The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:If I understand rightly, "category-theoretic categories" merely means categories associated with category theory. If that's the case, this is simpler wording. The problem is that "category-theoretic" might have some precise meaning that I'm missing, and part of the reason for renaming is to ensure that nobody thinks the name has technical meanings more precise than category theory in general. I'm open to slight alternate versions, e.g. "Categories of category theory", if others think those alternate versions are better. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The purpose of the "category-theoretic" is to mark these as being the kind of category considered in category theory and to distinguish them from Category:Wikipedia categories. So if we're going to rename this one to "Categories in category theory", shouldn't we also consider renaming the other one to "Categories in Wikipedia" for consistency? That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this, only a mild preference that Keenan Pepper's comment on Category talk:Category-theoretic categories that "this page has one of the most ridiculous names in all Wikipedia" should continue to be true. But I don't think the proposed name makes much difference in that respect. On the other hand, the other suggested name "categories of category theory" is slightly problematic as it is too easily misread as meaning something like "categories of categories in category theory" which (if it existed) would be a subcategory with only one member, Category of small categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet WP:CATDEF; not notable cat on its own merit and not helpful to general readers; vague as it only states, "killed in action". Also note it was generated by a now banned user/editor. Kierzek (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they should be merged in total; the latter cat is more specific and I can see it being used by some general readers. There may be some names of strictly military personnel which could be listed in the cat "German military personnel killed in World War II", if they are not there already. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment simple solution will not work. Take Wilhelm Göcke for example. SS, not military, killed in action against partisans. Hmains (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale: this category is named and parented as if it was an eponymous category for Madalyn Murray O'Hair. However, this category does not meet WP:EPCATPERS. In practice the category relates to O'Hair's organisation American Atheists, which is a defining attribute of the articles in this category. If this topic category was named directly after the head article, it would be Category:American Atheists, which differs from the much broader set category Category:American atheists only by the capitalisation of one letter. That would be a recipe for widespread miscategorisation, which is why I propose adding the disambiguator to the title. If this renaming proceeds, the parent categories need to be adjusted. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The defining characteristic here is the association with American Atheists the organization, not the corollary professional association with O'Hair the person. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the renaming idea, but if it gets renamed, "American Atheists (organization)" is definitely better than "American Atheists"; I agree with the nominator's use of (organization) to prevent confusion with atheists who happen to be from the USA. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominatior's rational, I also support Nyttend's idea. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Kierzek (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American Atheists, per C2D; category names should follow article names and not have unnecessary disambiguators. Pppery 21:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. The category within the second one is already in People of Vitebsk Region and this seems sufficient, so no merger is called for. – FayenaticLondon 23:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete in the spirit of being an empty category, these are advertised as history categories but they only contain a biographies subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete I think a merge would be appropriate but would be fine with a delete. Nominator's rational is correct that categories such as these serve very little purpose. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The writings that deny crucifixion of jesus[edit]
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. – FayenaticLondon 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly formed, unclear criteria for inclusion Editor2020 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose not deleting these writings should be catagorised in this section Anijit chaterji(talk 07:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Denial of the crucifixion of Jesus seems to be a main theme of a few of these writings, but there may not be enough of these articles to keep up a category. If not kept, selectively merge to Category:Crucifixion of Jesus. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading [1] I think the Wikipedia article is overemphasizing one aspect of this writing. Is that also the case with the other articles? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think these writings should be catagorised sepatarely .The writings about the agreement of crucifixion of Jesus are huge.but the writings about denial of crucifixion of Jesus are rare.If these writings cannot be catagorised seperatedly ,then i think these opinions will be very hard to find for anybody who has interest for knowning different opinions beacuse of high volume of agreement about crucifixion of Jesus.I can confidently tell that about 95 percent people of the world, both christian and non christian, donot have any idea about these writings that reject Jesue`s crucifiction.This category helps them also the researcher a lot . Anijit chaterji(talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category system is not a way to create lists of everything it might be possible to create a list of; we use it for certain specific and notable classifications of topic, not for every possible characteristic that a thing happens to have. The WP:DEFINING criterion here is their status as Gnostic literature, not their position on the crucifixion — if there's enough that could be said to support an article about crucifixion denialism or at least a list of works that deny the crucifixion, then these could certainly be mentioned in that article, but there's not a strong basis here for a category. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't normally categorize writings by what viewpoint they take vis-a-vis some event (or alleged event). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Category is poorly titled in my opinion but even ignoring that books and publications shouldn't be classified by what they aren't, it comes close to being WP:OPINIONCAT. Either way a better more inclusive category on the subject (Category:Christ myth theory) already exists. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apples and oranges here. Category:Christ myth theory covers theories since the 18th century which deny or dispute the existence of a historical Jesus. This one includes ancient and Medieval sources which believe in the existence of Jesus, but deny that he was crucified. And in most cases they deny that Jesus even had a corporeal body. That is Docetism, "the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion". It is one of the most ancient Christian heresies, already mentioned since the 2nd century. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2017 (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.
