Category talk:Atheists

Argh, i didn't realize there was an "Atheism" category. IGNORE THIS PAGE PLEASE lol....-- ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 17:28, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Proposed deletion

This category duplicates the atheism category, & only had two articles in it (Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens - I've currently put them into atheism instead). Do we really need a separate people-centric category for atheists rather than putting them in atheism? Even on the basis that every person article should be in a People category, there is nobody who is famous just for being an atheist, so everybody who gets put in this category is probably already in a People category (e.g. writers, scientists, etc). Plus the comment above suggests this category might have been created by accident in the first place. . . . weaseLOId~ 17:20, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually it looks like this cat was created for a second time yesterday. I say delete, but let the public decide. weaseLOId~ 17:22, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't particularly think we need a category of two that can be served by another one, though lets see if there are more than two opinions on it before vapourising it. ArmondikoV^narchist 17:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I think atheists should be a subcat of both atheism and people. Individuals who appear in the atheism category should be in the sub-cat atheists. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Sensible. :) ArmondikoV^narchist 17:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I moved all the individuals back. The same holds for all subjects, physicists are a subcat of physics & people, biologists subcats of biology and people, etc. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:54, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree we should have both cats. Also, they are both "in" each other, which I also heartily approve of - makes for good navigullibility. ħuman 19:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)