Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Portal:Foo

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

The result of the debate was Listify and Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - this is a category that would be better served by a list. Also too narrowly focused: why exclude non-primetime series or syndicated series? MakeRocketGoNow 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Listify per nom. David Kernow 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; entirely arbitrary category. Anyone who wants a list can knock themselves out of course. Postdlf 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Superfluous category. No articles listed, and "choreographies" is a rather obscure term. Editor at Large 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as I'm not sure a choreography lends itself to description by a text-based encyclopedia article... David Kernow 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge with :Category:Judaism - sub categories of this overweight category include "Anti- Semitism", "Jewish History", "Judaic Studies in Academia" and "Jewish Education". These sub-categories have no more affinity to "Jews and Judaism" than they do to "Judaism" and this category just hinders efficiency, is a nuisance to the many confused people (even experienced wikipedians) and in my view, wholly unecessary. Merging with Category:Judaism - which is and deserves to be the central and absolute super-category for ALL things relating to Judaism, is a long overdue measure. Many thanks, Nesher 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• See 4 counter-arguments of mine below - especially last one - Nesher
• Oppose and Keep :Category:Jews and Judaism (As the original creator of this parent super-category [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Jews_and_Judaism&oldid=4069978] in June 2004 I am placing my vote and comments here as a juxtaposition to the above short-sighted and misguided proposal) -- because this parent super-category has served a great function for two years! Merging into :Category:Judaism would create confusion and force only a religious interpretation of all matters relating to Jews, something which is not always true at a time when the majority of the world's Jews are not religious in their observance of Judaism. This parent super-category was the solution to a very serious dilemma: How to inter-connect topics/categories relating to Jews who are secular and secular Jewish subjects/categories with Judaism which is purely a RELIGION only without compromising the integrity of either sub-category?! :Category:Jews and Judaism creates a unified and unifying super-CATEGORY for two diverse sub-categories/subjects :Category:Jews and :Category:Judaism. If only :Category:Judaism remains then the problem would remain how to legitimately link Jews and Judaism without compromising on the secular/religious dichotomy. In the same way, there are TWO main articles on this subject: Jew AND Judaism (see the introduction of those articles to understand this) and why they are NOT merged because of the simple truth that being a Jew is related to ETHNICITY (regardless of religious practice or beliefs) as well as Jewish religious law, whereas Judaism is only a religion. Thus Keep :Category:Jews and Judaism and do NOT merge for the simple reason that Jews and Judaism are NOT always equal subjects/categories. Not all Jews and Jewish subjects are related to or connected to Judaism, and Judaism is not always part of the lives of Jews! IZAK 04:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by nom - Whether to your liking or not, Jews only exist because of Judaism. Hence, it is entirely self-defeating to make Judaism a sub-category of Jews - tantamount to making "beverages" into a sub-category of "tea". Please, at least evaluate this in an unjaundiced fashion, without resorting to emphatically emotional stereotypes and personal terms. "This parent super-category was the solution to a very serious dilemma" - what dilema! Its astoundingly simple; the way to "inter-connect topics/categories relating to Jews who are secular and secular Jewish subjects/categories with Judaism" is to have the former as a subcategory of Judaism! As another user tellingly pointed out, :Category:Muslims is a sub-category of :Category:Islam, just as :Category:Christian people is a sub-category of :Category:Christianity and :Category:Hindus is a subcategory of :Category:Hinduism. Only the Judaism categories are in such a mess! Need I go on? Nesher
• Nesher: Firstly, no need to be so deprecating, the categories are not a "mess". Secondly, please do not state falsely that we are making "Judaism a sub-category of Jews" when no such thing is happening here. This is what it's about: It is simple: BOTH :Category:Jews and :Category:Judaism are clear and logical sub-categories of a larger WIKIPEDIA parent category that is named :Category:Jews and Judaism, which is not so difficult to grasp -- that's all. Thirdly, these present categories are not meant to be a grandiose theological judgment or a mystical realigment of the stellar constellations that somehow effects Jewish destiny as you are making it out to be -- far from it -- this is simple editing and categorizing in what is after all a secular online encyclopedia. Fourthly, questions such as if there can be no Judaism without Jews or vice versa, or if Judaism contributes more to the Jews than the other way around -- these points are not what need to be settled here via your attempts to squeeze everything into :Category:Judaism which will only result in giving that category indigestion and cause it to short circuit. Fifthly, your other point/s abouts Christians and Muslims also does not apply here. There's no such thing as a "secular Christian or Muslim" because being a Christian or Muslim means only just that (because they are religions ONLY) -- But in the case of Jews it's different since being a Jew is both a religious AND and an ethnic fact. Thus while Judaism refers to the Jewish religion, yet being only a Jew alone also legitimately implies being part of an ethnic group (by just being being born Jewish, for example) that need not be connected to the practice or acceptance of Judaism as a religion because being Jewish has BOTH ethnic and religious connotations unlike in Christianity or Islam which are religions only with ethnicity NOT a criterion. (This is clearly explained in the Jew article -- please read it sometime soon!) Sixthly, from your comments it is obvious that you are not aware of what Wikipedia's system of categorization is about. Please read Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization. Seventhly, no-one is making any judgment of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" This is merely a system for categorizing knowledge and information (in this case articles). Thus there is a category that focuses on the Jews mainly called :Category:Jews, and there is also a category that focuses on Judaism mainly called :Category:Judaism. Eighthly, now it is because there is so much diverse, and even contradictory information (yes, it's a dilemma) in these two differing types of categories that it would be impossible according to all the rules of logic and fact to create a "one size fits all" category out of :Category:Judaism alone. Ninthly, that is where the beauty and functionality of the system of categorization comes into the picture whereby a larger parent category called :Category:Jews and Judaism comes into play whereby both categories can co-exist side by side happily and truthfully. That's all -- do not read more into the "tea leaves" because there are none here. Finally, you are trying to make this into a "do or die" battle about the supremacy of Judaism, but that is not the question here. The only issue is the best system of organizing the information about these subjects on Wikipedia using it's system of categories. For more help on this subject you may also want to read up on Help:Category and Wikipedia:Categorisation FAQ. Thank you. IZAK 05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. My preference is that this be merged with :Category:Judaism per nom, but I'd be willing to listen to arguments that it should be merged the other way. But having both cats seems silly and redundant. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Brian, why not take a look at what is in :Category:Jews alone and then :Category:Judaism alone (and see why they can BOTH be sub-categories of a parent category like :Category:Jews and Judaism but NOT of :Category:Judaism on its own.) Do you honestly think that it's right that :Category:Jewish sportspeople or :Category:Jewish cowboys or :Category:Jewish anarchists or :Category:Jewish film directors should feed straight into :Category:Judaism? It would make absolutely no sense to do so according to any criteria of Judaism alone. Now that would be not just "silly and redundant", but hysterical and ludicrous. Please consider this seriously. IZAK 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by Nom - IZAK, you are "short-sightedly" placing "Jews" on an equal pedestal with "Judaism" when that is clearly not the case. It is patently obvious to anyone willing to listen that Judaism came before Jews and is what makes a Jew a Jew - whether that Jew likes it, observes it, fathoms it, or not. Clearly, the Christian, Muslim and Hindu categorisers have no trouble understanding this concept. Nesher 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "It is patently obvious to anyone willing to listen…" borders on an ad hominem attack on those who disagree with you. It changes nothing and proves nothing. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Point taken - Nesher 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nesher: I do not really wish to engage you in a theological debate, but I can easily refute you. I think you are confusing a Godly perspective with the perspective of human beings. While Jews worship God, they are unable to understand the way God runs the world. Thus Jewish history can be seen and understood from the narrative of human events and not just by insights into quasi-mystical interpretations posturing as having "inside information" to other-worldly visions and perspectives which you are clearly alluding to as I understand your urgument/s here to be. Perhaps others may not sense the direction you are coming from, but I do, and I disagree with your approach and its suitability for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a yeshiva for Torah study where Daat Torah of Torah Judaism must prevail at all costs -- even if I wish it could be so, it could never be, as things stand, unless the Jewish Messiah were to turn up tomorrow and take over the Internet to teach Judaism his way. Rather, you need to grasp that Wikipedia is a secular online encyclopedia that must accomodate all views, for better or worse. Furthermore, in the Torah there is no such thing called "Judaism" as such because it was formulated much later in history and then named for only one of Jacob's sons Judah (each of the 12 Israelite tribes in fact had its own forms of "Judaism"!) "Judaism" is thus named for those connected with the Tribe of Judah who founded the later Kingdom of Judah and Judea. Indeed, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Children of Israel lived long before anyone ever thought there would ever be something called "Judaism" many millenia after they had died. Scholars know that in fact "Judaism" is not even a "religion" as such -- it's not even a "Jewish word" since Jewish texts like the Tanakh, Talmud; Shulkhan Arukh or rabbinic literature do not refer to the "religion" of the Jewish people as Yahadut ("Judaism") -- they simply assume that Jews observe the 613 mitzvot ("commandments") as a DOGMA that has no name more than anything ! (Religious Jews today do not ask if someone observes "Judaism", rather it's "Is the person "shomer Shabbat?" or "shomer Torah U'Mitzvot" or a "yerei shamayim" (one who "fears heaven") and suchlike, but it is never if this person observes Yahadut ("Judaism") and no-one in their right mind would say, that based on this, that all articles about Jews and Judaism should thus become sub-categories of :Category:Shabbat or :Category:Names of God in Judaism!) So, the Children of Israel, later called the Hebrews, and eventually called the Jews are commanded by God to practice and follow in the Torah to live according to its 613 mitzvot (in fact there were more but not all applied for all time.) In fact, Abraham started out life as an idol worshiper and NOT as a "Jew" at all, and he is considered the FATHER of the Jewish people, together with Isaac and Jacob according to classical Judaism itself. Additional dilemmas, according to the midrashim of Judaism, include the fact that Abraham fathered Ishmael the founder of Islam and Isaac fathered Esau who established Rome and its offshoot the Roman Catholic Church. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and the Children of Israel are human people of flesh and blood, and according to the Torah itself, they had as much to do with the formation of Judaism, as their belief in God (which should not be confused with the totality of Judaism) guided them to do in their lives. True, God is infinite and He can exist without the Jews, but it does not run counter to anything in Judaism itself to say that there can be no Judaism without Jews in the sense that there can be no king without subjects. IZAK 07:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• IZAK: Sorry, but the impressions I'm getting here are pretty vague. I didn't know and would like the mekor for "each of the 12 Israelite tribes in fact had its own forms of "Judaism"". Secondly, I fail to see how this relates to the discussion at hand, rather, it is a long-winded and far-off-the-point tangent. Thirdly, your point that "scholars know that in fact "Judaism" is not even a "religion" as such... Religious Jews today do not ask if someone observes "Judaism", doesn't hold water, at least in my eyes. " I'd venture to say - nay, I'm fairly confident that religious Christians today do not ask if someone observes Christianity, but rather if they believe in xyz and do xyz and go to xyz on xyz. Similiarly, religous Hindus today do not ask if someone observes Hinduism. So, you seem to have left me more perplexed than before. Any explanation welcome. Many thanks, Nesher 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nesher: As I said, I would like to avoid a theological debate, and I would be glad to answer the questions about the seemingly unrelated tangents elsewhere. But on your last question, all I was pointing out was that clasically and historically, the Jewish religion was not called "Yahadut" ("Judaism") by the Jews who practiced it (and "Yiddishkeit" was a rather colloquial Yiddish expression never used in a learned sense.) Rather, "Judaism" is the name that the outside world uses to describe and identify the religion of the Jews, and which Jews have adopted as well out of convenience. Often, non-Jews cannot fathom that Jews did not need to "name" their religion the way that Christians need the names of their denominations or Muslims need the label "Islam" to define themselves. Indeed, clasically, just being simply a "Jew" implied that that person practiced "the (Torah) ways of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews" or a "Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish (Mitzvah/Halakhic) life". The upshot being that the term "Judaism" is ultimately insignificant in terms of what it means, to the Jews especially. And getting back to this vote, there is nothing wrong with having the word "Jews" in a larger parent category, in fact it's most appropriate, and we could just as easily and 100% justifiably have only :Category:Jews as the main parent category. Best wishes, IZAK 06:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as my first thought would be to regard :Category:Jews as a subcategory of :Category:Judaism (and :Category:Muslims of :Category:Islam, :Category:Pagans of :Category:Paganism, etc). David Kernow 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- {{user|Nesher}} just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060620&limit=50&target=Nesher reorganized] a pile of these categories, and that's why they seem backwards. That's what he means by "is" as he just did it (out of process). Previously, as they had been organized for over 2 years, they made sense; both :Category:Jews and :Category:Judaism were subcategories of :Category:Jews and Judaism. I'm putting things back in order now! --William Allen Simpson 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you User:William Allen Simpson. Until this debate/vote is resolved, and to avoid the distortions you rightly point out, User:Nesher's changes will thus need to be reverted so that other editors can evaluate the matter as it stood prior to Nesher's tendentious edits. IZAK 04:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Judaism. :Category:Jews should be a subcategory of :Category:Judaism. --Musicpvm 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• There should be a single parent category for all articles relating to Judaism, and I'm not sure if there's a reason why it shouldn't be :Category:Judaism. That said, IZAK does bring up some legitimate concerns, and I'd encourage an examination of the current categorization scheme, with an eye to improving the overall organization where necessary. Luna Santin 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hi Luna: Thanks for your comments. FYI the "overall organization" is very good -- there should be as little tampering as possible where long-established and known categories are concerned. Please note that :Category:Jews and Judaism IS the parent category and :Category:Jews and :Category:Judaism are two of its sub-categories. It is logically and factually IMPOSSIBLE for :Category:Judaism to be the main category (since "Judaism" refers to the religion of Judaism only which is something some people fail to grasp.) Indeed that is why there are seprate articles for Jew and Judaism because they CANNOT always be equated or fully connected -- not all Jews want or accept a connection with Judaism! If one looks at the type of sub-categories in :Category:Jews and Judaism it is very obvious why :Category:Judaism CANNOT supercede it. For example, there is no way that the sub-categories (and sub-sub-categories) like :Category:Jewish society can EVER be part of :Category:Judaism alone because things like :Category:Jewish media; :Category:Jewish film and theatre; or :Category:Anti-Semitism with sub-sub categories like :Category:Nazism and :Category:Adolf Hitler OBVIOUSLY have nothing to do with Judaism as a religion but has everything to do with Jews as an ethnicity and a people and hence while it can be connectd to the long-established parent :Category:Jews and Judaism it cannot fit into a more specific RELIGIOUS :Category:Judaism alone. IZAK 10:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ahh, thanks. Now that I've read this a bit more closely, I will vote to keep, per IZAK and William Allen Simpson. Luna Santin 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by nom' - IZAK, you're right yet you're still wrong. Of course, categories like "Jewish Society" and its sub-categories such as Jewish Media, "Jewish film and theatre" and "Anti-Semitism" cannot be part of :Category:Judaism DIRECTLY - but of course the simple solution is to make Category:Jews and Judaism or Category:Jews into a sub-category of super-cat Judaism. Then, concepts like Anti-Semitism can be sub-sub categories. This is so absurdly simple I can't even grasp your opposition. Nesher 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nesher: This is NOT a word game! Just by saying something (verbally or in writing) does not make it so (in the real world and in fact)! I cannot understand anything you have just said here so it's impossible for me to comment. Clear thinking will lead to clear categories. IZAK 07:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Jews are Jews because of present or past allegiance with Judaism. Only revisionists claim that there were Jews before there was Judaism. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Umm JFW: What "revisionism"? Once upon a time Wikipedia had a combined article for Jews and Judaism but they were split, as you no doubt recall. So why was there a split between the two core articles of Jew and Judaism on Wikipedia? It was for the very good reason that the two are different subjects and need to be handled differently. Even from the Biblical perspective, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came before Judaism and not after it, so your point here is moot. In any case, this is a discussion and vote about CATEGORIES on Wikipedia and how to accomodate divergent views without confusing and mixing up logical and truthful categories, it's not about theological arguments. (See Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization which I have read and always try to apply and follow...has User:Nesher familiarized himself with these guidelines before he lodged his criticisms here?) What about Jews for Jesus or Secular Jewish culture is that also to be part of "Judaism"? One cannot blow a trumpet of "Judaism ubber alles" while ignoring simple realities that there are other related domains that need to be categorized here but they will never fit in a Judaism category alone...unless...the real "trick strategy" was to eventually dump all the non-Judaic categories into some other realm...?) At any rate, you cannot squeeze outlandish topics that are obviously not part of Judaism into a "Judaism" category, ever. There has to be something a little broader, and :Category:Jews and Judaism has served that function well for two years now (you never complained...) IZAK 10:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename. I agree with IZAK that there is an important distinction here. I don't think, as JFW suggests, that it is a matter of first or last. Many people see themselves as Jewish but this has little or no bearing on their religion. Despite my feeling of a need for a distinction, I am not sure that the current category names are clear, although they do correspond to the relevant articles as IZAK points out. Maybe what is currently in Judaism should be Jewish religion and the contents of Jews and Judaism should be merged into Judaism. Yet some of the boundaries will remain blurred. jnothman ^talk 11:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hi jnothman: What would be the point of moving the furniture around if we aren't going anywhere? Firstly, Judaism = "Jewish religion." Would it occur to anyone to rename :Category:Christianity to "Christian religion" or :Category:Islam to "Islamic religion" and then shove into the "empty spaces" very artificial subjects that are only tangentially connected (and even opposed to) the very essence of either Christianity or Islam? Of course NOT! So why even think along such lines here? Finally, there is nothing unclear about a parent category called :Category:Jews and Judaism that has as its two main sub-categories :Category:Jews and :Category:Judaism. How much plainer could or should it be? User:Nesher's complaint is not credible because anyone who reads simple English and wishes to get to know how the categories work can do so very easily. Perhaps he is in a rush whereas this system has been working extremely well for two years now. IZAK 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and Keep per IZAK.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- as IZAK points out, there are many sub-cats of the over-category :Category:Jews and Judaism that are relevant to Jews but have nothing to do with Judaism, and vice-versa. Moreover, there are sub-cats that seem to fit between the lines -- such as :Category:Anti-Semitism or :Category:Israel -- which do fit in the over-category, but aren't directly related to Judaism or Jews per se Ð’n^talk 11:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• D'n:FYI, subjects relating to :Category:Israel are part of another parent super-category called :Category:Israel and Zionism which is a very distinct category with some obvious connections and overlap/s at times to categories and subjects in :Category:Jews and Judaism. IZAK 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by nom - D'n: When you say "sub-cats of the over-category :Category:Jews and Judaism that are relevant to "Jews" but have nothing to do with "Judaism"" - I assume you refer to catgeories such as :Category:Jewish society, :Category:Jewish education and :Category:Jewish history. This is not a rhetorical question - Why on earth can each of these not be placed into a sub-category of supercategory Judaism (i.e. the categories "Jews" and/or "Jews and Judaism" will become sub-catgeories of "Judaism") -- Let me give you some solely needed examples:
• #:Category:Jainism is the sole super-cat for all things Jain
• #:Category:Christianity is the sole super-cat for all things Christian
• #:Category:Islam is the sole super-cat for all things Muslim - i.e. "Muslims" are a sub-cat
• #:Category:Bahá'í is the sole super-cat for all things Bahai
• #:Category:Buddhism is the sole super-cat for all things Buddhist
• This is verging on the ridiculous. Can you not see the sense? -- Nesher 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Yes, people who disagree strongly may see each other's views as "verging on the ridiculous", but that doesn't magically make one side right. Christians, Muslims, Bahá'í, and Buddhists are in no senses ethnicities; I'm not so sure about Jainism, but I'm pretty certain that there is no secular Jainist culture comparable to secular Jewish culture. These are simply poor analogies. An analogy that cuts the opposite way would be something like :Category:Bulgarian Orthodox Church which is under :Category:Bulgaria or :Category:Romanian Orthodox Church which is under :Category:Religion in Romania. I'm not saying that is a more valid analogy. I'm saying that it is an equally invalid analogy to yours. :Category:Judaism does not belong under :Category:Jews any more than vice versa. This is exactly why the supercategory is legitimate here. - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per IZAK. Pecher ^Talk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and keep per IZAK. It might be tempting to reduce everything to Judaism, but even a first-pass read of the articles involved will make it clear that it's all broader and more complex than that. We may want to consider a better taxonomy for this broad subject, but this kind of reductionism won't do it. --Leifern 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and keep. Analogies with Hindus and Hinduism or Islam and Muslims do not hold - because these are all religious concepts. If we really have to make analogies, I'd say Jews and Judaism are closer in concept to Greeks and Greek orthodoxy - a people with a religion and a culture. While the people may not "exist" without their religion or culture, the people are not a subcategory of their religion (or culture). - Hillel 13:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Why are "Hindus and Hinduism or Islam and Muslims" called "religious concepts" whereas Jews and Judaism aren't? Surely, the latter is most definitively a religous concept - there wouldn't be Jews without Judaism. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you're Jewish (any level of observance) or you're not; one can't call oneself a non-practising Jew and define oneself as completely distinct from the rubric of Judaism - it's an oxymoron. If you invoke one, the other is by definition connected. Nesher
• Comment - Nesher, you are making an assumption that is disputed, which is that Jews are to Judaism as Hindus are to Hinduism, Christians are to Christianity, etc. There is lots and lots of literature on this issue, and it can be highlighted with Mordechai Kaplan's (also disputed) assertion that "Judaism is the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people," which makes peoplehood supreme to religion; whereas others would have it the other way. It would be meaningless to talk about "secular Christian culture," but meaningful to talk about "secular Jewish culture." I suppose every religion and every nationality is unique in its own way; on this topic, the Jewish enterprise is unique. --Leifern 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Of course they're connected. That doesn't mean we can reduce a people to a subcategory of their religion. Within many cultures, your relationship with the religion of your people is necessarily part of your identity, and within this context not practising it (or practising Buddhism instead) is indeed a significant link/relationship in itself. That doesn't mean that Spaniards are a subcategory of Catholisism, Greeks a subcategory of Greek Othodoxy, or the People of Israel a subcategory of Judaism. – Hillel 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per IZAK. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep There is a lot of logic to having a super-category for both religious and secular categories. It does not make sense to lump the articles together. That said, I agree with jnothman that renaming in such a way to make 'Jews and Judaism' into 'Judaism' (consistent with other religions) and what is currently in Judaism be renamed something else that point to the religion of the Jewish people. Nevertheless I also think that Izak raises a good point that there aren't really any naming alternatives that are any clearer. Jon513 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly rename. I myself am a Jew who does not actively practice Judaism. When my family ceased to be actively religious (sometime in the 19th century for most of my ancestors) that did not change our ethnicity. Yes, I am very skeptical about the small number of non-Jews (neither born nor formally converted) who claim to practice Judaism, but that says nothing about the literally millions of secular Jews who may or may not have a sentimental attachement to Judaism, but certainly do not practice it. The ethnic identity and religion are strongly related—very strongly—but that does not make the ethnic identity a subset of the religion. - Jmabel | Talk 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and Keep per IZAK. Yevgeny Kats 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - this discussion won't be solved here anyway. I'm sorry if most people think that 'Judaism' is a religion. I understand Nesher's nom, but unfortunately, wp is a democracy with all the disadvantages of democracy emphasized. FWIW, the Jews cat should be a sub cat of :Category:Sons of Israel which should be under :Category:Ancient peoples --Shuki 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/merge per nom. IZAK's arguments about confusing secular judaism with religious Judaism are really nothing more than a red herring. All the subcats of "Jews and judaism" could just as easily be subcats of "Judaism", and vice-versa. Creating two functionally identical cats is wasteful and confusing. --Bachrach44 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bachrach: There is no such thing as "secular Judaism"! There are secular Jews, yes, but not "secular Judaism" -- even Humanistic Judaism is a religion albeit minus the Jewish God. And who has ever heard of "religious Judaism"? There is no such thing because Judaism by definition only means the religion itself. Please review the above discussions carefully to see what is actually being said and do not recast the discussion in terms that no-one, but you, is using. I am deeply offended that you regard my hard work as a "red herring" of all things. The roots of the discussion/s we are having here, and the reason there are both :Category:Judaism and :Category:Jews that are contained in the parent :Category:Jews and Judaism, all goes back to OLD discussions on Wikipedia, some three or four years in fact, leading to the split between the Jew and Judaism articles into separate articles. You will need to go back to the early archives of those articles' individual talk pages at Talk:Jew and Talk:Judaism to understand how and WHY those subjects got split into articles of their own and how that in turn, when the system of categories on Wikipedia was introduced, influenced and spawned the creation of two different categories of :Category:Jews and :Category:Judaism as categories that cannot be the same, and in turn how the parent :Category:Jews and Judaism could, and does, legitimately house them both. Thanks for giving this a little deeper thought. IZAK 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Satirical Comment as an IT person - yet another example of hierarchical decomposition being completely inadequate - go multidimensional ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• But do you vote nay or yea? IZAK 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per IZAK. Jews (a cultural and ethnic group) and Judaism (a religion), though related, are not identical. Dauster 01:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and Keep per IZAK. ShalomShlomo 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 10:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete - This is an entirely redundant category. Besides being completely empty, any serious and non anti-semitic criticism can be found in :Category:Biblical criticism. That makes this category a needless duplication. Nesher 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, if it can be populated. There do already exist similiar categories: :Category:Books critical of Christianity and :Category:Books critical of Islam. However, wouldn't there be a lot of overlap between this category and :Category:Books critical of Zionism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeRocketGoNow (talk • contribs)

:* If Judaism is necessary for Zionism, I'd say :Category:Books critical of Zionism would be a subcategory of :Category:Books critical of Judaism. Meanwhile, I believe there is a distinction between "Books critical of Judaism" and "Biblical criticism", not least as Judaism is not the only religion to refer to a collection of scriptures known as a "Bible". Regards, David Kernow 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- what the heck does "Biblical" criticism have to do with Judaism? --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and populate per MakeRocketGoNow; if I'm not mistaken, :Category:Books critical of Zionism is about a political topic, while :Category:Books critical of Judaism should be about a religious one. N'est-ce pas? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pegship; nom is furthermore wrong to equivocate criticism of Judaism with Biblical criticism and vice versa. Postdlf 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• If kept for future population, may be wise to rename it to :Category:Criticism of Judaism to increase the scope of the category, allowing for the inclusion of more articles. That said, while many criticisms of the Bible may be relevant to Judaism, it's important to remember the seperation between the Old and New Testaments (among other things), and that not all criticisms will necessarily refer to the Bible. Thanks for the thought, though, I can see where you're coming from. Regards, Luna Santin 10:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Does anyone know if this was depopulated in advance of the nomination? Osomec 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Honestly, do you really think I'd stoop so low? Nesher
• Delete attack category - unlikely anything in here would be encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do you believe the same of the above categories for books critical of Christianity and of Islam? Postdlf 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, since it appears to be empty. No view either way at the moment on whether it could be a legitimate category, since there is no content to illustrate the point either way. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, as per Jmabel. --Shuki 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jayg Kuratowski's Ghost 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- we already have :Category:Anti-Semitism and :Category:Jewish Christian topics, which, together, more than adequately cover anything this category could ever hope to, and with a much more reasonable scope. Tomer^talk 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep similer cats exist, and merely pointing out that there are things critical to X is not an attack nor criticism of X. -M^ask 20 px 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AKMask. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was revised rename. Conscious 10:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play number-one singles to :Category:Billboard Hot Dance Club Play number-one singles
• :Category:Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks number-one singles to :Category:Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs number-one singles
• :Category:Number one country singles to :Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles

These should be renamed to reflect the new chart names. In the proposed names, I also removed the hyphen in "number-one" so they will be consistent with their parent categories :Category:American number one singles and :Category:Number one singles. If the hyphen should be removed (I'm not sure if it necessary or not but it seems it should be removed for consistency reasons), these following categories should be renamed as well:

• :Category:Billboard Adult Top 40 number-one singles to :Category:Billboard Adult Top 40 number one singles
• :Category:Billboard Adult Contemporary number-one singles to :Category:Billboard Adult Contemporary number one singles
• :Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles to :Category:Billboard Hot 100 number one singles
• :Category:Billboard Pop 100 number-one singles to :Category:Billboard Pop 100 number one singles

--Musicpvm 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support for new chart names, Oppose removal of hyphen - If the chart name is updated then definitely change the category name. As far as the hyphen, I think the categories without the hyphen should have it added. I might be wrong, but I assumed that grammatically a hyphen is correct when "number-one" is used as an adjective, but not needed when used as a noun. -- eo 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support for renaming the Hot Dance Club Play chart, oppose removal of hyphen, which is grammatically wrong. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Ok, that makes sense. I will revise my proposal. --Musicpvm 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename. If :Category:United States Court of Appeals cases is capitalized, then this one should be, too.—Markles 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose; "district court" is only capitalized when referring to a specific court rather than United States district courts generally; same as with the U.S. courts of appeals. The COA category is instead miscapitalized. Postdlf 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Fine with me, I don't care which gets corrected. Nevertheless one is capitalized (COA) and the other is not (dc). It should be consistent.—Markles 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per revised proposal (see table). Conscious 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Portal:Africa -> :Category:African Portal
• :Category:Portal:Americas -> :Category:Americas Portal
• :Category:Portal:Asia -> :Category:Asian Portal
• :Category:Portal:Canada -> :Category:Canadian Portal
• :Category:Portal:Cannabis -> :Category:Cannabis Portal
• :Category:Portal:Cars -> :Category:Cars Portal
• :Category:Portal:Cars anniversaries -> :Category:Cars Portal anniversaries
• :Category:Portal:Cars quotes -> :Category:Cars Portal quotes
• :Category:Portal:Cars selected articles -> :Category:Cars Portal selected articles
• :Category:Portal:Cars selected pictures -> :Category:Cars Portal selected pictures
• :Category:Portal:Christianity -> :Category:Christianity Portal
• :Category:Portal:Computer and video games -> :Category:Computer and video games Portal
• :Category:Portal:Dragonlance -> :Category:Dragonlance Portal
• :Category:Portal:Europe -> :Category:European Portal
• :Category:Portal:Food -> :Category:Food Portal
• :Category:Portal:Fromer Cars selected articles -> :Category:Cars Portal former selected articles (spelling)
• :Category:Portal:Geography -> :Category:Geography Portal
• :Category:Portal:India -> :Category:Indian Portal
• :Category:Portal:India/Selected article removal candidates -> :Category:India Portal selected article removal candidates (capitalisation, rm slash)
• :Category:Portal:Latin America -> :Category:Latin American Portal
• :Category:Medicine portal -> :Category:Medicine Portal
• :Category:Portal:Middle-earth subpages -> :Category:Middle-earth Portal subpages
• :Category:Portal:North America -> :Category:North American Portal
• :Category:Portal:Oceania -> :Category:Oceanian Portal
• :Category:Portal:Religion -> :Category:Religion Portal
• :Category:Portal:Southeast Asia -> :Category:Southeast Asian Portal
• :Category:Portal:Sports -> :Category:Sports Portal
• :Category:Portal:Television -> :Category:Television Portal
• :Category:Portal:Tropical cyclones -> :Category:Tropical cyclones Portal
• :Category:Portal:United States -> :Category:American Portal

Following on from renaming the Category:Wikipedia:Foo categories, and a nomination below, we should rename these. The suggestion is Category:Fooian Portal for countries and geographic regions, and Category:Foo Portal for others. SeventyThree^(Talk) 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support sounds reasonable to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename each to :Category:X portals / :Category:Portals for X / etc as each carries more than one portal. David Kernow 13:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Not true. Several of these contain subpages for a specific portal, rather than having several portals. For that reason, rename either to :Category:X/Xian Portal or :Category:X/Xian Portals on a case by case basis. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• How about:

class=wikitable ! Rename from !! to
:Category:Portal:Africa	:Category:African portals
:Category:Portal:Americas	:Category:Americas portals, but perhaps :Category:Portals to the Americas or the like to avoid awkward double plural.
:Category:Portal:Asia	:Category:Asian portals
:Category:Portal:Canada	:Category:Canadian portals
:Category:Portal:Cannabis	delete? {{smaller|(Portal:Cannabis the only member)}}
:Category:Portal:Cars	:Category:Cars Portal
:Category:Portal:Cars anniversaries | :Category:Cars Portal anniversary pages
:Category:Portal:Cars quotes	:Category:Cars Portal quote pages
:Category:Portal:Cars selected articles | :Category:Cars Portal selected articles
:Category:Portal:Cars selected pictures | :Category:Cars Portal selected pictures
:Category:Portal:Christianity	:Category:Christianity portals
:Category:Portal:Computer and video games | :Category:Computer and video game portals
:Category:Portal:Dragonlance	:Category:Dragonlance Portal pages
:Category:Portal:Europe	:Category:European portals
:Category:Portal:Food	:Category:Food portals
:Category:Portal:Fromer Cars selected articles | :Category:Cars Portal former selected articles
:Category:Portal:Geography	:Category:Geography portals
:Category:Portal:India	:Category:India Portal {{smaller|(and merge :Category:India portal)}}
:Category:Portal:India/Selected article removal candidates {{smaller|(NB currently empty)}} | :Category:India Portal selected article candidates for removal
:Category:Portal:Latin America	:Category:Latin American portals
:Category:Medicine portal	:Category:Medicine Portal
:Category:Portal:Middle-earth subpages | :Category:Middle-earth Portal {{smaller|(and add Portal:Middle-earth)}}
:Category:Portal:North America	:Category:North American portals
:Category:Portal:Oceania	:Category:Oceanian portals
:Category:Portal:Religion	:Category:Religion portals
:Category:Portal:Southeast Asia	:Category:Southeast Asian portals
:Category:Portal:Sports	:Category:Sports portals
:Category:Portal:Television	:Category:Television portals
:Category:Portal:Tropical cyclones | :Category:Tropical cyclones Portal
:Category:Portal:United States	:Category:United States portals

Apologies in advance if I've missed any containing pages rather than portals. Regards, David Kernow 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

: Nuts, I missed that most of them contain portals - well caught, both of you. I'd disagree on the new renames though, because I see no reason to split "articles related to the Foo Portal" from "subportals of the Foo Portal". For example, :Category:Portal:Food contains both {{cat|Food portal selected articles}} and the subportals of Food (Cooking and Beer). SeventyThree^(Talk) 06:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:* Taking the Portal:Food example, Portal:Cooking and Portal:Beer appear to be related but standalone portals rather than subportals, hence my "...portals" suggestions. However, I may well be missing something. Regards, David 13:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:*Added :Category:Medicine portal to list... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the category for pages relating to the New Zealand Portal are simply in :Category:New Zealand Portal, which is in line with the renaming proposal. I agree with all the above rename proposals (i.e., the ones in the table), but wonder whether it would be worthwhile adding Portal: Middle-earth to the category and simply renaming to :Category:Middle-earth Portal. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

: Sounds good, I've adjusted the nomination above. Since that's more of a rescope than the others, I've whacked a {{tl|Cfd-article}} on Portal talk:Middle-earth to let them know (and object if they want). I still prefer my general format, but it's not a big issue as long as the double-namespace thing goes. SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::Six of one half-dozen of the other to me. Sounds fine for the Middle-earth portal specifically and these categories in general. --CBD 10:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

: I agree for the medicine portal.--Steven Fruitsmaak 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 10:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

POV, misnamed (should be prefixed with Fictional if allowed to exist), fancruft. CovenantD 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:Rename if kept. Dark Lord handles this pretty well. Perhaps just add this as a "See also" link to the articles contained in this category? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn/no consensus. Conscious 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These are synonymous and should be merged. I think merging into Naval ships of India is more consistent with other ship categories, but I don't care much about which gets merged where as long as a merge occurs. TomTheHand 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge I would suggest merge to Indian Naval ships, seems to be the more natural phrase of the two. --Wisden17 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge both to :Category:Ships of the Indian Navy. David Kernow 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Almost every Naval ships of foo category has a Fooian Navy ships subcategory. - EurekaLott 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• I see what you're saying, EurekaLott. I was probably mistaken in nominating this for merge. I don't agree with every country having a "Naval ships of (country)" cat and those cats having a "(country's navy) ships" subcat, but it is consistent. This one was just an unusually big mess. The cats need cleanup, not merging. TomTheHand 18:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I believe having 2 pages with the same topic is a waste of space and also contributes to splitting away of information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.117.175.130 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

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

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

The result of the debate was Superseded by umbrella nomination --William Allen Simpson 01:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

no encyclopedic value, possible votestacking use Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I could support the deletion of all one hundred subcategories (and their subcategories) of :Category:Wikipedians by politics, but one by one deletion weakens the encyclopedia by allowing selective bias. GRBerry 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Void this CfD in favor of the above one, without which this one is absurd, just like the Conservative Wikipedians one, below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are many other categories that are worse than this one, but if we agree to delete all political categories than I will support, specifically the Conservative wikipedians below. Vote withdrawn.Gsingh 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::Comment ''Note that :Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories are now nominated for deletion above.-- Drini 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Larix 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Empty category, unused for months, was described on talk page as "temporary". Warrens 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as name seems vague, otherwise populate and rename. David Kernow 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reads like some sort of enemies list. Extremely prejudicial. waffle iron ^talk 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hopelessly vague, invites speculative inclusions, and cat name implies some sort of soviet monolith.--M@rēino 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What the hell is this based on???--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mareino's thoughts above. --Wisden17 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Argh! Kukini 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced POV magnet. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• If this category is to be deleted, then it is only fair that the category "Rock Musicians of the Political Right" be deleted as well. - Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.207.247 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

:* It has been nominated as well: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 20#Category:Rock Musicians of the Political Right --waffle iron ^talk 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it's pointless 132.241.246.111 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of musicians do very deliberately align themselves with left-wing politics - the objections to this category seem to be concerned with "left wing" being some kind of unspeakable concept that it would be libelous to imply anyone had anything to do with. (As a non-American I get the impression that in the USA "left wing" is considered a slur approximately on a par with "rapes babies".) I would actually prefer to populate this category more, by making it and the corresponding :Category:Rock Musicians of the Political Right into subcategories of :Category:Musical activists and moving people from what would then be the parent category. --Bonalaw 07:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mareino...and Childzy. Postdlf 07:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bonalaw. I know he voted keep, but his reasoning is exactly why this needs to be deleted... it'll be a POV nightmare. -M^ask 20 px 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. And artists don't fall neatly on the political spectrum anyway. Wasted Time R 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't really repeat the "musical activists" category, in my opinion, since there are also a number of right-leaning musicans (largely country artists like Toby Keith, etc., one would suppose), who could perhaps be referred to as "activists", but are not leftist by any means. There is a difference, also, between an activitst (e.g. someone like, say, Joan Baez, who spends huge amounts of their time involved in political activisim), and a performer who simply lets it be known that they are a registered Democrat. I would however favor changing the name of the article to "musicians from the political left", however, since a number of folk and also soul or R&B artists (Stevie Wonder, etc.) would fit. --Markt3 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Category redirect --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Empty category, and a poor means of classifying organisms should have been deleted a while ago, but seemingly never got listed. Stemonitis 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete – we have :Category:Aquatic organisms. ×Meegs 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and delete per Meegs.--M@rēino 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Convert to redirect per above. David Kernow 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have converted it to a "soft" redirect, using {{tl|Category redirect}}. --Stemonitis 09:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: too broad to be useful, and currently too underpopulated to be effective.--Lkjhgfdsa 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – If this gigantic set is ever needed, it can be generated by machine. ×Meegs 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/o prejudice per Meegs.--M@rēino 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Billy Meier
• :Category:Talmud Jmmanuel

Among these 2 categories are a grand total of 4 unique pages, 1 of which shouldn't really belong (Immanuel). Of the three that are relevant, 2 of them have the same name as the category itself, and all are linked from the main Billy Meier article. I don't think these categories help much in the way of navigation or sorting. Unless a large amount of Billy Meier-theology related material is expected on Wikipedia, these categories seem hopelessly doomed to tininess. I propose deletion, but if this is seen as too strong, I would recommend as an alternative renaming and combining the categories into something more general, such as "UFOs in Religion." Something like that could conceievably be expanded to other pages and have some breadth. SnowFire 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete These topics are nowhere close to meriting categories. Osomec 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the Billy Meier category. I agree with the above. I haven't looked at the other category. Bubba73 (talk), 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Osomec. --Wisden17 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename subcategories but leave this category the same. For example, :Category:California state case law is reundant, it only needs to be :Category:California case law. Same with the other states.—Markles 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose; "state" helps clarify that these are categories for articles about state court decisions only; otherwise decisions by federal courts sitting in the particular state might be inadvertently included. Postdlf 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Postdlf. Even if redundant, the verbiage is very common and is a useful reminder. ×Meegs 16:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Postdlf; every state has state and federal courts, and in some instances a federal case can be referred to as "a California case", but not as "a California state case". That's the burden of dual sovereignty! BD2412 T 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In support. I counter your arguments thusly…

1. A federal case in California would not be a "California case." It would be a "federal case" or a "United States case" or some such thing. I admit that a "United States case" could refer to a case in the United States, not of the United States. But a California case is very clearly a case of California.
2. It is not "very common" to refer to them as "California state cases." If a category were called ":Category:California case law" there's no doubt in my mind what kind of cases they would be.

—Markles 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:Interesting, my experience is the opposite; most people tend to use the qualifier of "state" because it's confusing otherwise. Perhaps it's a regional thing—where do you practice and/or study law? Postdlf 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::This isn't about colloquialisms; rather, it's about accuracy. I'll grant that redundancy does not imply inaccuracy, but if the category had originally been called "California case law" would anyone have suggested changing it to add "state"? —Markles 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a non-legal person, I'll just say that at least for me, adding "State" is a useful clarifier and reminder. Even if in law the "State" is technically unnecessary (a proposition I am unqualified to judge), it still is reasonable to add it in a general-use encylopedia. SnowFire 20:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• It is a useful clarifier and reminder, but it is not precise. Compare it to "New York State Governor." That might clarify the position held by George Pataki (Governor of New York) instead of the one held by Kevin M. Warsh (a New Yorker who serves as Governor of the Federal Reserve.—Markles 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:Option 1: merge into :Category:Martial arts. Option 2: rename as :Category:Martial arts styles -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per option1. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Navy had several different classes of destroyers called the "C class". This category contains members of the 1943 class, and the category should be renamed to make that clear. TomTheHand 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Osomec 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to :Category:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages. Conscious 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-existant term, original research, invention of Wikipedia user. The scientific term, used in all sources and all other Wikipedia editions, is Low German languages. //83 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Accepted term, even by certain linguists, used to avoid confusion and provide more and better understandable information. --

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not a single source is provided. The term is not used by any other encyclopedia or established reference work, and not by any other Wikipedia either. The term was invented by a English Wikipedia user on November 12, 2005. Hence, the category is a violation of two Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyway, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rex_Germanus&oldid=59005021#Things_that_piss_me_off those] insisting on moving all things Low German to "Low Germanic" seems to be a weird sort of Dutch nationalists (just like claiming American is unrelated to English for nationalist purposes). //83 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect; Low German article suggests that German and Germanic might be both terms that would be used to mean the same thing.--M@rēino 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Be aware that the same POV pushers have made changes to a large number of articles related to this since November last year. A Wikipedia article cannot be used a reference. Until we have seen other evidence, we must assume that the term was invented last year by a Wikipedia editor.
• Keep, possibly rename - When I organized these categories, I went along with the terminology already in place in the articles. However, it was my understanding that "Low German" is (as is cited in this CFD) the name of the family that includes Low Franconian, and that the family that was named "Low German" here in Wikipedia is actually called "Low Saxon". Rename :Category:Low German languages to :Category:Low Saxon languages, and rename :Category:Low Germanic languages to :Category:Low German languages or to :Category:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages (more neutral term used by [http://www.ethnologue.com/ Ethnologue]). - Keep in mind that the Dutch distaste of being called "German" and of Germans not being called "Dutch" in English congealed only in recent centuries. Nationalisms and politics aside, it is indisputable that Dutch and Low Saxon are closer to each other than either of them is to Standard German. Also keep in mind that Low Saxon, which is also spoken in some parts of the Netherlands, would be under "Low German" somewhere along the classification tree either way, even if the classification Low Franconian languages weren't also so named. It may be politically correct to say "Low Germanic", but "Low German" is both historically and genetically the more correct term (purely in a linguistic sense, mind you—once again, nationalisms and politics both being set aside). The category structures as they had been set really should be kept intact—if "Low Germanic" is not a valid term, then rename the category, don't delete it. - Gilgamesh 08:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. I like the Gilgamesh's proposition of adopting the ethnologue solution by moving this category to :Category:Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages (I'd however prefer the alphabetical ordering of the components, which also corresponds to the ordering by number of active speakers or by number of Ausbausprachen). I've requested the move of the corresponding articles, see Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves. In any case, the articles should keep the same names as the corresponding categories. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually they use "Low Saxon-Low Franconian", but I realize that's splitting hairs. - Gilgamesh 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Additional comment It occurred to me that perhaps it really is genuinely more proper to use "Low Saxon-Low Franconian" instead of "Low Franconian-Low Saxon", because it's established terminology in the linguistic field. Similarly, we tend to say "Indo-European" or "Tibeto-Burman" rather than "Euro-Indian" or "Burmo-Tibetan". If it is the majority's choice that "Low Franconian-Low Saxon" is more acceptable, then I wouldn't dispute it, and I really don't consider this a dispute now. But please think about it. - Gilgamesh 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as appropriate. I believe what this is referring to, without digging into it too deeply, is Low West-Germanic non-Anglo-Frisian dialects/languages, which variously include Afrikaans, Nederlands, Vlaams, Plattdüütsch, Niederfränkisch, Niedersächsisch, [etc.], [how ever you like to split them up and group them together], possibly Lëtzebürgesch, and a number of now-extinct dialects or languages such as then plattdeutschen Dialects that supplanted the Lechitic Pomeranian language[s]. For now tho, I think it would be entirely appropriate to remove this discussion from CfD and take it to the category talk page where it should have been to begin with... Tomer^talk 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Translated in Dutch the differences will be much clearer: Germanic = Germaans, German = Duits, which would make German the languages spoken in Germany, and Germanic the 'Germanic family', which would include German, Dutch, Danish, etc. Bryan 20:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename. To correspond to all the other subcategories of :Category:American politicians by state. Yes, I know it's not a state, but it should be included here until/unless the higher category's name is corrected. —Markles 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to match siblings. ×Meegs 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::No opinion. ×Meegs 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per Markles. DC should follow the same linguistic format as if it were a state. --M@rēino 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- We just decided this a few weeks ago in the other direction! Stop category thrashing! This is not a state, this is a local government, and follows :Category:Local government in the United States. Markles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Politicians_of_the_District_of_Columbia&diff=59433193&oldid=56052228 just added it] to :Category:American politicians by state, solely to create the conflict, and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Politicians_of_the_District_of_Columbia&diff=59433798&oldid=59433193 nominated CfR 5 minutes later]. I am very close to thinking this a bad faith nomination. (And Markles should use the official {{tl|cfr2}}, I'm tired of having to fix his entries.) --William Allen Simpson 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• My apologies. I certainly did not do this in bad faith. Creating a category then nominating a similar one for CFR is a regular part of category maintenance and if I did something wrong in Wikipedia procedure, please accept my apologies.—Markles 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• It looks like the previous discussion concluded that there should be a single cat titled "District of Columbia", not "Washington, D.C." Only you expressed a preference for "Politicians of —" over "— politicians", and you did not give a specific reason. I really believe this is a good-faith nomination. ×Meegs 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• In that previous discussion, it was 3 in favor and 2 opposed, which was hardly a consensus. It is fair to debate the issue anew. —Markles 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename previous discussion did not reach consensus, and should follow state conventions. -M^ask 20 px 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Superseded by umbrella nomination - TexasAndroid 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Category designed and used to votestack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- survived CfD of 2005 December 18. No evidence presented of "design" or "use" related to votestacking. --William Allen Simpson 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Category designed by User:Gator1 during his pre-responsible phase, in defence of banned user User:BigDaddy777. Review recent user-talk contributions of User:Rangeley for use in vote-stacking. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• ¿Evidence? > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=59500451#Vote-Stacking.3F -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless at least :Category:Liberal Wikipedians and :Category:Moderate Wikipedians are also nominated for deletion, and possibly :Category:Leftist Wikipedians, :Category:Rightist Wikipedians, :Category:Green Wikipedians, :Category:Libertarian Wikipedians, and likely many more from :Category:Wikipedians by politics. If users are to be allowed to declare their political leanings in this way at all, then we cannot single out just one of these categories and remove it, denying that ability to one segment of the users, while still allowing the ability to others. Either all this type need to go, or they all need to stay. - TexasAndroid 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I support the deletion of all of the subcategories except the ones for small minority views (i.e. "Users who support the Bharatiya Janata Party"). The large ones have no conceivable encyclopedic use. The BJP category might assist in finding someone that can help us researhc the BJP. This is not necessary for conservatives. When I get home and have access to AWB, I will do a mass nomination. I look foward to your strong and continued support to make an encyclopedia as opposed to argue about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Removing all one hundred categories and user boxes may force users to remain more anonymous and have blander user pages, but I guarantee you that it will encourage external-Wikipedia organizations that can effectively vote-stack and edit war unopposed and unmonitored by interested Wikipedians, if it is not already being done. DavidBailey 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- bad faith nomination. --Facto 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please retract your personal attack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• There is no personal attack imo. Osomec 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Larix 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Smells like a bad faith nomination. While there has recently been a WP:SPAM to members of the category, I don't believe categories, project pages, userboxes, etc... should be deleted because of an individual's action - the individual should suffer the consequences. I could support the deletion of all one hundred subcategories (and their subcategories) of :Category:Wikipedians by politics, but one by one deletion weakens the encyclopedia by allowing selective bias. GRBerry 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories But I've seen you've supported already the group CFD -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I support the deletion of all of the subcategories except the ones for small minority views (i.e. "Users who support the Bharatiya Janata Party"). The large ones have no conceivable encyclopedic use. The BJP category might assist in finding someone that can help us researhc the BJP. This is not necessary for conservatives. When I get home and have access to AWB, I will do a mass nomination. I look foward to your strong and continued support to make an encyclopedia as opposed to argue about politics. Please retract your personal attack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• There is no personal attack imo. Osomec 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• I won't be able to support keeping those for "small minority views". That in itself introduces selective bias. I'm not a regular at CFD (spotted this on Recent Changes), so I don't know what the etiquette here is when a parent is deleted, do all the kids go to? If so, then just nominate :Category:Wikipedians by politics. Otherwise, I think we need a separate and visible discussion about eliminating all of them as a group. GRBerry 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• There is encyclopedic value to the rare member of the small minority view - in that they can assist us in finding sources related to their view. There is no encyclopedic value to "conservatives." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• That could be accomplished just by posting on the talk page of the article about the small minority party. The use of the category is irrelevant to the size of the group. GRBerry 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- JungleCat 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::Care to elaborate? CFD is not a vote. -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose They should all go, but selective nominations like this are out of order. Osomec 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - They all have to go at once. I can't support the deletion of :Category:Conservative Wikipedians while :Category:Liberal Wikipedians just sits there. It's true that neither has any encyclopedic value, but they have to be nominated together - I think all categories in :Category:Wikipedians by politics should go. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Then rescind your vote, and nominate them all. --zero faults User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• :What vote? ...and who said it had to happen today? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• ::Discussing with you in two places gets confusing. My deepest apologies on the mix up. --zero faults User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• :::No worries! Serves me right for arguing the same issue from two perspectives at the same time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - IF you have a problem with these groups, they should all be deleted, pretty selective choice. --zero faults User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per GRBerry. DavidBailey 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Can I take that to mean "No to selective nominations but yes if applied to all categories (as GrBerry has done) ?-- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, reserving the right to change vote if ALL are nominated, per GTBacchus.--M@rēino 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories So, would you reconsider changing your opinion? -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::-Comment Will the Category:Wikipedians by religion and sub-cats also be targeted for deletion? Will it stop at politics? What about Category:Wikipedians by philosophy? Can these be used to votestack? Sorry for asking dumb questions ;-) JungleCat 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::: No. I am focusing on politics. You can feel free to deal with other categories used to votestack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, all of them or none of them. We cant pick and choose, and if you were truly worried about "vote stacking" (votes dont ever matter by the way) then you would target all groups, not merely this. Rangeley 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per GTBacchus et al., most of :Category:Wikipedians by politics should be deleted as non-encyclopedic, as promoting categorization irrelevant to editing, and as potential vote-stacking/edit-warring tools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireplace (talk • contribs) 18:33, June 19, 2006 (UTC).
• Oppose -- there is no such thing as vote-stacking, so vote-stacking is not possible -- we seek consensus. We have all sorts of categories on Wikipedia -- this seems to be a hate-filled focus on Conservatives, which seems to happen daily, even among Admins. 20pxMorton Devonshire^Yo
• :This is a fallacy. "Vote-stacking" is a misnomer for a disruptive activity that impedes the finding of consensus. Call it what you will; it's real, and it's been done with this category twice in the past week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::Comment ''Note that :Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories are now nominated for deletion above. GRBerry 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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