< December 19	December 21 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Septuagint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another category created by User:Alpha774, who also created the below Category:Jesus as myth. The Septuagint basically has the same books in it as the Christian Old Testament / Jewish Bible, so this category is going to be little more than a duplication - there aren't any articles that pertain only to the Septuagint, but not also to the OT or the Catholic Deutero-canonical books. BigDT 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose of the catrgory is to list books and appendages of the septuagint not found in the Masoteric Text which is used by protestants and jews

• Comment - If we ignore the "intended purpose" of the category creator, for a moment, and merely take this category at name value, then I think it is a useful category. Simply base it on Septuagint#Table of books, and list all of the books of the Septuagint. Duplicative book names is not an issue in this case, since there are differences as well (as there are with several bibles). And I don't think that there are any "notability" concerns with this either : ) - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment We can either put all the books of the septuagint in it or rename the category to appendages of the septuagint and only include appendages and post-masoteric texts to it for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additions_to_Daniel and psalm 151 which is only found in the septugaint and not in the masoteric text and also we can put books not found in the septuagint in it

if we are going to list all its book fine but don't forget to keep additions to daniel and pslam 151 alpha774

• Keep agree reasonably legitimate catagory. Addhoc 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Jesus as myth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates WP:NPOV. Jpeob 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the only legitimate article as a member of this category is the Jesus as myth page. It does not warrant its own category, especially where it is being used to categorise pages such as Eucharist, Chronology of Jesus, and Walking on water in this way. There is no legitimate neutral reason for this category to exist. Thus, i recommend deletion. Jpeob 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete the biased implication that Jesus is a myth. Even to a non-religious man like myself, this looks like a clear abuse of Wikipedia. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As opposed to the non-biased implication that Jesus isn't a myth? Just sayin'... Otto4711 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Was there any point in that comment? I seem to have missed it. Regardless, it's the principal of the issue. Wikipedia already has a Jesus as myth article. Implying that the other articles are about or feature "Jesus as myth" is a violation of WP:POINT. Also, four articles is a very poor, uncategorizable showing. In the future, try adding to a survey rather than question statements. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oh god forbid (pun intended) that statements should be questioned. The point is that for every person on Earth who thinks that Jesus wasn't a myth there are probably a half-dozen who think he was. Dismissing the notion that Jesus is a myth with an off-hand accusation of "bias" is pretty much every bit as biased in itself as the myth claim. The articles may not be the best choices for the category, may not fit it at all. Doesn't mean the category itself is invalid or that the category is so "biased" as to be impermissible. But to add to the survey, Keep because the suggested reasoning for the deletion is not compelling in the slightest. Otto4711 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It just occured to me that it might be good for me to respond to this. Firstly, it's definitely not the case that six times as many people on earth believe that Jesus was a myth as don't - Christians and Muslims alone (both of which religion include a belief in Jesus as some kind of figure as an article of faith) make up more than half of the population of the planet. Furthermore, in academic circles, even the majority of non-Christian scholars - atheists, agnostic, Jews, etc - of the relevant period believe that Jesus was a historical figure. This is a minority opinion in scholarly circles. (Note: I have 'voted' below, I just wanted to respond to this comment.)TheologyJohn 12:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note Please read Myth and Mythology. Myth does not equate with false except in popular use. Nevertheless, if the cat stays it probably needs renaming of some sort. Perhaps "Belief of Jesus as myth?" Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - the members of this category are completely unrelated to Jesus. The creator of this category has made a number of interesting category changes today. For example, he/she added vegetarianism and veganism to a new category Category:Religion based diets. We really need to take a look at these contributions. BigDT 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment That there is a "mythology of Jesus" is I think undoubted. To categorise articles relating to this together is not POV in my view. Maybe the cat needs renaming to satisfy some users, I suspect however that there will always be some who object to any treatment of Jesus that is less than reverential. DuncanHill 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Although possibly a "Jesus in mythology", or legend or folklore or whatever, category could be appropriate.--T. Anthony 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

alpha774 says the following many people believe Jesus is a fictional character for example non-christian Chinese, Japanese etc. and people who follow religions other christianity with a few exceptions view jesus as historical as atlantis and dragons The reason I named it Jesus as myth is so believers of this hypothesis can have articles relating to their hypthesis categorized together i do not believe jesus is mythological thus i named it jesus as myth not jesus myth i did this for the category to help believers of this hypothesis to find articles pretaining to their belief i myself am a christian i just made the category for people interested in the subject which i find interesting though i myself do not believe it also i added walking on water to the category because it mentions that horus did it who is a pagan diety believed in the jesus as myth hypothesis to be an earlier form of jesus as for chronology of jesus i added it because it has contradictions and gives us two different dates for one event

Also why is the categories of christian mythology and jewish mythology not considered POV also according to critics of Jesus as myth as a category according to your logic biblical criticism should be removed

• Delete. At least as it is now. The subcats have irrelevent articles, and the title is inaccurate (Jesus in mythology would indeed be better).--Yannismarou 18:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Ignoring religious debate over whether or not miracles attributed to Jesus are myths, my problem with this category is that it isn't well defined. Theoretically, anything remotely associated with Jesus might reasonably be categorized as likewise associated with the "myth" of Jesus. So it's not exactly clear what differentiates this category from Category:Jesus, for example, or where the lines are drawn in seperating fact from fiction. I think the category needs a clearer definition and purpose to show it is both useful and not already duplicated by another category. Dugwiki 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per previous comments. Sumahoy 03:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - this appears to be an attempt at article creation in the guise of a category. And more interesting, as an article it obviously would be in want of sources/references to support such statements, which, of course, is also not possible in a category in this case : ) - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not rename it simply to Jesus as a mythological figure or Jesus as a myth alpha774

• Delete per above. Addhoc 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep. This category has an extensive main article, Jesus as myth, and it makes sense to group together the articles that relate to this topic. To the people who are concerned that this category could include everything about Jesus, it's not "Jesus in mythology", it's Jesus as mythology. The premise of the article's topic is that Jesus did not really exist. There aren't going to be thousands of related articles, more like a couple dozen, tops. Nothing to worry about. If the name of the category is confusing, perhaps that should be changed. — coelacan talk — 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per above, it helps people find information. --Zzzzzzzzzz 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very strong keep. I do not believe Jesus was a myth, but I think that this article and the related category definitely should be kept, possibly with a different title if necessary. First, this is an area of serious scholarship, and readers of an encyclopedia should have access to all such material. I know that I am very interested, even as someone who believes in Jesus. Second, even those that are convinced of Jesus' life should know what the evidence is on the other side, if nothing else to be able to defend their viewpoints. Third, to have an unbiased presentation of the facts, one needs to have both sides heard on this issue; deleting everything that is against my or someone else's personal religious faith is definitely biased and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Fourth, as pointed out repeatedly, there are many who do not agree with stories of Jesus, or Jesus' existence, or Jesus' divinity. To delete an article because it offends some small minority's sensibilities is ludicrous; should we therefore delete all articles on Mohammed? Oh evolution? On creationism? Any article on racism? Any article that offends anyone? I say let's not hide from the facts, let's face them. So keep the article and keep the related category with related articles.--Filll 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, and add links to 'Jesus as myth' encyclopedia entry. Anything useful from the category could easily be linked to from the 'Jesus as myth' entry; most of the entries are only indirectly relevant to the idea of Jesus being a myth, or only relevant if the reader goes to them looking for information on that particular subject. This is a rare opinion in scholarly circles, which is generally not held by even non-Christian scholars of the bible; it certainly deserves being mentioned on the encyclopedia, but giving it its own category simply involves assuming that people will know a fair bit about it (who on earth would want to look up Osiris if they didn't already know about the suggestion that early Christianity was a modified mystery religion, for example) and also not be able to find the individual subjects through independent research. It's wikipedia supporting individuals in doing independent research on some topics, but we certainly cannot do that on all, and I don't see why this case deserves to be an exception.TheologyJohn 11:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki, et al; Descent to the underworld, Dionysus, Horus, Life-death-rebirth deity are not about Jesus as myth in the degree that would be required to cat them as such. Remove the inappropriate cats, and all that is left is the Jesus as myth article. Concur this is more like writing an article using cats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Jesus is myth to some, religion to others, history to others, popular cultural referent to others -- The category "Jesus" should be populated until it's over-populated and then categories devised that make sense given the articles. It's not clear yet that "Jesus as myth" is going to be a necessary & essential category structure then, and it doesn't demand it now since it's not sufficiently able to be distinguished from any of the articles presently in the category. --lquilter 13:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Opinion, not a categorisation criteria. Pavel Vozenilek 17:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fictional intersexuals - Spotted this one at Aughra. See also: Intersexuality. I think this is definitely a category which would require citations for membership, which means it would be better as a citable list. - jc37 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - listify if wanted, as nominator. - jc37 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Verification is supposed to be the threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia. This category can't be faulted for what some might want to add. Remove the few inappropriate additions and maintain it as is. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not in the case of categories. Because in most cases references/citations can't be added along with the entry into a category, lists are preferable in cases where such are wanted. See WP:CLS, for more information of the benefits and drawbacks of each. - jc37 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: You misunderstand. Most of the articles clearly mention the intersexual aspect of the characters and verifiably so. Those that don't can be removed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Except that I don't believe that it truly is "verifiably so"... For example, there is the troubling issue of the term "intersexual" being apparently sourced only from a single organisation and its members: Intersex Society of North America. And then to apply the term to fictional characters, when the term hasn't been so applied to those characters... (See also: WP:NEO) - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per jc37. Addhoc 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep. "sourced from a single organization"?? What? I'm sorry if you're not familar with the term, but it's pervasive in the literature. I'm getting over 7,000 results on Google Scholar. This nomination appears to have been made without any research whatsoever. — coelacan talk — 05:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The term intersexed has a specific and accepted definition. Fictional intersexed is as good as any (and better than many) fictional X cats. --lquilter 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per coelacan and lquilter.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per coelacan. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and listify. Timrollpickering 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List now at List of JAG actors. Timrollpickering 10:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:JAG actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as nom. Ah...yet another overly broad "actors" category. Well, at least this one is somewhat clear. "This category lists actors and actresses who have appeared on JAG as stars and guest-stars." I bet you're saying What's wrong with that? I'll tell ya; JAG had a decent run, I gather. About...ten years. Just ended in 2005. Now, TV shows are bound to have a lot of characters, especially over the course of ten characters. And I don't mean main, recurring roles, which this category does not limit itself to. Oh no. I'm thinking...5 non-notable roles per episode. Multiply that by ten years and that's what we're dealing with. I found fucking Khary Payton in this pointless category. I'm sorry, but this is just not something to keep or even rename. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep but restrict to regular and reccuring actors who appear in JAG. Tim! 08:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but narrow down to regulars only. >Radiant< 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Come to think of it, delete per Dugwiki. >Radiant< 10:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and listify As I've said in similar cfds, most of these "actor by TV series" categories can be safely deleted since the cast lists already appear directly in the main article or as a subarticle, meaning that readers are able to find all actors associated with this show by visiting that article. There would be no reason to visit the category instead. So my suggestion is delete and listify as desired, which also allows the potential to seperate regular and guest stars and to include other information like character names and dates of appearance. However, assuming the category is kept, then as per Tim! and Radiant above I'd suggest deleting the guest appearances. Dugwiki 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Performer by performance. If kept, limit to cast membership only. - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete - I don't like any of the performer by TV show cats. Lists are better. (Databases not on wikipedia are even better.) --lquilter 13:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Methodist scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superfluous category, which appears to be merely a random intersection; if people are to be classified as scolars being because they were being scholarly in a methodist way, then in most cases they will be classified as theologians. Since its creation, this category has been used only to add an extra category to three articles already categorised under Category:Methodist theologians, which is a sub-cat of a sub-cat of Category:Scholars. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as random intersection. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. DuncanHill 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Random intersection; see WP:OCAT. Dr. Submillimeter 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above. Addhoc 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Italian Indians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category created with the intention of pushing a POV. Priyanka Gandhi is not an 'Italian living in India', she is an Indian. There is no notable Italian ethnic community in India, and as such the category lacks relevance. Soman 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Per Category:People of Italian descent. I created the cat (under this avatar) because the other cat Category:Italian-Indians was not formatted correctly. I merely copied all entries from the latter cat into the one being discussed. "Push a POV" lol what a joke. The fact that one or two incorrect articles (the ones I merely transcribed to the new one) is present is no rationale for deletion. Bad faith nom, with the intention of maligning me. More irrelevant cats include Category:Italian Japanese people, Category:Italian Chileans. Or lets talk about the thriving Bulgarian community in Spain (Category:Bulgarian Spaniards) or the thriving Pakistani community in Hongkong (Category:Pakistani Hongkongers). If this goes, all ethnic origin cats should go.Bakaman 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I'm not only critical to this category, but also see problems in other ethnic categories. It does make sense to have categorizes like Italian Americans, Italian Argentinians, Italian Yugoslavs, etc., as there is a an Italian ethnic community that a person can belong to. Of course delimitations are not uncomplication. But detailed categorizing individuals on the basis of ancestry like this borders racial biology, and is not a good practice. User:Bakasuprman has embarked on an ambitious scheme to categorize people in India along ethnic/communal lines, an effort I find disturbing and possibly politically motivated. --Soman 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response - Ah yes the politically motivated canard. Did I not just say I formatted the entries from an existing cat and copied them into the new one? FYI, I dont live in India, and people in India dont need my help in dividing themself by ethnicity. See Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Shiv Sena, Indigenous Nationalist Party of Twipra, Telugu Desam Party, Naga National Party and countless others. Racial biology? I hold no biases against ethnic groups, I merely tell like it is. It is accepted fact that India is home to many different ethnolinguistic groups, but that argument is irrelevant here. Its obvious you put this cat for CFD only because I created it, and when called out, decided to try and fluff the argument and get me off track.Bakaman 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: don't overinterpret my comment. I did not put the cfd because you created it, but I do feel that the logic behind the creation of the category is politically motivated. You are not, to be frank, practicularily subtile about yoy sympathies in Indian politics, and I do not by any means beleive that it is a coincidence that you're interested in labelling the Gandhis as Italians. You are hardly unaware of the controversies surrounding Sonia Gandhi and her family. Regardless of who created the original category. --Soman 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: However, in difference to the original Category:Italian-Indians, you added the definition "Italians in India". --Soman 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - Just like other cats need a scope. Indian Americans are "Indians in America". I'm not subtle about my sympathies, I do parade the fact I'm not Pseudo-secular and anti-Hindu. Sonia Gandhi was born in Italy, I dont see the controversy. If im "overinterpreting" you comments, you're falsifying and hypothesizing my motives of creating the cat (which was to format an existing cat). The snide allusions to Nazism, Hindusim, etc. are uncalled for as are your attempts at censorship. Like it or not, Priyanka and RAhul gandhi are of Italian descent, the ethno-national cats only require part ethnicity anyways. The fact there is controversy is all the more reason to document it, and whoever placed this cat originally had that in mind.Bakaman 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note - I removed Priyanka and Rahul Gandhi from the cat.Bakaman 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The category merely says "Italians in India" and 3 out of 4 of the entries are from a branch of the Gandhis. Putting two and two together, the impression given is that the category only exists to show how they're actually Italian and not Indian. Is there such thing as an Italian-Indian culture for cat members to share? Or is this a random "classify people by bloodline" thing? SnowFire 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - Actually you mean one out of the three now.Bakaman 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Delete Obviously if there are other ethnicity cats, nobody should delete it on those premises but ... As Snowfire says, only Sonia is a pure Italian. Rahul and Priyanka are "half-Italians/half-Indians" living in India. I am also against Category:Italian Japanese people which only has one person. I wouldn't mind keeping it if five non-Gandhi Italian-Indians are found. At the moment it is too small. It doesn't serve any purpose. This cat is already represented in Category:Nehru-Gandhi family. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply - With one Gandhiis it?Bakaman 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, now you have updated it, before 3 out of the four were Gandhis. Are you sure that Swami Yoginanda is Indian? He may just be a Hindu Italian in which case one out of two is a Gandhi. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • He is definitely not Indian.Bakaman 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The weak description alone seems to indicate some sort of POV. Also, this random intersection is hardly notable. If you can't create a decent article about the subject, it probably shouldn't be a category. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment there's definately a need for some streamlining of ethnic categorizations. A differentiation needs to be made between people of one nationality who happen to migrate (lets say US citizens residing in Grenada, Bulgarians residing in Honduras), and ethnic minority communities (like Italians in Croatia or Indians in Trinidad and Tobago). However, I'm not sure exactly where to raise the issue. --Soman 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree. The Italian ambassador to India has now been added. An Italian-Indian is someone who migrates and lives there like Sonia Gandhi, not a Hindu Italian or Italian ambassador of India. I fail to see anyone else as an Italian-Indian. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: A like Italians in Asia would be better, gathering all italian expatriates in Asia into a single category. Categorization on blood-lines is not really a very sound practice. --Soman 12:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except the Swami lived in India for most of his adult life.Bakaman 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I guess he is an Italian-Indian then. I'm now leaning towards neutral. I will support if a well written article called Italian Indian or Italians in India is created. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note - Per requests, I have started a page on the subject in my userspace. User:Bakasuprman/ItalyBakaman 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I urge anyone voting to go and have a look at the article to note exactly what the scope of the article - and thus the cat - could be. It isnt going to progress beyond the current state.Hornplease 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Per Category:People of Italian descent.--D-Boy 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Per Bakasuprman and per Category:People of Italian descent.--Shyamsunder 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep This is as legit as every other ethnic category. They are needed. Hmains 03:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Seems to be a neologism. Please provide citations to some reliable sources which refer to them as "Italian Indians". None of the hits for the term on Google Books or Google Scholar seem to use it this way. cab 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - legitimate - see Category:Italian Australians - this refers to Indians with Indian blood, obviously Sonia Gandhi is 100% and her children are 50% - if you see some other cats, some people are simply classified by their surname, and that could mean that only 1 great-grandparent is of the relevant ethnicity. In the cases of Priyanka and Rahul, 50% is quite sufficient. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A quick look at the Italian AUS cat will show you that these cats are not only for pure blooded Italians. So Priyanka and Rahul Gandhi do fit under the cat. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I have changed to Weak Keep per Blnguyen's comment. But still, the Italian Australian cat has 115 articles, when this one has about five. I think five articles is the minimum for a cat though because anything less has no real purpose. I am hoping that it will grow later on. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Delete: there are five individuals in this category. In one case, Italian descent is uncited. Three of the others belong to a single, very prominent political family. The editor in question has an acknowledged POV on these individuals; many of the individuals voting keep above have acknowledged sharing that POV. There is no chance that the cat will grow further; unlike America or Australia, Italian immigration to India is negligible. I can't see that this is anything but POV-pushing; further, the cat is pretty useless. Nobody is likely to attempt to study Indians of Italian descent as a whole. Hornplease 10:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, especially when those opposing this cat are sympathetical to the exact opposite strain of Indian politics. Those strongly opposing the cat wish to censor the fact that there are people of ITalian descent living in India. It looks like our local cabal of POV-pushing anti-Hindus wish to denigrate all users that support a useful categorization of Italian people living in India.Bakaman 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My political sympathies are minimal, and not known to you, as I have not acknowledged them, and keep them out of the way of my editing. Nobody wishes to 'censor' the presence of people of Italian descent in India. That is an absurd suggestion; nobody has removed that information from the three articles where it is relevant. The whole thrust of argument here is that this categorisation is so far from useful, and that it exhibits such marked inability to be expanded, that something else is at work here.

Oh, and where did Hinduism suddenly come into the discussion? Please note the POV of the editor in question is on display again. Hornplease 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - Minimal? Especially considering you're trying to whitewash controversies from leftists (Karat, Gandhi-Nehru), and attack conservatives, I find your above statement to be a lie. Nothing else is at work, except stratifying of subcats for the main cat Category:Indian people by ethnic or national origin. Please dont be so vague about what you fantasize about my motives, be more straightforward.Bakaman 17:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you; I do attempt to try and keep controversial material sourced to mainline newspapers or academic critics. I do, however, not recall attacking conservatives anywhere; perhaps the liberal bias in academic means that criticism of conservatives is usually better sourced by our standards. Go complain at the village pump. And I do not wish to be straightforward about your motives, in case I am wrong. Which is not particularly probable in this case, but since I would like to preserve some shred of decency, I would rather not assign motives, and just indicate the somewhat peculiar circumstances. (Note that this editor does not tackle my assertions, but accuses me of a POV. This is his usual approach, along with cluttering up talkpages so more neutral people choose to avoid the discussion altogether.) Hornplease 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes attacking me instead of responding to the obvious facts, and pretending to be impartial. (Note the editor above is merely bitter that his bad faith campaign to get me banned failed and he has resigned himself to belittling me at every chance he gets). Perhaps we dont need an actual article for the cat see Category:Pakistani Hongkongers. The editor above is only supporting a fellow POV pusher who obviously nominated this cat for cfd because: 1. I created it, 2. It categorizes a person in a way that the leftists in Indian politics dislike (and yet is a fact).Bakaman 19:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: Speedy keep. Freedom skies 16:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment 307 Italian citizens voted in the Italian parliamentary election in India. [1] That of course includes several embassy employees and business employees etc.. The corresponding number in Argentina was above 167 000. [2]. --Soman 12:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misrepresentation of Sources - Those are Italians voting for Italian parties. So they're obviously still Italian citizens in that link.Bakaman 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Attempt to expand the US specific categorisation worldwide, here obviously for political reasons. In other case we end up with myriad of categories like "Finnish-Indonesians" Pavel Vozenilek 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bald People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonsense category, with no encyclopædic merit.cj | talk 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as above. — Grstain | Talk 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as above. --Soman 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - or create other stupid categories like "People who were born naked" and "People who eventually are going to die"... --Bronks 19:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as above. note that a List of bald people was also created. John Vandenberg 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete `'mikkanarxi 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy, we've seen the cat-by-hair-type before. >Radiant< 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above Dugwiki 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above Sumahoy 03:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - This would appear to be a list which was apparently placed in category space by mistake, and which later was used as a category. I suggest that the category (and the list in the category intro) all be listified, as seems to be the original intention of the page creator. (Doing a bit of assuming good faith here...) If, after that, someone wishes to nominate it for AfD, they are, of course, welcome to. - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment agree with Radiant - we've been here before. All of these cats and lists were deleted and for good reason. I've prodded the offending list. Addhoc 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC) List has been speedied. Addhoc 18:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delete per nom. Addhoc 20:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete - this category, at least for fictional characters, has been deleted very many times. Hair isn't permanent, either. Unless it's "People with alopecia areata".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above; I noticed this the other day and was going to CfD it myself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I would propose a permanent ban on any people by hairstyle, hair length, hair color, or facial hair categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete How few hairs must one have to be bald? Most people are born bald; does that make them bald people? This category is inherently subjective. LaszloWalrus 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Computer and video games with limited editions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trivial, not a defining characteristic. Combination 18:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. >Radiant< 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete in favour of the List of computer and video game collector and limited editions. David Kernow (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Is there a category of computer and video game-related lists? - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Addhoc 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge and protect. Timrollpickering 00:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Reality television participants, I think I remember seeing this before, but can't find it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom, unnecessary division by race. Dugwiki 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Here it is, October 19. ×Meegs 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Revising to Speedy per above, this is a recreation of a deleted category, so I'm revising my recommendation to speedy delete/merge Dugwiki 17:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy merge and protection from recreation per above. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Jpeob 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Ebyabe 13:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, arbitrary intersection. >Radiant< 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Addhoc 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Vermont expatriates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete It does not seem like a sound idea to start using the category system to record Americans' interstate relocations. Chicheley 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom, is someone moving from one US state to another even called an expatriate? Otto4711 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, You have to live outside your country to be an expatriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. In addition, it's generally a bad idea to divide categories into "current" and "former" divisions, as in "Current Vermont residents" vs "Former Vermont residents". Dugwiki 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Soman 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. We're going overboard with subcategories by location. This material could remain as a list. --Samuel Wantman 20:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (a Vermont expat)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Though I think this is interesting information, and should be listified, if possible. - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, Vermont's not a different country any more than the past is. Though the past and Vermont have other things in common. Hornplease 12:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above. Addhoc 23:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bhutanese polygamists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category has one name and Category:Polygamists is not divided by nation otherwise.--T. Anthony 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete no apparent need for the category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Polygamists. Recury 14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Polygamists. It is a notable issue, but political as well. Xiner (talk, email) 15:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Very strong keep Category:Polygamists should be subdivided by nationality like any other large category of people, and in an hour or two it will be. Chicheley 15:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I don't know what to think. Still was there a reason you started with Bhutan? It's not particularly large, it's not powerful, and it's not famous for polygamy.--T. Anthony 15:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article in question is on the main page under "In the News". I assumed that other by nationality subcategories had already been created and didn't bother to check. Chicheley 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - see Category:Polygamists by nationality.Bakaman 19:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a recent creation, it wasn't there when I nominated this. I'm not sure how I feel about the topic now.--T. Anthony 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - I dont have a strong view either, but if the one member of the cat is cited, and there is a supercat, the union of those two arguments merits a keep, IMO.Bakaman 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge, no need to split these by nationality. >Radiant< 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Look at category:American polygamists. There are two ways of making the articles it contains accessible from Category:American people: either by retaining Category:American polygamists or by merging every American category with less than say 100 articles into Category:American people. The latter would result in Category:American people containing say 20,000 articles, rendering it almost completely useless. All articles should be categorised with the same degree of precision regardless of the size of the country involved, so it follows from the need to have Category:American polygamists that it is also necessary to have categories for all other countries for which there is a relevant article. Honbicot 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The nominator's reasons no longer apply (and weren't compelling in any case as many parts of Wikipedia are incomplete, but that does not mean it doesn't need to be completed one day). Felix Han 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - lack of communication triggered good faith nom. Addhoc 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Looks like a project organizing the overall Category:Polygamists cat which is probably helpful. Also follows precedent in other "x by nationality" cats. I'm not sure about the general cat "polygamists" but that's not for debate here - if we have polygamists then it should be treated like other people cats, which are subdivided by nationality. --lquilter 13:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aegean dispute grey zones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. The category adopts the Turkish POV that there are "grey zones" in the Aegean. As stated clearly in the second paragraph of Imia/Kardak: "These islands, some of them inhabited, are regarded as indisputably Greek by Greece but as grey zones of undetermined sovereignty by Turkey." This is different from a simple territorial dispute, where there are conflicting claims to the same territory by two or more states. In this case, "grey zones" denotes the specific claim by Turkey that there are areas in the Aegean whose sovereignty was left undecided by the relevant treaties and protocols, a claim not endorsed by any other state or international organisation. To quote from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's comments here, "that indeed is not a neutral statement of the existence of a dispute, it is exclusively the Turkish claim". And the creator of the category agrees. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, as per preceding discussion on Talk:Imia/Kardak. In addition to the semantic problem of "grey zones" versus "dispute" (which could be solved by a rename), there's also the problem of the category being geographically ill-defined, because Turkey has never officially enumerated which islands it considers "grey". I would agree to a replacement Category:Aegean dispute, which would contain those and only those islands that have verifiably been the object of actual contentious incidents notable enough to be recorded in the islands' articles. That would cover Imia/Kardak, Gavdos, and perhaps a few others (not all of which currently even have articles). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - not really of any use.--Aldux 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Aegean dispute. Simply because it is true that the two countries nearly went to war over Imia/Kardak. There were both Greek and Turkish soldiers who landed on the island and pulled up their flags, so Kekrops' claim that there is simply a conflict about the undetermined sovereignty is not quite correct. It could be easily considered in law that putting your flag on the island by your soldiers is a way of claiming ownership of that island. So that's one island we now for sure that Turkey disputes, or lays some sort of claim to it. There is nothing wrong with this template containing one article, since there is also the possibility that there can be other articles created in the future. There is no need to "delete" the cat. We need a cat for the Aegean dispute, since there could be other articles in the future about faultlines, mineral reserves under the sea, petroluem beds etc. We need a cat to be able to group them. The inclusion/exclusion of the cat can be talked about in the article's talk page.Baristarim 19:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per Barış. There are more area which are discussed between two gowernments.(in Turkish side; during Mesut Yılmaz and Tansu Çiller cabinets)There are reports from both side which can be accessible by internet.Must^TC 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. //Dirak 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Per Aldux.--Yannismarou 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete.--tony esopi patra^talk 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Creator agrees, population 1, POV, unspecified officially. NikoSilver 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. -Turkish POV. --Asteraki 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Can somebody explain to me why it shouldn't be renamed to "Aegean dispute"? Is there no such dispute? "Turkish POV" is Greek POV. The question is whether there have been any territories, islands, marine resources that have been disputed in the Aegean. The answer is clearly yes. Of course for both sides, the POV of the other side is the wrong one. There is a dispute, and "Aegean dispute" is a proper way of organizing articles about such places that have been disputed.Baristarim 10:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Per all the above. Hectorian 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Felix Han 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above. Addhoc 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per Barış. E104421 11:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rename per E104421 and Baristarim Zaparojdik 13:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Neverwinter Nights persistent worlds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, this category contains only two articles and has no potential for growth; all other articles formerly in this category were deleted as non-notable original creations. I'm nominating for deletion rather than merging because the articles are already in the most appropriate merge target, Category: Neverwinter Nights. --Muchness 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Overcategorization. Recury 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom Dugwiki 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Addhoc 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was split into Category:Biological simulation computer and video games and Category:Social simulation computer and video games. Timrollpickering 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Life simulation games to Category:Biological simulation games and Category:Social simulation games

• Split. Covers two very disparate subjects of simulation games. NeonMerlin 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with the split proposal. --Redeagle688 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support with alternate naming; with the 'computer and video games' qualifier. For example, the proposed upmerge of Category:Communication games can go into Category:Social simulation computer and video games along with Category:The Sims. Category:Evolution computer and video games and Category:Creatures can be upmerged into Category:Biological simulation computer and video games. Marasmusine 08:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Since this is a "split", I suggest that someone "in the know" create the two new categories, without depopulating the existing one. If this CfD results in a "split" decision (yes, I love puns), then the split is already accomplished and the closing admin merely has to depopulate and delete the original category, if the result is to not split, then the new ones can be depopulated, and deleted. - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Admin comment I'm not closing this one yet as jc37's suggestion seems the most reasonable. Please can someone create and populate the necessary new categories. Timrollpickering 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Report on attempt at split I began trying the above out of interest rather than familiarity (creating Category:Biological simulation computer and video games and Category:Social simulation computer and video games per Marasmusine) but soon felt many if not most Life simulation games' contents could arguably belong to both new categories. Perhaps, therefore, my lack of familiarity is telling – I relied on the descriptions in the (main) articles – so I've reverted my attempt but kept the two new categories in case anyone does think sufficient distinction between biological and social (and evolutionary) simulations exists for most if not all Life simulation games' contents. In lieu of this, however, I'd suggest keeping Life simulation games (but renaming it Life simulation computer and video games per related categories) and add a note explaining its scope (i.e. biological and/or social and/or evolutionary games). Hoping I've left nothing undone, David Kernow (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. With regards the above split nomination, the proposed operational solution of someone "in the know" creating the two new categories first and populating them with all articles then delete whichever categories does not affect this one. Timrollpickering 00:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Communication games into Category:Life simulation games

• Up-merge. Only contains one article that isn't about Animal Crossing. Also, seems to be a misuse of the term, since none of the first ten Ghits for communication game are about CVG (and the first three are about treatment for disabilities). Note that the above split, if accepted, should be done first, with this game merging into social. NeonMerlin 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge as above. >Radiant< 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge - Though dependant on the results of the "split" nomination directly above. - jc37 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). 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 to Campus, college, student and university radio stations per discussion. David Kernow (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Student radio stations to Category:Campus radio stations

• Rename. The category name should match the principal article name, which is campus radio, and the primary list which is list of campus radio stations. I think the article is named correctly for several reasons. First, student radio implies learning about radio while many stations do not exist for educational purposes. Second, many of these stations are much more community in nature, and are simply associated with a campus, not just with students. Third, campus implies all kinds of educational institutions. I haven't been much associated with categories before, and this category was recently renamed student from college (which was not a good name because it is US specific) but I can't find any discussion about it here, and there was no debate at Campus radio. I think moving it to Category:Campus radio stations would be a much better move. cmh^TC 04:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment "Campus radio" implies a rather different concept from student radio (though I don't think the latter in any way implies courses in radio). Also many institutions don't have campuses. There's a strong difference between "the student media" and "the campus media". I'm not sure that "campus radio" isn't another centric term that has differing connotations. Timrollpickering 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Campus radio is mainly an American term. "Student radio" is broader, and also clearer to people who are unfamiliary with the terminology. Chicheley 11:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. The US term is College radio. I think the problem is that for everyone the local name sounds the best. In the UK it is called student radio, in Canada it is called campus radio. In the states it is called College radio. How do we decide? -- cmh^TC 14:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I think the only way to solve this is to do a survey. I quickly looked into the top few countries on list of countries where English is an official language and the top 10 countries on list of countries by English-speaking population. Results were

• Campus radio used in canada, india, pakistan, china, israel, germany, france
• Student radio used in UK, australia
• University radio used in nigeria, kenya
• College radio used in US

In south africa there is no name as these are part of the community station network. I was unable to figure out the philippines. I do not claim this is an exhaustive search, but I think that campus is the best name. Note that I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this back in March when I spent a bunch of time cleaning up campus radio. While nobody cared to participate at the time, I did propose campus radio then, and I think it is still the best name now. -- cmh^TC 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Comment I'm not sure a tyranny of numbers of approach works when it produces a name that in several parts of the world has very different connotations from the rest. The term really needs to be something that everyone would recognise and I think "student radio" is the broadest. "University" and "College" radio both exclude other educational institutions and "Campus" refers to something a lot of institutions don't have and also sounds like a formal service. Timrollpickering 16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The problem here is that Student radio sounds good to you because it is familiar. Campus radio sounds good to me because it is familiar. You believe student is the broadest and campus is flawed. I believe campus is the broadest and student is flawed (for the reasons outlined above). How do you propose we proceed if not by numbers? -- cmh^TC 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, not all student radio is based on campus. >Radiant< 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Campus, college, student and university radio stations to be clear to everyone and to show respect to all English speaking countries. Honbicot 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Campus, college, student and university radio stations, which resolves the issue. Any subcats need only use one of the terms. Felix Han 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Campus, college, student and university radio stations per Honbicot and Felix Han. Timrollpickering 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Campus, college, student and university radio stations but this shows the need for better cat redirecting. A ridiculously long cat name to try to capture all synonyms, when each nationality should be able to list its own variety & have them all sorted together. --lquilter 13:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Object to renaming, this name is redundant and way too long. >Radiant< 10:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Campus, college, student and university radio stations. Quality matters, not length. Nathanian 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment as the original nominator I think Honbicot's compromise is a good idea. -- cmh^TC 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Towns in Myanmar into Category:Cities in Myanmar

• Merge/rename, There's not enough of either to justify two categories, and most of the one are miscategorized as the other. I propose Category:Cities and towns in Myanmar. Chris 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. In some US cats we have used 'Places' when there is more then one name. Would Category:Places in Myanmar work? Vegaswikian 06:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great, prefer Vegaswikian's suggestion especially if there is already similar alignment. :) Chris 07:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the contrary, it is an ill-advised idea as "places" covers almost everything. Chicheley 11:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The number in each category at present is of no relevance. Myanmar is a large country and it should have both categories, unless there is no distinction between cities and towns, in which case the form Category:Cities and towns in Myanmar is the standard. Chicheley 11:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The country itself is large, yes, but there are few places of size or consequence, the population is more sporadic, almost none would be counted cities by traditional standards. In this case, then, Category:Cities and towns in Myanmar would be the preferred form once again. Chris 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose 30 seconds of research is sufficient to show that Chris's contention about the facts on the ground simply isn't true, especially if one remembers that the majority of native English speakers live in the US, where it is common for places with 200 to 300 people to have city status. Honbicot 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despite your glib comments, most places in the country are in fact more commonly referred to by township rather than designation in the sense you're talking about. And the topic at hand is that the two categories would be more useful as a single grouping, not how the jurisdictions are labeled. Chris 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Generals of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Timrollpickering 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Generals of the 1971 Indo-Pak war to Category:Generals of the Indo-Pakistani War

• Moved here from Speedy rename section; originally nominated by David Kernow (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

Category:Generals of the 1971 Indo-Pak war to Category:Generals of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

• Rename, main article is "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971"; including the year.Chidom ^talk, 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• rename per Chidom to match the article and higher category Hmains 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per Chidom; I recall visiting the article, so probably meant to add the "of 1971" (although I guess that would've disqualified it from being speedy; maybe I was interrupted...) Anyhow, thanks for spotting. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Generals of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 as there has been more than one war between the two countries. Chicheley 11:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename - 2nd option - There have been many wars in which India has fought PAkistan.Bakaman 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Edinburgh University Principals to Category:Principals of the University of Edinburgh
• Category:Lord Rectors of Edinburgh University to Category:Lord Rectors of the University of Edinburgh

• Rename [both], the university article[s are] at University of Edinburgh. Timrollpickering 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename both as suggested. I created the Edonburgh University Principals page, and agree it should have been named more clearly. Smeddlesboy 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per creator. David Kernow (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Early Grand Canyon River-Runners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category was created with improper hyphenation and capitalization. I created a new category with incorrect capitalization (which has also been nominated for deletion). Finally, I created a category with proper hyphenation and capitalization and updated all articles listed under the previous names. I should have listed this originally for renaming. Sorry for the mix-ups. Justin (Authalic) 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per creator. David Kernow (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Early Grand Canyon River Runners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category was created with improper capitalization. I created a new category with proper capitalization and updated all articles listed under the previous name. I should have listed it for renaming. Sorry for the mix-up. Justin (Authalic) 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bishops of the Methodist Church to Category:Bishops of The Methodist Church (USA)

• Rename in accordance with renamed main article, to incorporate "(USA)" disambiguator to distinguish it more clearly from the many other methodist denominations worlwide, many of which are called "The Methodist Church", and not all of which use a national disambiguator in their names at all times (see, for example, the website of the The Methodist Church of Great Britain, which includes the "of Great Britain" disambiguator only in small print at the bottom of its home page. The main article for this category was located at The Methodist Church (which I have now made into a disambiguation page), and is now at The Methodist Church (USA). BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just checking: The "The" in "The Methodist Church" was/is officially part of the name...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • yes, the "The" is correct. Pastorwayne 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename Makes perfect sense. Pastorwayne 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom and Pastorwayne.-choster 14:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to reduce the level of confusion in Methodism cats. DuncanHill 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.