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:no consensus. Fair points have been made by both sides of the argument and the !votes themselves are fairly evenly split. I see no consensus developing now or in the near future over this issue.--v/r - TP13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(etc. Haven't tagged all other subcategories, but you get the idea.)
Nominator's rationale: The related article was moved, after considerable discussion, from Pro-life movementtoOpposition to legal abortion. It would be overstating matters to say there's a consensus on what the best title is here, but a significant number of editors feel 'pro-life' is not sufficiently NPOV, and I agree. In any case, the names of this category and its subcats should match the name of the main article.
My immediate reason for this nomination is that I found people such as Paul Jennings Hill, a convicted murderer, listed in Category:American pro-life activists. That's an absurdity, and illustrates the problem with these categories under their current names. 'Anti-abortion' would not only be more neutral, it would allow us to avoid the blatant oxymoron of having killers categorised as 'pro-life'.
I believe the best course of action regarding Category:Pro-life movement and Category:Pro-choice movement right now would be to hold off on related category maintenance until it's clear whether a followup RFCtothe "abortion article titles" RFC will be accepted by ArbCom, and if so to see what its results are. The titles of these articles are still the subject of ongoing process and performing category maintenance around them is likely to just add unnecessary swirl. I support your other two proposed renamings, with relevant subcats; in no way should all anti-abortion activity be primarily or automatically identified as "pro-life", particularly anti-abortion homicide. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. The article seems to be wholly about the anti-abortion movement; however, pro-life is a much broader term. All the leading self-described pro-life organizations also oppose euthanasia (euthanasia is prominently featured on both the National Right to Life Committee and Prolife Alliance websites, for example), and sometimes assisted suicide, capital punishment, and artificial contraception. What needs to happen before these categories move is the reworking of pro-lifeorpro-life movement into a proper article which reflects this. Which categories are actually for pro-life topics and which are merely anti-abortion topics can then be sorted out.- choster (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. As stated, prolife organizations deal with adoption, euthanasia, capital punishment, alongside abortion. They include crisis pregnancy centers that do just that - help women caught in a crisis pregnancy. Labelling them 'anti-abortion' is POV. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crisis pregnancy centers exist to persuade people not to have abortions - citing them as a reason not to change the name to "anti-abortion" is unlikely to work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the understanding that discussion on titles is ongoing and may necessitate further changes. For now, "anti-abortion" is closer to the article titles than "pro-life" (and for the analogous category would recommend "abortion rights movement," etc.) - we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good by maintaining a bad group of titles since we can't yet implement one that is in perfect stability and conformity with the article titles. Arguments that "pro-life" needs to stay because it is materially distinct from "anti-abortion" do not reflect the category membership or the content of the corresponding article, and users' elaborations on these arguments are revealing a bias (eg. that birth control takes life) that, frankly, urges us to look with little consideration on those !votes. If any of these groups engage in significant activities in another sphere, as supported by reliable sources, the appropriate course of action would be to create a category for those activities. Articles can have more than one category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the main article for the category should not have been the main article in the first place. The distinction between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" might be analogous to the distinction between non-violence and pacifism, or between environmentalism and the conservation movement— one is an ethical system, the other is a political movement which seeks to align public policy in line with that system. Now that the article has finally been moved, let's take this opportunity to fix the past error which had been ossified, not re-institutionalize a different error for another half-decade. That carries to the question on birth control (or capital punishment); if pro-life is equated to opposition to abortion, then of course classifying opposition to artificial birth control or capital punishment as "pro-life" is highly contentious. But they are not the same, and that is why some groups like NRLC do not take a position whereas others like the American Life League do, based on their differing interpretations of the ethic. - choster (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the argument that you're making, but I don't think it's really viable in an encyclopedia context. Some "pro-life" organizations are active against assisted suicide; others don't work in that sphere at all. Some "pro-life" organizations campaign against the death penalty, war, or gun violence; other "pro-life" organizations are strongly in favor of the death penalty, war, and gun violence. Their one commonality is opposition to abortion rights. (Honestly, probably to birth control as well, but I strongly doubt anyone prefers "anti-choice" or "reproductive rights opponents" as a title or category.) The way to deal with this is the way we already deal with it - explain in the article itself that some "pro-life" activists also use the term to refer to broader advocacies than anti-abortion, with links to articles like consistent life ethic, while avoiding taking a position ourselves on the contested term. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the *two* commonalities, at least in the U.S., are opposition to abortion and euthanasia or assisted suicide. The death panel meme notwithstanding, abortion always seems to absorb all the oxygen in the room, especially in American politics. Thus the American Center for Law & Justice "Pro-Life" issues feed is almost 100% about abortion, but the organization is by far best known for their role in the Terri Schiavo case.- choster (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia is not a defining feature of the vast majority of articles in this category. A better course of action would be to create a separate category for organizations like ACLJ that make this a central issue of their activism, and categorize such organizations as anti-abortion and anti-assisted-suicide. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is only logical, but for the parent "pro-life" category to remain it would need a convincing main article, which is why I argue that this CfD is premature.- choster (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the organizations and activists in the category do nothing about any issue other than abortion. It's very well to say that anti-abortion is too narrow, but if that's not actually true, you may as well just be open about it and tell everyone that you prefer the more POV name. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, main articles, WP:NPOV and even WP:EUPHEMISM. Our articles and categories must avoiding using the polemics of debates in titles as much as possible. As has been pointed out before, many in the "pro-life" movement support capital punishment as vehemently as they oppose abortions. "Pro-life" is not a commonly used term to describe the anti-capital punishment movement, as asserted above. The main articles are named accurately and neutrally and our categories must follow suit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating concepts. Of course "pro-life" is not a commonly used term to describe opposition to capital punishment, as there are a wider variety of reasons why people organize against it. The ACLU's grounds for opposition to capital punishment are going to be quite different from the USCCB's. Similarly, both the ACLU and USCCB condemned the Arizona SB 1070 immigration law, but the USCCB will never be mistaken for a civil libertarian organization.- choster (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who these comments are addressed to, but just to be clear, I was responding to Benkenobi18's strong oppose above, on the basis that the pro-life category names should be retained because "prolife organizations deal with adoption, euthanasia, capital punishment, alongside abortion." Sorry if that wasn't clear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Pro-life encompasses more then just abortion related items. People that claim otherwise are pushing a particular POV. Also things need to settle down on the abortion-releated renames before topics like this should be addressed.Marauder40 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Alternatives to abortion" is a poor choice for several reasons. One, it is not descriptive of the category content; many of these organizations are not in the "alternatives" business at all. Two, insofar as any are, it is redundant to "anti-abortion" since these "alternatives" are offered in an attempt to get people not to have abortions. And three, it is a POV phrase used, AFAIK, exclusively by anti-abortion activists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose to begin with, a study of the actual postions of groups like National Right to Life will show that they spend a large portion of their time and energy opposing assisted suicide. They worry about more than abortion policy. Secondly, the groups self-identify as being pro-life. Anti-abortion is a term applied to them by their opponants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNational Right to Life also has a very long history of opposing any policies that they feel will lead to medical rationing. They were bringing up this issue in the mid-1990s. Anyway, the way these groups approach this issue is through the mantra of "right to life". This is the central issue they focus on. To name the movement in any other way ignores the truth of the way that they frame the debate and how that is central to their support and success.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural point the renaming of the pro-life categories should not be discussed without also discussing the renaming of the pro-choice categories. If the chosen names of the pro-life movement do not work, the chosen names of their main opposition movement should also be overthrown. I would actually argue that the pro-life movmement is more clearly involved in issues not related to reproduction, but that makes it even less clear why the push is only focused on the pro-life categories, ignoring the pro-choice ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is irrelevant whether these groups oppose or support assisted suicide or any other issue, because even if they were solely focused on abortion, this is what these movements are called. Abortion activists on both sides might wish the other side had not picked such a positive-sounding name, but they did, and so we need to reflect that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2012 (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.
Oppose. Although there are lots of people listed at St. Vincent, there's only one musician, so there isn't any need for further disambiguation in the category name; 'St. Vincent albums' makes it obvious who it's referring to. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the convention established in many cfds is to use the title of the corresponding article for the musician/band for all related categories. Oculi (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2012 (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.
Support per nom: 'Quaker' seems to be the more standard usage here (as well as being clearer - coming across 'Nontheist Friends' would have puzzled me, 'Nontheist Quakers' is obvious). Robofish (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (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.
Category:Association of Norwegian Theatres and Orchestras
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. I don't really see the need even to listify this, let alone having a category for the membership of this organization. Looking at other employer associations, I also don't see any other in our category tree that have this. __meco (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a case of categorisation by membership, which we don't do except for the most important organisations. Anyone who wants to add a list to the main article can do so, but it doesn't seem necessary. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (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:Sunday Times Sportswoman of the Year award winners
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: No article, not mentioned in the couple articles I checked, no indication why this isn't a classic example of WP:OCAT by award winners. Courcelles05:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wouldn't object to this as a list article, but as a category it's overcategorisation by unimportant award. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2012 (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 category has been emptied — that is, all names have been upmerged — and is ready for deletion. I had initially thought that it might be useful to parse out active from inactive players. Eurodog (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2012 (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.
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.
