I meant to suggest checking that nobody had been wrongly omitted from Category:Anti-communists, but that's not what I wrote. Shouldha checked what I wrote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former... has little EV compared to those who still follow their ideologies and such categorization may be regarded as casting aspersions (particularly in terms of WP:BLP). Merging "former" to what is presumed to be "current" would be confusing. Brandmeistertalk 12:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- These would be legitimate categories if they were about "converts from ...". Is Lenin a former Communist merely because he is dead? That is why we do not like former categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Feminists per nom, bhg etc. Feminist is ultimately too vague a concept for this, with no membership cards, & too hard to reference; hence there are only 2 in the category. Leaning Keep for the Communists, if tightly controlled. The two would have been better in different noms, as the cases are not really comparable. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both we categorize people by what political views people held without regard to when they held them. The fact that they may have later held the opposite views is not relevant. Religion is a different case because religion is more than just views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2014 (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:Deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Template's author chose to delete the template. With no template, we have no reason for a stub category. Dawynn (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2013 (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.
