Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Category:Sins

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < May 30

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | June 1 >

= May 31 =

== Category:Democrat Party (Turkey) ==

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

:The result of the discussion was: rename to :Category:Democrat Party (Turkey, 1946–61) to match the current article name. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Democrat Party (Turkey) to :Category:Democrat Party (Turkey, historical)

:Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy. I propose renaming the category to match the article Democrat Party (Turkey, historical). There is also a subcategory, :Category:Democrat Party (Turkey, historical) politicians. The stated opposition sounds like an argument to have the article renamed. Until that happens, the category name should match the article name to avoid confusion. Note that Democrat Party (Turkey) redirects to Democratic Party (Turkey, current). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

{{collapse top|copy of speedy nomination/opposition}}

{{collapse bottom}}

  • Rename I'm not crazy about the main article name either but the place for that discussion is in an RM on the talk page. If/when the main article is renamed through consensus, we can speedy this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and {{u|RevelationDirect}}. Also, an RM is unlikely to reach consensus, as both sides have good arguments. --PanchoS (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename to :Category:Democrat Party (Turkey, 1946–61), which is more specific. I have just made a WP:BOLD move of the article to Democrat Party (Turkey, 1946–61). – Fayenatic London 21:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • : Indeed better. The category should of course follow the article title. --PanchoS (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • ::Articles about political political parties typically do not have date spans in them to indicate disambiguation. I've seen a lot that have the founding date, but hardly ever a span. I never quite understood why, and this article name is as good as any, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment (nom). I'm fine with renaming to :Category:Democrat Party (Turkey, 1946–61) now to match the new article name. No one appears to have objected to the bold page rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Stockton - Los Angeles Road ==

: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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stockton - Los Angeles Road}}

:Nominator's rationale: Essentially a category for a road that operated from the 1850s to 1870s, not defining for much (all) of the articles. It seems a bad idea to categorize places with what former roads, railroads, stage coach lines, etc. they are one, and we have deleted many of these sorts of categories: including London Loop, Freedom Trail, and others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The places the road went can be listed in the article, being on the road is not defining for the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Protest fasts and hunger strikes ==

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

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Protest fasts and hunger strikes to :Category:Hunger strikes

:Nominator's rationale: associated article is just called "Hunger strike" Prisencolin (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

:Support rename. Personally, I can't see a distinction between a protest fast and a hunger strike (and our article on hunger strikes defines a hunger strike as a fast which is carried out as a political protest, suggesting that they are the same). Assuming then that there is no distinction, there is no need for the redundancy in the category name. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support rename The distinction is unclear. Dimadick (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support rename There's no clear distinction. Actually, while some hunger strikes are carried through all the way to either success or starvation, most are just protest fasts that are abandoned at some point. --PanchoS (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename to match parent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Cities that share names with diseases or illnesses ==

: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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Cities that share names with diseases or illnesses}}

:Nominator's rationale: Created after User:Good Olfactory nominated the German sub-category for deletion, below, this is every bit as WP:NON-DEFINING, for categorization purposes. I'd urge User:Red Icarus of Jakarta to stop creating categories for "cities that share names with diseases or illnesses" until these two Afds have run their course, and to respect consensus, when they do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Moreover, the notion that Toulouse is "named for a disease" would seem to be hogwash. There's no evidence in the article that that is in any way true. I wonder if all the city entries are completely erroneous. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • :Red Icarus of Jakarta has been repeatedly warned this month for disruptive editing, including a previous final warning. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toulouse&type=revision&diff=723044565&oldid=722793939 This] seems to have no basis in fact, and I've reported him at AIV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think this may be pure vandalism. Can anyone find any articles that substantiate the claim that cities here are associated with a disease? I can't find one and the category creator has a history of disruptive editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • :The "explanation" for Toulouse's being in this category may be (I don't know what the original creator was thinking) that Pycnodysostosis is sometimes called "Toulouse-Lautrec" syndrome. Of course, that is after the artist, not the city... The category should obviously still be deleted as non-defining and unhelpful, but I don't think that this is deliberately disruptive, just thoughtless... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to be a made up situation. Creator has been blocked.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

::For 12 hours, yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete The inclusion of Helsinki on this list seems dubious as well, and not supported by article text. There is however a [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Helsinki%20syndrome running joke] of confusing Stockholm syndrome as "Helsinki syndrome". --hydrox (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete shared names, trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as non-defining and overcategorization by shared name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It was interesting to learn that there is a medical disease or condition etc. named after Nijmegen. I suspect there are many other cities, countries, etc. around the world which share that distinction: the Zika virus immediately comes to mind - and that made me think of Congo fever. But whether this is important enough to justify a category is another matter. Just my two cents worth.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

:*Where does it say that in the article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

::* Sure, I'm open to creating a sourced article about the topic. Not defining for the cities though Delete RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

::*Where does it say what in the article? Mention Nijmegen breakage syndrome? It doesn't. At first I thought the edit was wrong, maybe even vandalism, but then I googled Nijmegen disease and discovered Nijmegen breakage syndrome, and there is a Wikipedia article on it. So maybe the Nijmegen article should mention the medical condition.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Would place highly in any competition to find the most pointless categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-defining. The category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists of every single bit of flotsam it might be possible to create a list for — we categorize on defining characteristics, not tangential trivia. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a frivolous discussion. There is no "Stockholm disease" or illness. "Stockholm Syndrome" isn't a medically recognize pathology. Let's move on. GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • this should have been speedied since the name of the category says that it's inappropriate. Can we get some WP:SNOWBALLs here? Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This is an odd example of shared name. What next :Category:Cities that share names with rock bands. Although that might actually be more defining than this. Also, Stockholm is on the list, possibly due to Stockhold syndrome, which is not really a disease or an illness, but a mental condition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Databases by genre ==

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

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Databases by genre to :Category:Databases by subject

:Nominator's rationale: As a "genre" is a "category of literature, music, or other forms of art or entertainment, whether written or spoken, audio or visual, based on some set of stylistic criteria" (main article genre, italics added) it's surely the wrong word? "Topic" would be closer, though I'd prefer "subject" as the most apt? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support The subject matter of a database may have nothing to do with its stylistic criteria. Take for example :Category:Religion databases. Is religion a subject matter or a genre? Dimadick (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suport rename as proposed. --PanchoS (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Nagorno-Karabakh–Azerbaijan border ==

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

:The result of the discussion was: merge to :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border. The current contents are already also in :Category:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, so a dual merger also to that category is not required in practice. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Nagorno-Karabakh–Azerbaijan border}}

:Nominator's rationale: Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, both by the UN governing bodies and UN member states, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has little, if any jurisdiction. There are no similar categories, like :Category:Catalonian–Spanish border or :Category:Basque–French border. Brandmeistertalk 10:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Her Pegship (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, unlike Catalonia or Basque country, Nagorno-Karabakh is de-facto independent of Azerbaijan. Also, it's actually recognized as a sovereign state, albeit by three other states of similar political status. --Prisencolin (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for such category as Nagorno-Karabakh region is internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan. --Interfase (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border. Defining this border is controversial but these categories should still be grouped by a more neutral parent category RevelationDirect (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border. DexDor (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border per RevelationDirect's proposal. The actual dispute is between these states, since the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is under Armenia's protection and has been since the 1990s. Dimadick (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Alt rename to {{cat|Borders of Nagorno-Karabakh}}, following precedent per {{cat|Borders of country subdivisions}}. Alternatively, delete as all articles are sufficiently categorized IMHO upmerge as other editors proposed. --PanchoS (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC) – {{small|amended PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)}}
  • Keep The attempt to delete this is pushing the Point of View that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azervaijan, which is contrary to the de facto reality on the ground, where Azerbaijan has no real power in Nagorno-Karabakh.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} by the same token, isn't having the category exist pushing the point of view that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Armenia, which is contrary to the de jure situation recognized by most countries? It seems to me the most neutral solution would be to rename to {{cat|Borders of Nagorno-Karabakh}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Johnpacklambert.GreyShark (dibra) 15:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename to {{cat|Borders of Nagorno-Karabakh}}. That seems like the most neutral solution. To allow it to exist suggests that it is not part of Armenia, while deleting it could suggest that it is not part of Azerbaijan. Until the people in both countries put on their big-boy pants and resolve the situation, Wikipedia can be neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A good merge target could be :Category:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, since all seven articles perfectly fit there as well. Brandmeistertalk 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a more neutral solution here, so it should be either upmerge to :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border or rename to {{cat|Borders of Nagorno-Karabakh}}. I have a weak preference for the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to both :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border and :Category:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. No reason to choose one over the other here, and this covers all the bases in terms of our readers finding the articles they want. ~ RobTalk 18:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to both :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border and :Category:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict per Rob. AFAICS, none of these articles are about this (alleged) border per se, but rather about conflicts which have happened along this (alleged) border. The existing categories groups those articles in a neutral way (i.e. without taking a view either way on the existence of such a border), and the status and history of the (alleged) border should be covered in an article which can incorporate and attribute the various points of view per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per Rob and BHG. This is not a good category due to there being no parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I !voted above already, but if we're searching for a consensus here, I would also be ok with an upmerge to :Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border and :Category:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict if users are OK that deleting the category won't, as suggested, be pushing a POV that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:German cities that share names with diseases or illnesses ==

: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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|German cities that share names with diseases or illnesses}}

:Nominator's rationale: Classic overcategorization by shared name. We categorize by defining features of a place, not by other things the place shares a name with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete certainly non-defining and a trivial characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of these cities' names like the historical city of Marburg or the picturesque city of Schmallenberg are more famous as disease names then city names. The fame of these city's is being taken away by disease names. Red Icarus of Jakarta 31 May 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Artcreator|Red Icarus of Jakarta}}
  • Delete Per nom/non-defining. The parent category :Category:Cities that share names with diseases or illnesses should go too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think this may be pure vandalism. Can anyone find any articles that substantiate the claim that cities here are associated with a disease? I can't find one and the category creator has a history of disruptive editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The claim isn't that they are associated with a disease, it's that they share a name with a disease, which they all do: Barth syndrome, Freiberg disease, Marburg virus, Schmallenberg virus, Munchausen syndrome, von Recklinghausen disease. Of course, in all but two of those cases the shared name is a coincidence, and thus this should be deleted under the shared name rule, but it is possible to interpret this as a good faith – if unhelpful – contribution Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comment on the above category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would place highly in any competition to find the most pointless categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Red Icarus of Jakarta to talk : I want to ask which of the 2 diseases names has something to do with the city names? I thought none of them do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-defining. The category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists of every single bit of flotsam it might be possible to create a list for — we categorize on defining characteristics, not tangential trivia. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • obvious delete as pure shared name trivia. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if this were limited to diseases that got their name from specific cities it would be non-defning, but with cases like Barth syndrome, which is named after a Dutch scientist with that last name who was involved in its description, the categorization is purely by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Banking occupations ==

: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: keep. SSTflyer 10:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Banking occupations to :Category:Banking, :Category:Finance occupations and :Category:Service occupations

:Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

:Keep: It definitely needs a few more articles, and they will follow. Occupations of these individuals need to be known about. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep I added some obvious entries; it is up to six now. There are still more investment banking occupations to add, such as (off the top of my head) stockbroker, trader, investment advisor, and fund manager. As a category with growth potential, I don't think this is a WP:SMALLCAT. --Mark viking (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to :Category:Finance occupations only, and selectively upmerge to :Category:Banking. The differentiation between financial sectors is not always as clear-cut. However, all financial occupations are service occupations, so we'd better put the whole category in, instead of upmerging individual articles. --PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

:* (as nom) That's correct, :Category:Finance occupations was in :Category:Service occupations already. I struck this part of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Business and financial operations occupations ==

: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: there is a consensus to change :Category:Business and financial operations occupations. Since a straight rename to :Category:Business occupations would require some purging anyway, it seems to make sense to do as Rob suggests and split between :Category:Business occupations and :Category:Finance occupations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Business and financial operations occupations to :Category:Business occupations

:Nominator's rationale: shortening of unnecessarily long category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree - The title could be much more concise. I like the shortening. ~ Henry TALK —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - the name comes from the Standard Occupational Classification System which gives us essentially a continually updated public domain categorization scheme for occupations which matches other systems (such as importing into Wikidata in the future). In this case, shortening gains us very little, but we lose functionality. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

:* I don't think we can or should comply with any particular classification system. We can't because it's not maintainable, and we shouldn't because there are various, partially contradicting, classification systems in the world that each have their own merits. For example, I found this classification system of the British government [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/423732/codes_of_practice_april_2015.pdf], which looks completely different from the other one. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

::* But that British system is not public domain like works of the US government are. We can use one, we can't use the other. -- Netoholic @ 23:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree The SOCS authors must get paid by the word; needlessly long. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Some purging (e.g. does Customs officer really belong in the category?) may also be necessary. DexDor (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per {{u|Netoholic}}. The argument to deviate from Standard Occupational Classification System doesn't seem strong enough. --PanchoS (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Split to :Category:Business occupations and :Category:Finance occupations. I'm sorry to muck this up, but business and finance are two totally different fields, I'm afraid. Business is the operation and development of companies. Finance is a field that deals with investments, assets, and various forms of liabilities. It's a common mistake to conflate the two, since they both are conflated at an undergraduate level, but they're a world apart beyond that level. I'm a PhD student in economics, so I do have some knowledge of these fields. ~ RobTalk 18:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

----

: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:Sins ==

: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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Sins}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category is inherently POV, does not have any objective criteria for inclusion, and is going to cause a lot of problems. You can't just label something a "sin" without providing context. There is already a debate about whether or not this category should be applied to Prostitution and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone applies it to Homosexuality, Divorce, Tattoo, and Dance. If you thought the "women novelists" categorization scandal was bad, just wait until this one plays out. Kaldari (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - its a POV bag of worms. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, but :Category:Seven deadly sins is a no-brainer for keeping. Brandmeistertalk 10:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and I'm sure User:Kaldari isn't using this as a basis to build a case for deleting :Category:Seven deadly sins, which is a very different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete one man's sin is another's virtue. POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • keep Nobody is going to say that any but one or two entries are anybody's virtues, and the others discuss these acts/whatever as vices/sins. The category is six years old, and so I'm not buying the "it's a matter of time" argument. The POV problem here is that deletion puts WP in the position of saying that, since there is disagreement about some acts, therefore nothing is a sin/vice/whatever. I would agree that simply categorizing specific morally controversial acts here is bad, but the current membership is (with one or two exceptions) not actually controversial. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. {{cat|Sin}} is sufficient to categorize articles that discuss sin in different religions, or to hold {{cat|Seven deadly sins}}. But we don't need this category to hold generic articles about behaviours that one or more religions regard as sinful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Inherently POV. BMK (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Convert to list – It's not POV. It's a category for topics/concepts that various religions consider sins, which is informative and is an objective criteria. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia editors' POVs. Not categorising something in the category because you don't think it's a sin or don't want to offend people – that's POV. However, I don't know of any other categories that group topics in this way. It would be much better served as a list or as separate lists for each religion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, while it may not be inherently POV, I have a hard time believing that it either A) will be consistently applied in a POV fashion, or B) that the only NPOV route will end up being basically an exhaustive list of human behavior (everything is sinful to somebody), and will therefore become meaningless. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: I actually think this is inherently POV. :Category:Sin is not, so long as it contains articles and subcats about the concept of sin and sinfulness in religion. But categorizing articles not about religious concepts (such as "Seven Deadly Sins") or non-religious concepts from a religious context (such as "Prostitution in Christianity") is POVvy and damages the credibility of the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV unlike the parent WP:TOPICCAT {{cat|Sin}}. --PanchoS (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep "Sin" is clearly defined in various faith systems. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The concept of sin is, for which we have :Category:Sin (which is not under discussion here). The list of things that constitute sins, however, is amorphous and varies dramatically. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete This is too broad a way to define things, even if we could somehow agree on a universal defintion of sinfulness. Some things I can think of that some will see as very grave sins, others celebrate, such as abortion and homosexual sex. However a category that groups rape and rudeness is not very useful. Very few if any people will see these as of the same level and worth categorizing together.21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

----

: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.