The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These are acting as a duplication of the already existing disambiguation pages for One star and Ten star. We don't use categories in this fashion: that's why we have the disambiguation pages. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't be bothered with an extended argument. Do whatever you want. However, before you do, please consider and respond to each of the following:
I did it for a reason - to address a perceived requirement that was not being addressed. These categories fullfill that requirement. Deleting these categories will re-introduce that requirement. Do you intend to do anything about addressing that requirement?
I gather you're a "deletionist"? (By the end of this note, I expect that you will have correctly gathered that I'm an "inculsionist".)
They are not intended to be acting as a duplication. If you feel, or have deduced that, they are acting as a duplication, then, because I have not finished the job yet, and/or have not done the job well enough, and have not put an explanatory rational, you have arrived at a different conclusion from my intention. Should I put an "under construction" template on the new categories?
"We don't use categories in this fashion: that's why we have the disambiguation pages." - YOU may not use categories in the fashion that you think I intend, but I can show you many examples of categories used in the manner I intend - for example, look at the web going out from Victoria Cross.
P.S. Thank you for having the good manners to revert your deletions whilst the discussion is in progress. Many would not, and I appreciate that you did.
Answers: (1) I already consider the "requirement" to be fulfilled by the disambiguation pages, though I am not 100% sure what the requirement would be that you are referring to that is not fulfilled already; (2) No, I don't consider myself as such; even if I did, I don't understand why how I categorize my own Wikipedia philosophy has any relevance; (3) I would need more information here; i.e., what was your intent? If it was to have a category containing all usages of the term "1 star" that goes beyond the disambiguation page, this is essentially overcategorization by shared naming characteristic, and would be considered by me and by guidelines as a trivial and therefore inappropriate basis for categorization; (4) I don't think comparing this to Victoria Cross is a good analogy. A common thread connects Victoria Crosses given by the navy, the army, and the air force, but there is no comparable reason to categorize together One Star Hotel and One Star Story (band), for example. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambiguous categories are deleterious to the maintenance and categorization of articles. grabbag articles are deleterious to the categorization and organization of articles ; no clear criteria for inclusion into these categories. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. It appears that consensus has come to conclude this category is problematic, regardless of its title. A few editors suggested to listify these subjects as a better alternative. This type of characteristic is simply not fit for a category. — ξxplicit05:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Hum. This seems a little bit—vague and perhaps too much like an "allegation" or accusatory category. I looked at the articles in this category, and in each case there is some suggestion by someone that members of the Church of Scientology were involved somehow in the death. Three of the cases were suicides and two of the cases were determined to have been accidental deaths. In the suicide cases, there are suggestions that the involvement with Scientology led to the state of mind that led to the suicide. In the accidental cases, there are suggestions that it may have been a "set up job", though of course nothing has been proven in those cases. These might better be placed in ‹The templateCat is being considered for merging.›Category:Cause of death disputed and ‹The templateCat is being considered for merging.›Category:Scientology controversies, where they all currently are anyway. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, to "Deaths related to Scientology". The word "connected" is indeed the problem here, as it implies "connections", but "related" simply acknowledges relevance to the general topic area, not connection or implication of the controversial organization. -- Cirt (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify this is not category material, since any member/ex-member of Scientology who died/dies would be "related/connected". A list can have better criteria for admission, and be better maintained. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do find that "connected" is a problematic term, each of the individuals listed have WP:RS which attribute their deaths somehow to Scientology, and multiple deaths attributed to an organization is significant if only because they have become tied by their use as a specific rhetorical trope. because that is a significant feature of multiple articles I think a category should be maintained.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This form of the category is simply way too subjective. The suggestion to rename to Category:Deaths related to Scientology could in fact be even more subjective. Delete and if there is a case for grouping these articles, then create a list with appropriate references. Reading the articles, reinforces the need to delete the category. One could well argue that the category may not comply with the intent of WP:NPOV. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that this category is in violation of WP:NPOV because these individual articles are grouped because their deaths have been directly attributed by several reliable sources to the church of Scientology, and that claim is "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In some cases their death being related to the church is the only significant thing about the individual, but it is significant enough to be notable for inclusion into the encyclopedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is more of a justification to Listify. Lists allow the reasons for the inclusion to be listed with appropriate citations. That is not possible for categories. You also seem to be agreeing that inclusion here is arbitrary and subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am really puzzled on how you think I am agreeing that it is arbitrary and subjective, were you responding to a different editor? I am saying that if the individuals have WP:RS that discuss a debate concerning wither the church of Scientology is directly responsible for their deaths (a qualification that each of these individuals fulfills) then that individual merits inclusion. It isn't arbitrary or subjective, rather it fulfills Wikipedia guidelines on notability and verifiability not truth while maintaining our requirements for a neutral point of view. now I am not as familiar with lists vs. categories so I chose not to comment on that modification, rather I just commented on if it should be deleted or not. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Members of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: listed are Jews by the country to which they have (or had) citizenship (or quasi-citizenship) Mayumashu (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In most instances, until the modern era, the Jews were denied citizenship (or nationality) of the country in which they lived. Accordingly, a category "Jews by nationality" is a totally inappropriate term. In additional, as the Jews can also be considered a national or ethnic group (an argument made by the nominator in this discussion), the proposed new name is imprecise. Davshul (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The close nature of the relationship between Wales and England means that a very large (if not the majority) of the Welsh population has English roots. This would make the category massive if used properly, but despite the fact that the category has been around for sometime it has not been used. I believe this shows the disregard that the category has from WikiProject Wales. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:American sportspeople of Swiss-German descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. (In fact 2 of the 3 articles do not mention Swiss or German, and the 3rd, Otto Hess (baseball), mentions Swiss but not German, so the category has no legitimate entries and could be deleted.) Occuli (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
