< March 9 March 11 >

March 10

Category:Yankee haters

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is not good for people who are yankees fan. Vegas30 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2013 (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:Mother-Daughter Exchange Club series

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently consists in three items, the article about the film series and two redirect to the same article. Cavarrone (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2013 (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:All Natural Glamour Solos series

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently consists in two items, the article about the film series and a redirect to the same article. Cavarrone (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (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:Dharmic writers

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 Category:Dharmic writers and move the others to Category:Symbols of Indian religions and Category:Indian religion stubs. There is considerable debate here, but I'm swayed by the argument that this is not a unifying concept with deep real-world scholarship (at least not yet). That "dharmic" is used to define religions in India doesn't mean it should be a separate category concept from Category:Indian religions. Other categories like Category:Abrahamic religions can be nominated separately if desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Dharmic writers
  • Propose moving Category:Dharmic symbols to Category:Indian religious symbols
  • Propose moving Category:Dharmic religion stubs to Category:Indian religion stubs
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is apparently a vestige of a POV forking of Indian religions back in 2008. At that time, Category:Dharmic religions was deleted in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 6#Category:Dharmic religions, for being "a neologism invented on-wiki; content has been completely moved to Indian religions for some time; the category should follow suit." I discovered that the few articles in this category actually belonged in one of Category:Buddhist writers, Category:Hindu writers, Category:Jain writers or Category:Sikh writers. There are no articles for which sources support the writer as a "Dharmic writer" which is not one of these four. After distributing the articles to the correct subcategories, this category became empty. It should be deleted on the same basis as Category:Dharmic religions was previously deleted, as an on-wiki invented neologism not used in academic sources. Yworo (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In your "rationale" you say that the category was deleted for being "a neologism (...)". That is not the reason that it was renamed (the reason was that no other editors with other viewpoints voted in the discussion), it was simply one of the arguments of the voters. You are making it sound that a simple argument of one of the voters was the reason, and you are making it sound that the opinion of an editor is a true statement. If the article would really have been deleted on these grounds, it would have been wrong, because dharmic religion is not a on-wiki neologism.
And the category shouldn't be deleted during a deletion process, as it skews the deletion process, as nobody can see the link to it. Please put it back. (He removed all subcategories and emptied the category completely shortly before the deletion process.) --Trphierth (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the second point: There may well be writers which could be categorized as Dharmic writer and not in the rigid structure of one single category. There are writers that cannot be defined to solely one rigid category. (Even if the category would have only subcategories in it and no or only few articles, that shouldn't be a problem.) For example, Osho is revered by many Hindus, but it would be wrong to include him into the Hindu writers category, as his writings draw inspiration from a wide range of traditions. Olcott's influence on Singhalese Buddhism has been tremendous, (as also Besant's influence on Hinduism), but he cannot quite be defined in a rigid category like Buddhist writer. It is not a modern phenomenen, there have always been writers like that, for example Kabir, Guru Nanak, etc. The analogue in Christianity would be a Christian writer who cannot be defined to the rigid category of Protestant or Roman Catholic, for example writers of Ecumenism, who aim at greater Christian unity or cooperation, or any other Christian writer who write from the standpoint of several Christian denominations. --Trphierth (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, if it's not a neologism made up on Wiki, then you can provide sources, right? Yworo (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For dharmic religions, sources are below.--Trphierth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1, In the process of notifying the creator of the category, I found that it was created by User:IPSOS who is blocked as a sock of User:Ekajati, who was apparently banned back on January 31, 2007. The category was created on February 23, 2007, so was created in defiance of that ban. From IPSOS's talk page, it seems that s/he also created at least one other obscure unsupported category, "Category:Spiritual theories", discussed and deleted here. Yworo (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2, here's the deletion discussion for the article Dharmic religion which fills in some of the details about the "neologism invented on-wiki" referred to above. Yworo (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That link also includes some sources (like the Encarta encyclopedia) that show that these terms are not a on-wiki neologism.--Trphierth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment During the recent deletion discussion dated March 1 2013, for Template:Modern Dharmic writers, which is now closed, the above nominator made some disrespectful remarks about category about writers who write about Dharma (Dharmic writer)," Next someone will claim that Aleister Crowley (an occultist) is "dharmic" because some bloggers have written that he is (seriously), and all kinds of "Magicians" will have to be added to it as well. Let's just delete it. " In any case, most editors miss the inter-connectedness of these religions, all originating in India, and hence their ideological common grounds. --Ekabhishektalk 08:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also found this a very random comment. Please Yworo, can you let us know why you were bringing him up? --Trphierth (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the article Pagan Dharma 1, Pagan Dharma 2, A Thelemic Ganachakra. Also, very many people consider Blavatsky to be an occultist. Crowley did and considered her one of his primary competitors in occultism. She is listed in List of occultists. On Google, 'Blavatsky occultist' get 445,000 hits. It's not any kind of great leap to say that Crowley may well belong in this list. He was a student of both Buddhism and Hinduism and his work was syncretic. If you don't have a source which defines who are considered Dharmic writers, others could easily make seemingly good arguments for his inclusion. Please provide a source which defines the term in such a way as to make clear he should be excluded. Oh, but you have no sources for the inclusion of Blavatsky or any of the other "syncretic dharmic writers" do you? Yworo (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There are three proposals here that might have been better presented as three separate discussions. I don't understand why Category:Dharmic symbols should be moved to Category:Indian religious symbols, and no rationale has been given by the nominator. Buddhism could have been described as an Indian religion 2500 years ago, but it certainly couldn't be described that way today. What happens to Category:Buddhist symbols‎? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. In which category would you categorize adharma, dhupa, arupa or cit, which is now in the dharmic religions stubs???--Trphierth (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Epipelagic there is no reason for the move. These three deletion proposals were solely made because a few editors have a beef with the use of the term dharmic, not because the categories wouldn't be useful. Wikipedia also has Category:Symbols of Abrahamic religions: it would be unjust and illogical to only delete one of them. --Trphierth (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I see Category:Buddhism is a subcategory of Category:Indian religions. That seems very odd to me. A bit like classifying the Church of England as an Israeli religion. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is another important point. The classification Dharmic is much more precise and scientific as "Indian". Buddhism is not only an Indian religion anymore, but it can be much better be defined as a dharmic religion, and as such has all the philosphical features (dharma, karma, moksha, yoga, etc). Buddhism can be classified better as dharmic than as Indian. --Trphierth (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please convince me of this precision by providing the sources in which it is precisely defined so we can know what is included and what is not included. I see an awful lot of words and argument here (i.e. original research, but I still see no sources proposed. Why? Yworo (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by JJ - I agree with "on-wiki invented neologism not used in academic sources". The comment "most editors miss the inter-connectedness of these religions, all originating in India, and hence their ideological common grounds" says it all. This interconnectedness is a western perception, which lacks a thorough philosophical basis. The real "ideological common ground" is "nondualism", the lumping together of supposed "nondualist" religions. Regarding the Buddhist categories: the argumentation by Epipelagic makes clear that Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism are better of using separate categories. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then the category of Semitic or Abrahamic religions is a Western invention? It is not. All dharmic religions have a very similar set of core beliefs and philophies (for example, the philosophy of dharma, karma, etc, etc). --Trphierth (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment by JJ - This is an interesting site which uses the term "Dharmic faiths". Following their line of reasoning, "Dharmic writers" would be any writers who sympathise with and emphasize the perceived similarities, instead of the differences. Which would make for a group of categories with a limited number of articles, I think. Let me explain further: it's the difference between "Dharmic faiths are..." and "'Dharmic faiths' is a label used by ... to point to ..." etc. Still, I wonder if any reliable seconday source uses the term (or terms). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar things are also seen in Christianity, for example writers of Ecumenism, who aim at greater Christian unity or cooperation, or any other Christian writer who write from the standpoint of several Christian denominations, or also writers on Judeo-christian links. --Trphierth (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 by JJ - The category Category:Religious writers contains categories for Buddhist etc. writers. Maybe this category could be used, in combination with the category for the specific background of each writer, instead of "Dharmic" (whether category or template). Eventually a category could be added for "Nondualism" or "Syncretism" or something like that, to include Blavatksy, Ken Wilber etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, the previous deletion discussion have not proved anything of that sort. --Trphierth (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I has not been clear to me to what you are seeking sources. Often times you should asked for sources without specifiying the details.
To the first question, are you asking if the Dharmic religions exist as a category similar to Abrahamic religions, or are you asking if the term Dharmic religion is used for this categorization? The first question could be easily understood by you if you had even a basic understanding of comparative religion and honestly it is tiring to spoonfeed you a lecture on this because you cannot do your own research. To the second point, you must first understand that even for Hinduism there is no definition that is accepted universally by all scholars or Hindus. Even the wiki article on Hindu says: Due to the wide diversity in the beliefs, practices and traditions encompassed by Hinduism, there is no universally accepted definition on who a Hindu is, or even agreement on whether the term Hinduism represents a religious, cultural or socio-political entity. And a scholarly book on Radhakrishnan says: The term Dharma is almost impossible to be translated into English. (S. Radhakrishnan'S Philosophy Of Religion By Paitoon Patyaiying). Given this, you cannot expect a definition of dharma with which everyone agrees. But the term is used. Google Books lists hundreds of uses for dharmic religion(s), and again more for variants like dharmic traditions, etc. The term is also often used in the singular as Dharma, as in "Hindu Dharma", Buddhist Dharma/Buddha Dharma, "Jain Dharma", "Sikh Dharma" and these phrases have each 10000s of results at google books. For example, "Hindu Dharma" is the name of a book by Gandhi, and one of Gandhi's most famous quotes is: "At this holy place, I declare, if you want to protect your 'Hindu Dharma', non-cooperation is first as well as the last lesson you must learn up.".[1]. These terms have been used in for probably over 100 years in the English language.

Below are some examples, which you could yourself have easily have found by googling.

*The terms Eastern and Western religion are largely synonymous with Dharmic religon and Abrahamic religion, respectively. Religions of the World by Lewis M. Hopfe

*Jainism is an ancient dharmic religion from India. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism By Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz

--Trphierth (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please at least attempt to format your replies to be readable. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I have no arguments that Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism are sometimes called Dharmas or even referred to in individual works as examples of "Dharmic religion". I'm asking for a source that covers "Dharmic religion" as a general category or concept of categorization and shows that it is a categorization which is generally recognized amongst academic scholars of religion as the preferred or most common designation for referring to a specific group of religions, and discusses which religions are generally included in the category and which are excluded. For example, what about Sant Mat, is it dharmic? What about Ayyavazhi, is it a dharmic religion? What about Zoroastrianism, which for some inexplicable reason is included in the article on Dharma. Should we add writers from these traditions to Category:Dharmic writers or not? If all these are Dharmic religions, why are we leaving them off the template? Also, you included Theosophists in the template. Could you please provide a source which categorizes Theosophy as a "Dharmic religion"? You seem to have left that out. Where can we find a general overview and discussion of "Dharmic religion" and how it differs from the generally accepted category "Indian religions"? Do you see why we need this type of source yet? Yworo (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indian religion implies that the religion comes from India, or is practised and developed in India. Religions like Buddhism (also practised and developed in China) would be better classified as dharmic.--Trphierth (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above with a quote, it is impossible to even find a definition for Hinduism which is generally recognized amongst academic scholars of religion as the preferred or most common definition. This is not the case for example for Christianity which was canonized in a rigid manner. And as I explained the term Dharma presents the same difficutlies. However, the term Dharmic or Indic or Indian religions exists (see the examples) and are largely synonyms (but depending on the context and the English grammar, one of the variants is the preferred one) and most often includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. I would categorize Sant Mat as a Hindu sect. I don't know enough about Ayyavazhi. --Trphierth (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zorostrianism forms part of the dharmic religions in many definitions (remember there is not a single correct defintion for all these different terms about Hinduism and Indian religions). Here you also see that Indian and Dharmic religions are not exact synoynms, which implies that sometimes the one word is better than the other. I don't think you classify it as an Indian religion. --Trphierth (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we already have a whole category tree based on using Category:Indian religions as the root. We generally do not duplicate categories, but rather redirect the less common designators to the more common or already established tree. You have just said above that Dharmic or Indic religions are synonymous with Indian religions. That's an argument for deleting or redirecting the category rather than for keeping it. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said or meant that they are largely synonyms. You could also figure this out. Indian or Indic implies that they are from India, or are practised in India. Buddhism is an Indian religion because it is from India, but when it is practised in China, would it not be better to use Dharmic religion? Dharmic religions can also include Zoroastrianism, whereas Indian religion would perhaps not. Sometimes the one word is better used than the other, also because of English grammar. Dharmic symbols or Dharmic writers sounds better and more precise than Indian religious ones. --Trphierth (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not supposed to "figure things out", that's original research. We are supposed to use sources to find the most common designator and then use those sources to build the categories and templates. That's the whole point of this. Which is the most common designators? What do sources generally indicate that this designator includes? What is generally excluded. We need a good, modern, overview book or survey for this. Yworo (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Zorostrianism forms part of the dharmic religions in many definitions" - which definitions are you talking about? I don't think you've presented any definitions, just examples of uses. This source you presented says "All Dharmic religions originate from India", for example. Not some, all. Yworo (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that there are differnt definitions, not a single accepted one. The definition I'm talking about is just from what I remember having read long time ago. I don't remember in which books, but from what I remember, I came across the concept quite frequently when reading about this topic (though the terminology used was probably not always the same). --Trphierth (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rely on your memory, okay? Let's follow modern overviews or surveys written by recognized experts. The sort of seat-of-the-pants what-I-remember sourcing is not very productive. Yworo (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that is your only problem, suggest to rename it to category Writers on dharmic religions or dharmic religious writers.--Trphierth (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to know is that many of these terms and words are both used in for example Hinduism and Buddhism but often with different meanings. So instead of categorizing it in either Hinduism or Buddhism, it could more correctly be categorized in Dharmic.--Trphierth (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in such a case if an article covers both points of view, it would just be categorized in both categories. If there are two articles, disambiguated by (Hindu) and (Buddhist), then each would be put in the correct category. There is absolutely no need for an intermediate category. It tends to create more confusion by supporting one theoretical way of looking at these religions. Better to keep them separate, and simply categorize something that covers two or more views in the correct categories for those views. Yworo (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But some of these articles would belong in at least four categories - Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh. The articles currently in the category, Adharma, Arupa, Cit and Dhupa, are good examples. And despite having the same name, they often denote different things, for example a word may mean something else in Buddhism than in Hinduism. --Trphierth (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:That is exactly the reason not to delete it because otherwise the Indian religion cat will be used!! For example, Zoroastrianism is a dharmic religion, but when that cat is missing, it must be categorized into Indian religion. I would prefer the first option. Or Buddhism is a dharmic religion, even when practised in China. But if the cat is missing it will be categorized in Indian religion. Nobody has claimed that Hinduism is the same as Buddhism. Do you know that Christianity and Judaism are different religions? Yet we still group them as Abrahamic, Semitic or Judeo-Christian religion in Wikipedia (as well as also the different christian denominations). --Trphierth (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Zorostrianism is not a Dharmic religion, somebody has simply put a large, unsourced, original research assertion to that effect into the article on Dharma. Yworo (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I previously told you: "the category shouldn't be deleted during a deletion process, as it skews the deletion process, as nobody can see the link to it. Please put it back. (He removed all subcategories and emptied the category completely shortly before the deletion process.)" Please put these links back now as it skews the deletion discussion when no readers can follow the link from the category to the deletion discussion. --Trphierth (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. You seem to be confused. The category has not been "deleted" yet, and can be seen right here. It is still in the category tree in Category:Indian religions, Category:Writers by religion, and Category:Religious writers, just where it's been all along. Yworo (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main use of the category Dharmic writers cat is to function as the main category for the subcategories, just like the category Category:Christian writers by denomination. By removing the subcats from it, nobody can actually see the main use of it. This is the equivalent of deleting an entire article, and then submitting the article for a deletion discussion, which would then be based on the empty article. A secondary use is to include writers who write across multiple dharmic traditions or fall into the Multiple traditions + permeability of "tradition" category. --Trphierth (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zoroastrianism is a Persian religion which only has a significant presence in India due to emigration. Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Abrahamic religions and Category:Monotheistic religions contain loads of religions for which sources are missing that they belong to the category. Babai, Bahai, Druze and Yazidi can be in the Abrahamic category without any sources, so why are not also criticizing this? --Trphierth (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain, why are Dharmic symbols not needed if we have Category:Symbols of Abrahamic religions? I see a bias here. --Trphierth (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You only see a bias there. In fact I would support the deletion of that category as well. I think trans-religious super-categories are always less then helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then both categories should have been nominated at the same time. But if you agree with it or not, religions are going to be categorized anyway. --Trphierth (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2013 (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:Structures by engineers

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 as Category:Buildings and structures by engineer within Category:Buildings and structures by designer. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Structures by engineers to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains 2 subcategories which in turn contain a total of 4 subcategories. My question is do we want or need this category tree or would it be better renamed and placed in a works or architecture category. I believe that all of the structures included are bridges. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This only appears to be workable because Category:Gustave Eiffel buildings and structures doesn't exist yet. Category:Auguste de Montferrand buildings and structures is already a problem in that it contains several monuments and a bridge as well as an array of buildings, but Eiffel's category would be much worse given the great range of his work. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read architect, it would appear that architects came about in the 1700s. Prior to that engineers or other disciplines actually designed the buildings. So the time frame could affect the naming here. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Montferrand's works are categorized as done by an architect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2013 (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:United States Coast Guard weapons

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All but one of the articles in this category are about types of mass-produced weapons that have been used by the USCG and in most cases by many other organizations (see M1911 pistol#Users for example; it doesn't even mention the USCG). Country/organization-of-usage is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for a mass-produced item. Weapons are normally categorized by country of origin (See Category:Weapons by country) which is a defining characteristic. The one article in this category that should stay in a USCG category is Coast Guard Officers' Sword (e.g. move up to Category:Equipment of the United States Coast Guard). DexDor (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2013 (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:World Heritage in Danger

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The consensus is to uphold the usual principle that categories a list is a better way of presenting transient groupings, and that categories should be used only for permanent attributes. We already have List of World Heritage in Danger, so the result is to delete this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being on the "in danger" list is not a permanent characteristic. The "in danger" sites are listed at List of World Heritage in Danger and that shows sites that have had this status added/removed several times. Note: If this category is deleted it may be appropriate to salt it (referring to the list article) to discourage re-creation. DexDor (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly either way, but is there a rule/recommendation/discussion/precedent that say that categories of non-permanent characteristics should not exist? Alternatively one might consider including all sites that once were or still are on the World Heritage in Danger list. bamse (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2013 (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.

Heretics in Christianity

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The subcats for people convicted/executed are already in the grandparent Category:Heresy, and should only be moved into Category:Heresy in Christianity‎ if they were renamed to refer to Christianity. Recognising other good arguments below for "keep (but prune)", I suggest that Category:People declared heretics by the first seven Ecumenical Councils could be useful (see e.g. list in the anathema quoted here). – Fayenatic London 08:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. A category like Category:People executed for heresy does not label people as heretics. This category does. It declares some orthodox and others heretics, which is inherently endorsing one point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JPL a category is not a lable, it is a navigation device. So if people want to see how Christianity has treated people that it regards as heretics, they would probably like to see those convicted of heresy and one stage further, executed for heresy. It's also possible that people would want to see either category. Wouldn't a container category be a useful thing for that purpose? What name would you give to such a container category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get it. A-there is no porposal to delete the subcategories, they are not under discussion. B-this is not a "container category", it is used to directly label Nestorius a heretic, and in turn has the effect of saying virtually all Christians east of the Euphrates in 1500 were "heretics" and not true Christians. The category is labeling people. In this case it is also being used to historically justify the actions of the Catholic Church in regards to the historic Christians of India, something wikipedia should not take sides on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you totally misunderstand the nomination. There is no move to delete the well defined sub-cats. The motion is only to delete the far to amorphous and undefined parent. I can live with the subcats that force actual attribution of formal conviction. This cat favors the winners in history and over the losers. It inherently turns wikipedia into reinforcing the hisotric power of groups that had power but in an inherently marginalizing way. It is a very bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it any more POV than Category:Plagiarism? I assume that the plagiarists do not like being labelled plagiarists. And sure, you could find some wooly PC term to soften the blow ("People who made use of the writings of other people without obtaining their permission in advance" ?), but does not alter how they were labelled at the time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 – We are not talking here about the biographies of living persons. We are talking about the biographies of people long dead, from an age where being judged a "heretic" by certain authorities was, to put it mildly, a life defining event. It is not possible to understand the course Christianity took without dealing directly with the influence of notable apostates and heretics. Erasing such categories from Wikipedia just because some contemporary readers would rather pretend such matters aren't there is an anti-encyclopaedic approach, and indeed appears to be an attempt to sanitise Wikipedia content. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Epipelagic. There is no possibility of here of "sanitising Wikipedia content"; no content will be altered or removed from any article if this categ is deleted, because categories are just a navigational device.
In religious matters, people apply all sorts of negative labels to those who they disagree with: apostate, heretic, infidel, sinner, schismatic, recusant, blasphemer, etc etc. The fact that such terms were used is a matter of historical record, as is the fact that they have been applied to some individuals. There is no problem with using these terms in the text of an article, where their usage can be attributed and sourced. Similarly, they can be used in a list, because lists can be attributed and sourced ... but a category appears at the bottom of an article with qualification, explanation or attribution, and should use the most neutral terminology possible. The existing category system provides a clear navigational structure, without introducing this sort of POV terminology into category titles.
There is no problem with the subcats Category:People convicted of heresy‎ and Category:People executed for heresy‎, because capture an objective fact which can be proven true or false. However, this category is not based on any objective test; it is based on one religious viewpoint's labelling of an other religious viewpoint. If you look at Merriam Webster's definition of heresy you'll see that it covers many variations of disagreement. It is entirely possible for both sides of a religious dispute or schism to regard each other as heretics, so applying it to one side or the other is pure POV.
It's a pity that some editors here seem happy to disregard WP:NPOV, especially the section WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which is quite explicit about how to handle biased labeling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replied in this debate to the points you made in this debate.
    I'm sorry that you regard WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as an irrelevancy, but I'm sure the closing admin will understand the importance of NPOV. It is a core policy of Wikipedia, and it is sad to see editors wasting time in consensus-forming discussions by dismissing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's disappointing that, instead of engaging in rational discussion, you resort to tactics like these, BrownHairedGirl. You have not responded to any counter arguments at all, you have merely repeated the same irrelevant points. And now you are appealing for a fellow admin to cover you, claiming that I "dismiss" the importance of NPOV. The only POV comment I can see is your parting shot above, "It's a pity that some editors here seem happy to disregard WP:NPOV...". I've no idea why you wrote that statement. It wasn't addressed to me. I place a high value on POV issues, which is why I am so concerned at what you are doing here. And WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV has no connection whatever with the issues I have raised (which are about historic veracity). Admins should try and model some standards when debating, and not set out to grossly misrepresent editors like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epipelagic, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is the central issue here, and it's quite simple:
    "X was a heretic" is a POV statement, because it presupposes support for those who applied the label.
    "The RC Church management condemned X as a heretic" is an NPOV statement of historic fact, which attributes the POV per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
    I share your concern about "historic veracity", which is why I oppose the application of POV labels without attribution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 Note that Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the RC Church for heresy. The same Church later canonised her as a saint. So how can the term be POV in her case? Both pro and anti, the same term is used by the same organisation. Down with sanitising! Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense. What this category does is say that certain people historically were "Orthodox" and others were "Heretics". That is inherently saying some people were right and others were wrong. It is a value judgement. There is no reason why we should bow to the judgement of the Roman Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JPL How can an organisation (like the RC Church) be guilty of POV if it uses the same terms in both condemning and canonising the same person? Is it not more likely that it was just using a technical term that best fit the nature of the complaint (i.e. a departure from its perceived orthodoxy)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. LL, your phrase "guilty of POV" suggests that you don't understand the concept of POV. It's not a matter of guilt; it's a matter of acknowkedging that there is more than one perspective. That's why such labels should be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
The fact that an organisation has its own technical jargon for labelling those it dislikes does not remove the POV. Terms such as "bourgeouis liberal", "neoconservative", "imperialist", etc have well-defined meanings which are used quite technically in political science; but they are POV, and should not be used unless attributed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of the bizarest statement I ever heard, that Mao was a good guy because "he was not guilty of imperialism". I am not sure that there is any other way to understand Mao's approach to both Tibet and Uigurstan than imperialism, and the relationship between China and Cambodia could also be seen as imperialistic. Just because people use terms does not mean we should, especially when they are inherently meant to marginalize and denigrate as heretic is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Both Luther and Nestorious were verifiably condemned as heretics. (Not by me. Would that I had such power.) Luther was condemned by the Pope while Nestorious was anathemised by the First Council of Ephesus. That they may subsequently have had many loyal supporters is irrelvant. Both are verifiable heretics according to people that know about such things (i.e. a Pope and a Council). That is sufficient for categorisation purposes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if you want to categorise people according to the POV of the management of one particular religious sect, then the POV should be attributed. For example, Luther & Nestorious would be in a Category:People condemned as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church. That would at least make it clear who applied the label, and avoid the impression that Wikipedia supported the values of one side in these disagreements.
BTW, it is blatantly POV to claim that Luther & Nestorious "are verifiable heretics according to people that know about such things (i.e. a Pope and a Council)". An NPOV statement would not that "X is a heretic"; it would say that "X was labelled as a heretic by Y".
However, I would oppose creating even an improved category like that, because many biographical articles would develop horrendous category clutter if we started categorising them by all the pejorative terms which various groups apply to each other. This sort of material is better handled in lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And screw the user looking for information? Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Homophobia, which specifically excludes individuals. Category:Homophobes was deleted in 2006 because it is POV
  2. Category:Terrorism, which excludes individuals. Category:Terrorists was deleted in 2009.
  3. Category:Racism, which also excludes individuals. Category:Racists was deleted in 2007
I see no reason to keep this attack category when we have deleted the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That might work work individuals accused of one-off heresies, like the later well-known examples, but doesn't for collecting people like the large & well-developed Category:Arian Christians, who are rather dubiously categorized as a "denomination" which is not how they saw themselves, and other early heresies. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In theory it is, in practice I can see it gathering too many people. Accusing someone of heresy is fairly easy. This would get us into possibly giving too much weight to fringe opinions. Would one such accusation be enough?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Hardiman, (2003). p. 163
More