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: kept. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Church and state law to Category:Christianity and state law

Nominator's rationales: From the current name is not entirely clear that the category refers to Christianity. Most articles in this category are, strictly speaking, about Christian church organizations and state law, but that would make it a pretty long category name. Besides there are also some more general articles, not referring to particular church organizations. Finally, naming a category Christianity and ... is well-established. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the category includes: Law related to Mormonism‎ and Scientology and the legal system‎. The bodies of both groups are described as "churches" but neither are Christian. Kingdom halls of Jehovah's Witnesses may also be described as a type of church. Gregkaye (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose rename to Category:Religion and state law given the scope of this category. SFB 16:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the parent category already has a name like that already, namely Category:Religion-related legal issues and I think it might be a good idea to rename the parent category to Category:Religion and state law to keep consistency between the two categories.

Meanwhile we can upmerge only those articles in Category:Church and state law that are definitely non-Christian and maintain the original renaming proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that proposal as the current naming better encapsulates child articles like Freedom of religion and Brawling (legal definition). A better approach would be to create the Christian category and move items there appropriately. There may be some basis for merging this category with the parent in its current form. SFB 19:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Scientology is not considered Christian. Mormons consider themselves to be Christian, and defenders of Mormons will be classed as defenders of Christians by those who want to attack religious freedom advocates as being defenders of Christians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition I can find in a sub-category of this category the article Public menorah. The Becket Fund for Religious Freedom should be findable somewhere in this tree, and it has defended Buddhists, practioners of faiths originating in Africa that involve sacrificing goats, Muslims and Sikhs among other non-Christians. On the other hand, there have been allegations that some charter schools in the US have too much Muslim influence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another article that will be found under this category heading is Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet. It clearly does not implicate Christianity, since it involved a school district specifically formed to meet the unique ethno-religious interests of Hassidic Jews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another case Cutter v. Wilkinson involved primarily non-Christian defendants sueing the state for limiting their practices of their religion while in prison.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment by nominator: I had simply intended to discuss whether the scope of the categories [Church and state law] and its parent [Religion-related legal issues] would become a bit clearer and more uniform when we rename them to [Christianity and state law] and [Religion of state law]. It would be a pity if the discussion would be distracted by the current classification of some articles - as this classification of individual articles can be changed once there is more clarity about the scope of the two categories. Rather, if there is discussion about the classification of articles, it merely confirms that the scope of the categories is not clear enough yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This area of law is most commonly referred to by lawyers and academics as "church and state law", regardless as to what kind of religion is involved and whether that religion can be said to have "churches". See, for instance, Journal of Church and State. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Propose to rename article to Category:Church and state. Editor2020 01:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn.

• Oppose This would entail a purge of articles, as pointed out above, that conceptually belong here. Neutral on creating a christian subcat. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The origin of this name is the US constitutional separation between Church and State. While that primarily refers to Christianity, the principle refers to all religions. Part of the difficulty with Islam is that the possibility of separation is not even acknowledged, whereas in Europe there is generally a de facto separation between the Christian Church and the state, even where there is a state church. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US constitution makes no mention of "separation of Church and state". The phrase was one that new members of the KKK swore to uphold eternally along with white supremacy when they joined the KKK, and former high-level KKK official, Hugo Black, introduced it into US jurisprudence in the late 1940s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment The assertion that the concept refers to Christianity is false. The concept refers to the interaction between the relgion authority and the political authority. This has implications well beyond Christianity, and there is no reason to limit anything here to just Christianity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems like this has become a typical within-US discussion while much of the content of the category is actually referring to Europe and to Christian churches only, though at the same time the content is much broader than just about the separation of church and state. Can we agree upon something that makes this clear for everyone? For example, and I'm improvising now, separating 'Church and state law in the United States' from 'Christianity and state in Europe', both as a child category of the existing Category:Religion-related legal issues.

Note that any Islamic legal issues in Europe (e.g. in France) will fall under 'Freedom of religion'. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw rename nomination based on the latter discussions, instead I'm going to propose a split later on. Meanwhile I suppose it's okay if I remove the CfD template from the category, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Opposed to immigration rates exceeding emigration rates in situations in which food imports exceed food exports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly-specific category with ludicrously long title Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – unclear inclusion criteria, and contender for the most ridiculous category name to date. Oculi (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am happy for deletion on grounds of the long title. Immigration is a valid issue in regard to sustainability when flows of migration are into areas that already need to import commodities like food ... but 16 words is admittedly long. Gregkaye (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Advocates of good provision of family planning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly-specific category with non-neutral title Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the creator of these ill-named and superfluous categories is Gregkaye; perhaps someone should have a word before Population Matters disappears entirely in a morass of categories. There are other categories by the same hand which should also be scrutinised. Oculi (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we live in a world where some organizations actively oppose family planning and in which a correlation exists between locations with high fertility rates and locations that have high risk of famine. I would be happy for the category to be better named perhaps with a dropping of the "good provision of". Gregkaye (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overly long title, which seems to also be inherently POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook example of WP:OPINIONCAT.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We rarely categorise people by their POV, othern than party memberships. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with party memberships, at least in the US with broad parties, it is hard to pin people to specific views. Also, we generally limit party membership categories to people who have a notable connection to the party, not to everyone who has a membership if they are notable for unrelated things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Advocates of good provision of education for both sexes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly-specific category with non-neutral title Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment again, there is a profound correlation between education, especially education for women and population growth. For example, Kerala is the state with the lowest positive population growth rate in India and it is also a state with a notably high rate of education for both sexes. Advocacy groups have issues that they advocate. Education can be one of them. Gregkaye (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just the phrasing of the title gives one a headache. We avoid "advocates" categories in almost all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook example of WP:OPINIONCAT.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

would the wording "promoters of.." be more appropriate? The use of "advocacy" wasn't intended to indicate a passively held opinion that the holders sit back on. Also, if advocacy is not a relevant terminology then perhaps it would be worth someone taking a look at Advocacy group. "Pressure group" could be used. Gregkaye (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's more than just advocacy. For example, who defines whether or not something is "good provision of education"? It's too subjective. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We rarely categorise people by their POV, othern than party memberships. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: speedy delete G7. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Organisations whose websites make association between immigration and resource issues such as a net import of food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly-specific category with ludicrously long title Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – undefining; another contender for the most ridiculous category name to date. Oculi (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sorry. Gregkaye (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Modernist women writers to Category:Modernist writers
• Nominator's rationale This category violates that last-rung guidelines on ERGS categories. There is no way to diffuse the vast majority of the contents other than by gender, and the current set-up has lead to a large number of articles only being in the women subcat and not in the main category or a gender-neutral sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. RJFJR (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The solution to this problem is to categorise the contents of Modernist women writers in the parent Modernist writers as well. This topic is the subject of academic study. SFB 16:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the subject of academic study is not enough to overcome the rule against such last-rung categories. Nor is it clear that we should create intersection categories for everything that has been the subject of academic study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If something has been an area of regular study, then I think this may make the categorisation a defining one in the context of that academic area. I fundamentally disagree with the last rung rule on the basis that the presence of different categories should not affect our decision on whether gender categories are appropriate. SFB 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Which writers are and are not "modernist" is surely a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh heh. SFB 21:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am open to consideration of whether modernist is clearly defined enough, but to consider a wider deletion we probably should post notices on not just Category:Modernist writers but also Category:Modernist poets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: delete without prejudice to re-creation of a WikiProject category for talk pages. For the record, the current members are Bugisu Co-operative Union Limited and St. Denis Ssebugwawo Secondary School. Feel free to ask for advice at WT:CAT next time. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kumusha Takes Wiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a correct use of categorisation - categorizing a real life school (sort of) under a wikiproject DexDor (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you tell me by what it should be best replaced ? Thanks. Anthere (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

What are you trying to achieve here? Talk pages can be categorized by wikiproject, but not the articles themselves. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category seems to relate to substantially populated articles: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kumusha_Takes_Wiki/en ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kumusha_Takes_Wiki ; https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Kumusha_Takes_Wiki . Sure the category could be better linked in. Beyond that I don't know enough to comment. Gregkaye (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Either put the category on the article talk pages, not the articles themselves, in which case the category may be kept (perhaps renamed); or make a list on one of the project pages, instead of a category. – Fayenatic London 22:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fayentatic is making good suggestions, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as a hidden category (for talk pages), but why a project for Uganda and Ivory Coast together, when they are opposite sides of the continent? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Modern China video games to Category:Video games set in China

Nominator's rationale: Merge. It is irrelevant and hardly notable than Category:Video games set in historical China.NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The parent already serves this purpose quite well. SFB 16:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support makes sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Category:Video games set in modern China. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean rename, which I opposed because the category is not necessary.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: rename as nominated, though consensus was not particularly strong, so feel free to nominate Category:All India Muslim League members for renaming is desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Leaders of All India Muslim League to Category:All India Muslim League members

Nominator's rationale: Am not fully sure but I think this should be renamed to call them all as "members" rather than "leaders". All can't have been leaders. This group was a political group but was not really a political party as such. Hence am not sure if it should be renamed to Category:All India Muslim League politicians. Post India's partition, the group was renamed to form political party in different countries. So separate categories do exist for those politicians; for example at Category:Indian Union Muslim League politicians for the Indian breakaway. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this might be a matter to raise on the talk page of the category. If people that use the page agree that there is a problem then they can initiate renaming after consensus has been reached. I'm not sure how many people here will have familiarity with the Muslim League or the willingness to research its leaders/members. Gregkaye (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category and it's talk page has less than 30 watchers. And I doubt people using the category for adding or surfing would really bother to go to the talk page and check the matter there. However, a bold warning on top might do the work. Nevertheless, I will drop a note on concerned project's pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a change was warranted then perhaps it could simply be made to Category:All India Muslim League. Gregkaye (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to keep. Presumably they were at least local leaders. If some were not in any kind of leadership then their membership was probably not WP:DEFINING in which case they should be removed from the category. – Fayenatic London 22:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly its not a proposal for deletion. So it will be kept even without your bold keep. You are here presuming that they were local leaders, like maybe head of district level group within the main league or something such. That would require reference. And why would membership to such a group be not defining element. Not all members have to head a certain office or hold a certain post. Check Category:World War II resistance members. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Something not a strong opinion on leaders vs. members, but put it at the end of the name: Category:All India Muslim League members or Category:All India Muslim League leaders. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename probably to Category:All India Muslim League politicians. If I remember correctly, this was the Muslim party that campaigned for a separate Pakistan. How far they were actually policiticans (as opposed to politican campaigners, I am not sure, but this will do for the moment, at least. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Dharmadhyaksha. They are better described as 'members' of so and so party. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:52, 31 July 2014 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Central College (Anuradhapura) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Has only one article and a subcategory. Also seems to have no scope of increment in future. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no objection to recreating later when more articles exist. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The College article will make a good main article for the alumni. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (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.