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 various Jewish categories are a problem from the point of view of categorisation by religion, because they are also categorisation by ethnicity - as such they tend to stay in circumstances such as this. Grutness...wha?23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: I'm afraid that I'm not familiar enough with Jewish socialism (see Jewish left) to have a fully formed opinion as to whether Jewish socialism can be viewed as a variety of socialism in the same way that Christian socialism is, but if not, surely that's a separate discussion, no? (Though if it is, Category:Jewish socialists probably oughtn't include just anyone who is both a Jew and a socialist.) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that there is such a thing, indeed the point is that there isn't; but there is a trope of "international Jewish conspiracy" talk which specifically manifests itself in Jewish Bolshevism— blaming the communists on the Jews. I'm wary of a category which says "see how many Jews are involved in this?" Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a hierarchy like this can work. Is it bad, if I want to search for persons of a certain religious position and a certain political orientation? Why should I not be able to use categories for that matter, thats one of their purposes. CN1 (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CreativeName1: Bearing in mind that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", how is what you are describing in compliance with the central consensus described by WP:CAT/EGRS? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In almost all cases, gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories should be non-diffusing".
I am OK with the category being non-diffusing--no controversy here.
"Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.
I do believe, that a persons religion is in fact relevant to their political beliefs and behaviour. I don't have any papers to back that up, but who would deny that this is true for many people? Politics are guidelines that are created according to ones personal philosophy/principles/morals or those of that persons community. Religion is very similar in that regard.
See this link, [Christians can be found everywhere in politics], about many Christians participating in a non-religious political party, and even more, in all sorts of non-religious political parties. The link is in Dutch unfortunately but can be easily translated by Google translate and I can't see any reason why this wouldn't equally apply to most countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are probably forms of socialism that draw specifically on rejecting the existence of God, the way this category is named will tend too much to just become a catchall for any socialist who happened to be an atheist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (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.
Delete I think this category assumes the line between fictional/real locations is easy to define. It is not. If a place is set in a fictional place (Smallville), in a real state (Kansas), is this fictional, or laziness? What about a film set half in Washington, DC or New York City, and the other half in a fictional small locality in Europe. I can think of five such films (although two in San Francisco), without even thinking very hard. Is it really defining if a few scenes of a film happen in a fictional small eastern European country, when most of the film is set in a real city in the US. Also, I challenge this as a logical way to group things. It ends up colliding films that are set in intended places, that get renamed to avoid too much offence (To Kill a Mocking Bird), films set in fictional places to avoid being too specific (Smallville, Kansas in Superman films), films set in made up places clearly in our earth, films set in made up places in earth with lots of fictitious elements, and films set in fictional planets, fantasy universes, etc. The problem is that we end up splitting up Superhero films, with some in here and some not, and in theory splitting a film like Avengers:Age of Ultron into here, while excluding Spiderman or Captain America Civil War, only because in AAOU they use a fictional name for an unspecificed eastern European country, and in Spiderman:Homecoming all the action happens in Queens, New York. It gets even more fun, a film like The Hitman's Bodyguard does not go here, because they were daring enough to name Belarus as the location of the main bad guy, but if they had decided to instead use a fictious, indistict Eastern European Country, changing the setting of about 3 minutes of a two hour film, it would be able to be put in this category. This just does not make any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and then take a look at the whole films-set-in categorization. We shouldn't categorize films for locations that are only a small part of the film as it can result in a large number of non-defining category tags on articles. If this categorization was restricted to where at least half the film was set then it would be more reasonable. DexDor(talk)07:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you still avoid the more complex issue of non-defining nature of "fictional location". This leads to the bizarreness that something set in Smallville, Kansas qualifies because they gave a fictional name for the location, but something set in a never defined part of Kansas does not qualify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2018 (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:People banned from entering the European Union
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.
Delete not defining to the people, since some people in these categories have not even tired to enter the countries in question, they have just been declared banned for various political reasons. On the other hand, at some times this will amount to turning down a visa request, which does not mean it will always be denied in the future. Even if in theory the exclusion was declared a permanent ban, it is altogether possible that due to changes in government, political allignment, and other issues the ban will be overturned at some point in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact on the Ukraine page it says "This page contains people either specifically banned from entering Ukraine, or who have been refused entry at some point. Need not be permanent, and often can be remedied." Somehow I think refusal of a visa for any number of known reasons, and being "banned" are just not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2017 (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.
Weak keep, according to the article Extrasensory perception, precognition is not one particular form of extrasensory perception next to other forms, but it is the 'consequence' (in my own words) of all forms of extrasensory perception. So there is no urgent need for the rename and precognition is slightly preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2017 (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 – The fact that separate regional health authorities no longer exist in Saskatchewan does not inherently mean there should no longer be articles about the defunct authorities. The category should be kept unless it is decided that the other articles should be merged into Saskatchewan Health Authority. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (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.
