< November 21	November 23 >

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has existed since June, 2005. It contains no articles and one sub-cat, Category:Montreal crime. I find it to be an unneeded level of categorization that is just a delay on the way to its sole child. After existing for over a year and only having that sole child, its capacity for a rate of growth has been established as very limited at this time. Kurieeto 23:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion withdrawn on Nov 28 as the cat has been populated with a few articles. Proposing rename to the naming convention of the rest of Category:Crime by country instead, so Category:Quebec crime to Category:Crime in Quebec. Kurieeto 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate, you should probably announce it in the appropriate wikiproject and wikipedian notice boards for attention. We do have articles on crimes within these geographic areas. 132.205.45.206 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Crime in Quebec, following the naming of Category:Crime by country. Mairi 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Crime in Quebec. Kurieeto 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category's current name doesn't read very well; I'm suggesting it be renamed to follow the "Crime in X" wording of all sub-cats of Category:Crime by country. Kurieeto 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename 132.205.45.206 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar deletions have been made for "Affiliates of radio program". Trying to get people to be more consistant. Joradio 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Radio shows that carry radio programming could quickly be overwhelmed with categories. It is better just to make lists for these kinds of things. George J. Bendo 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liverpool companies to Category:Companies based in Liverpool
Category:Companies from Birmingham, England to Category:Companies based in Birmingham, England

• Rename both, to match siblings. Hanbrook 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Absent a neutral definition of "political prisoner" this category is inherently and irredeemably POV. Any category of this nature must have a discrete definition: that is, there must be an external way to limit the people in it that is not contentious. For example: Category:Detroit Tigers players. There are a finite number of people who can be added to this category, and there are neutral sources of information. The same simply cannot be said for this category. Note: this category was the subject of a deletion debate about two years ago, but there wasn't much interest in the matter, and no attempt to address the underlying problem. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - According to Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, political prisoners were given "Section 58" in the Stalinist Soviet Union. Could that be used as a clear definition of a political prisoner? George J. Bendo 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but it could give a clear definition to Category:Section 58 prisoners or some such. The current category doesn't limit itself in that or any other manner, and in its naming discourages such a definition. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Political prisoners in general are not objectively defined as such, but specific types of political prisoners are. George J. Bendo 22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless an objective definition given - Currently the category description says it is for people "generally considered" to be political prisoners. That phrase is unfortunately too ambiguous. Unless the definition can be tightened up to be objective, the category should be deleted. (Note that no country would label its own prisoners as "political prisoners", so the term is strictly something applied by outside entities to another country's prisoners, leading to the POV problem.) Dugwiki 21:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - George J. Bendo 22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the category, but find a better name perhaps Category:People labeled as political prisoners? I don't think anyone is claiming that there is no such thing as a "political prisoner" and the people in the category have been labeled as such. The category can stay if it is clear that the people have been labeled as being political prisoners and their membership in the category does not affirm or deny the veracity of the claim. The topic of political prisoners is studied and discussed so the category has value. We need to solve this problem for all categories like this. I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. -- Samuel Wantman 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begging your pardon, but the nomination addressed that problem. Absent a neutral verifiable source on political prisoners, all you can have is something like Category:People considered by Amnesty International to be political prisoners. Besides being unwieldy, it's POV. We're saying that we value Amnesty International's opinion on the matter, which we can't do. We study and value plenty of things but I don't see how that implies that a related category has value and can fit within the context of this project. I think it would greatly add to this discussion if you could explain that. Mackensen (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is NPOV if we use this category for any article that discusses political prisoners. Many do, often articles about people. Someone wanting to research the topic of political prisoners might be as interested in people wrongly considered political prisoners as those who actually were political prisoners. It is not up to us to decide who was really a political prisoner, it is only important if it is mentioned and discussed in the article. That is the whole point of categories -- to be able to find relevant articles about a subject. So I'm saying that we shouldn't use this category to classify people, but to collect articles that talk about the subject. If the article makes a cited claim about being a political prisoner, that should be enough, as long as this is clear from the category definition. So what I'm looking for is either a category name that makes this clear, or text within the category. -- Samuel Wantman 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone researching the topic should start with the article on political prisoners, which will no doubt give examples (described within the text). The paragraph affords the opportunity to give sources, and to explain why this person was considered by some to be a political prisoner. The category system works differently: there are no footnotes there. Categories are affirmations, and are used just as you say they are--to classify people. We can't change the scheme for this one category. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Currently, the category has quite a few disclaimers. If each of those were followed scrupulously, we would still end up with a category that is inherently POV. I agree, as all of us probably do, that Amnesty (where I'm a member) is a neutral organization, but the government of Myanmar doesn't. For an analogy, I recall listening to Radio Tirana back in the 1970's on shortwave. It was the most Communist of Communist English language broadcasts, and they alleged that every member of the Weather Underground was a political prisoner, that every member of the Black Panther party caught in a bombing or shooting was a political prisoner, etc. In other words, there is always a government that regards its interests as inherently reasonable and clearly for the good, and therefore it will consider its prisoners criminals. The category attempts as neutral a point of view as is possible for us, but it is still going to inherently require a political point of view about the validity of conscience organizations and the invalidity of governmental rationales. Geogre 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this sort of thing is much better handled using "what links here". In fact, for navigation purposes the category could be retained with an instruction to not add articles, but to follow this link to find examples of people labelled as political prisonsers. Carcharoth 16:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That led me to a joke at Russian_jokes#Animals. Carcharoth 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mackensen and Geogre. Isn't Saddam a political prisoner? --Doc^g 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, for that matter, Manuel Noriega, who was acting according to the legal principles of his own nation and, unlike Saddam, not doing things called war crimes or crimes against humanity. Geogre 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional widows and widowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Based on the ample number of categories in each of these individuals' articles, I am now convinced that the combination of Hank Aaron, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Wolverine would be an unstoppable force that could conquer the planet. This category contains Wolverine, who is as well known for being a fictional widower as he is known for being a Marvel superhero. This category contains many other fictional characters whose status as a widow/widower is secondary to the character and to the storyline. As a result, many of the articles in this category have little to do with each other. Therefore, the category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There must be thousands of these, but only now and again is it an especially significant attribute of the character. Hanbrook 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. I was just thinking of nominating it for deletion myself when I noticed the CFD tag! The category also contains people who have remarried and, in my opinion, that doesn't make them widowed. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this recreation. Doczilla 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[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 no consensus.

Per comments below, suggest those folk with interest in this category:

1. Filter members into categories Actors playing lead roles in James Bond films and Actors playing supporting roles in James Bond films (or the like);
2. Remove those actors whose appearances did not make final cuts.

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete main category, keep Category:Bond girls - Based on the ample number of categories in each of these individuals' articles, I am now convinced that the combination of Hank Aaron, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Wolverine would be an unstoppable force that could conquer the planet. This category contains Sammy Davis, Jr. (also a member of Category:Tap-dancing black Jewish members of the Rat Pack), who actually did not appear in a James Bond movie but instead appeared in a scene that was cut from a James Bond movie. This category also contains many other people who had only small roles in James Bond movies, including Rowan Atkinson, Patrick Macnee, Heidi Klum, and Wayne Newton. For some people, appearing in a James Bond movie is a career-defining activity, but for most members of this category, it is simply one of many roles that they played in their lifetime. The category should be deleted. However, since only some individuals are being placed within Category:Bond girls and since the criteria for being a Bond girl is well defined, that subcategory should be kept. George J. Bendo 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this category would be much less objectionable if it were limited to actors who have played James Bond. Suggest therefore that it be redefined and kept, with most entries removed.-- Visviva 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Batman actors and Category:Spider-Man actors have suffered from problems similar to this category. Category:Batman actors has been blocked from recreation. Category:Spider-Man actors is on its way to being deleted. This nomination has led out of those other discussions. If this category is to be kept, it must be renamed. "Redefining" the category is not going to work, as it will probably refill with random actors who have or have not appeared in James Bond films, just as has happened with the Spider-Man and Batman actor categories. George J. Bendo 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nomination bordering on WP:POINT. Tim! 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the second nomination of this category: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 26 where it received a near unanimous decision to keep. Tim! 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... do you mean the Actors by series and its sub-categories nom?
      Based on what I see there the result was to keep the umbrella cat of Actors by series and the the sub-cats should be looked at on a case by case basis. And I agree with that. The umbrella, and well defined cats are a good way of expediting searches for related articles. Bond Girls, "Actors who have portrayed James Bone in film", "Actors who have portrayed Bond Villains", and even "Primary cast members of Bond films" all have merit.
      What the nom has seen in this cat is the reason others have proposed individual cats that are/were under the umbrella for deletion since 12/26/2005. The cat is in effect a dumping ground for anyone that has lent voice or face in anyway to a Bond related project. That makes the cat an effective way of storing trivia, but renders it useless as a research tool.
      The Sammy Davis Jr example is a good one. The linked article barley mentions Bond, and then only the title to the movie and a trivia point only. Patrik Macnee is also a fairly good example. The article as it stands treats Macnee's association with Bond as minor. And one last example: Anthony Ainley is included for the role of "Hong Kong Policeman #2" in You Only Live Twice, and to find that out you have to go to an external link as the actor's article, at the moment, makes absolutely no reference to the role or film.
      At the very least the cat needs to be cleaned and better defined. — J Greb 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know you are allowed to edit Sammy Davis and Patric Macnee and remove them from the category. Tim! 07:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As per my comments above, Rename, Redefine, and Keep — J Greb 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you propose a new name? I am open to discussion on this. I just do not think that the status quo (i.e. "keeping and redefining the category") is functional. George J. Bendo 07:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The place for discussing this is Category talk:James Bond actors. This nomination should be withdrawn unless the category needs to be deleted, renamed or merged with another category. Tim! 07:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not withdrawing my nomination at this time. The status quo is dysfunctional, and a category deletion or renaming is still warranted. George J. Bendo 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as renaming, I'd suggest Category:Principle actors on James Bond films or something close to that. In some respects the cat has merit and should not be burned, unless that is the only way to get it re-worked. — J Greb 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The suggested rename still has problems. What is the definition of "principle actor"? Is there a clear definition as to who is a "principle" actor and who is not? Is being a "principle actor" in a James Bond movie a career-defining activity for an actor or actress? George J. Bendo 12:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll grant that the name has problems, but it is the same problem that any name for any cat grouping actors that worked on any film/television/radio/theatre/video game production will have. A long series can become a "Six Degrees" exercise.
              I'll repeat here that I feel that this cat, and similar ones have a valid use. But that use only exists if the cats are well defined an periodically reviewed, and/or culled. Defining can be easy, ie Bond Girls or Actors who portrayed James Bond in films. Those are nice, tight, limiting definitions. But they fall short in some respects.
              "Primary cast" or "Recurring characters" fit better, but do leave gaps. "RC", while tightly defined, would leave any actor playing a prominent, non-Bond, non-Bond Girl character that only exists for 1 film out. "PC" would allow the latitude to include those actors, but does require that editors exercise a degree of judgment. Of the two, I'd rather have the discussions for inclusion/removal inherent with "PC" rather than harangues about why an actor should be an exception in the "RC".
              One last item. I've seen mentioned many times in the discussions about this type of cat the driving motivation beng: "Is a role in the feature series a career-defining/important aspect to actor?" And I agree, to a point. The importance is not a one way thing. Just as valid is the question: "Is actor's participation and important aspect of the feature series?" — J Greb 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, don't cat actors by film or series. (Radiant) 09:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - categorise characters, not actors by role. - jc37 12:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Mackensen (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Choalbaton 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find this useful for navigating people who appear in Bond films. Mr. Stabs 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal utility isn't a valid reason to keep. How does this fit within the context of the encyclopedia? Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedents (e.g., Batman actors, Spider-Man actors) and sheer impracticality of adding a category for every role an actor every plays. Doczilla 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is completely different from the batman and spiderman "precedents" because the James Bond films form a series with recurring actors. Tim! 08:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Goodness knows how many actors have appeared in a James Bond film, but for most of them it was just a few weeks, days or even hours work in a long career. Piccadilly 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can edit out the ones for whom James Bond forms a minor part of their career, no need to delete the category. Tim! 18:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep three categories: "Bond Girls", "Actors who have portrayed James Bone in film", and "Actors who have portrayed Bond Villains" as they all are significant enough to be career defining. Bond is beyond Spiderman and Batman. Delete everything else. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[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 no consensus. Per the nom above (Category:James Bond actors) suggest this category at least filtered into "lead", "supporting", "guest" subcategories or the like. David Kernow (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - Based on the ample number of categories in each of these individuals' articles, I am now convinced that the combination of Hank Aaron, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Wolverine would be an unstoppable force that could conquer the planet. This category contains Hank Aaron, a person who once guest starred on Happy Days. Many of the other members of this category once guest starred on Happy Days, although a few people in this category may have actually had substantial roles in the series. Given that most of the articles in the category are for guest stars and given that being a guest star on Happy Days is not career-defining, the category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In general cast lists for TV shows are sufficiently handled by having the cast list in the main article or a subarticle. Creating a unique category for each show creates the problem of possibly having too many categories per actor article. Dugwiki 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as important part of Category:Happy Days Tim! 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this was only nominated on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29 on which recent occasion there was a majority to keep. Tim! 22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Actors by television series subcategories" debate on 29 Sep 2006 reached no consensus. That means that the topic needs further discussion. Also note that the 29 Sep 2006 debate dealt with a broad number of categories, not this specific category. This discussion is warranted. George J. Bendo 07:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three problems with Tim's comments. First, as noted above, the cfd he's talking about had no consensus. It was decidedly not a vote to "keep". Secondly, he claims it is an "important part" of Category:Happy Days, but doesn't explain why a category is important versus a cast list article. I agree that in discussions related to Happy Days, for example, a cast list is important, but the format of that cast list should be an article, not a category. Finally, this all begs the question of why exactly Category:Happy Days is even needed at all in the first place. In general most television shows should not have their own unique categories. Dugwiki 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dugwiki, please refer to deletion polic, things can only be deleted by consensus. It is obviously important part of the category scheme because without actors there is no television series, so clearly Henry Winkler belongs in there somewhere. If you think the Happy Days category should be deleted then nominate it. "In general most television shows should not have their own unique categories. " is absurd. A lot of series have categories for their episodes, their characters and other sub-articles. Most series cannot be covered in a single article. Tim! 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC
      • I see your nomination Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_25#Category:The_4400 was resulted in an unananimous keep. Tim! 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To reply, I was responding to your qualification of the cfd for actors-by-series as "a majority to keep". That qualification is misleading - the result was not "majority to keep", it was "no consensus" with pretty strong debate on both sides. Also, most shows do not need actor-by-series categories; doing so is by no means "obviously" an important part of the category scheme. In fact, most shows could easily get by with just a cast list in their own article or a seperate list article for larger cast lists. Really the only shows that might need a category are ones that are either extremely important or that have spin-offs/movie tie-ins/etc. So what I was disputing was your characterization of the cfd debate as "majority to keep" and "obviously important. I have no problem with the deletion policy, just the way you are framing the previous debate. Dugwiki 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Full of flotsam and jetsam. Choalbaton 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one as well. Mr. Stabs 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please consider this proposal to rename this and all similar actors by television series categories to include only recurring actors, thus eliminating mere one-time guest appearances. Postdlf 20:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Postdlf's suggestion and Listify one-off appearances is absolutely necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Greb (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 November 2006
• Delete - performer by performance. - jc37 13:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current FA Premier League players into Category:FA Premier League players

• Merge, we don't distinguish between current and former things. This one would be especially difficult to maintain, and the fact that it already has an underpopulated tag on it doesn't bode well for it. Recury 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[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 no consensus to delete, so keep; but, given category's contents, rename per ProveIt. David Kernow (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Richard Dawkins Award winners, it is for award winners, not the award events -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Winning this award does not define the individual winners, as it may be one of many that the recipients earn in their lifetimes. A list would be more appropriate. George J. Bendo 14:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - by that "logic," every award category should be deleted because anyone might possibly win multiple awards in their lifetimes. And, frankly, I don't think you quite understand the purpose of categorization. A category does not have to be about only something that "defines" the subjects of the articles so categorized. There are very few categories that deal solely with "defining" attributes. Rather than asking if the category is "defining" maybe you should ask if it's "encyclopedic" since this is, after all, an encyclopedia. Otto4711 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarilly every award category, but certainly most awards should not have their own category. Only the most prestigious awards that can define the pinnacle of a person's career should have their own category (eg Academy Awards, Nobel Prizes). Dugwiki 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In general awards are handled better by a list article and by mentioning the award in the recipient's article. Otherwise you could end up with extremely notable people having countless award categories in their article. Dugwiki 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This award is not sufficiently notable. Only the most prestigious award in each field should have a category. Hanbrook 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - what award presented to notable atheists is more prestigious than this one? Otto4711 05:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (and keep per Otto4711). Xtifr _tälk 10:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hanbrook. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and keep per nom and Otto4711. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[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 and rename per nom as this category's parent is a "Computer and video game" category. David Kernow (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Isometric games to Category:Isometric computer and video games

• Rename, as this category specifically covers computer and video games. Helps avoid confusion. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
• Delete as trivia; there's no need to categorize computer games by their art style. (Radiant) 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I agree with the above reason. SharkD 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See no need to rename this, as I fail to see how the word Isometric could be really relevant for non-electronic games. Also, in most cases it's not really merely an "art style", but rather a very fundamental decision about the basic type of game it's going to be. (With Sim City, I guess it could be considered just an "art style".) AnonMoos 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, any tile-based game (e.g. most puzzles and RPGs) could have a top view or an isometric view and it wouldn't make a difference. (Radiant) 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per nom (edit: changed my mind, just keep, no need for a rename). Why can't computer games be categorised by their art style? Art style seems just as notable as gameplay style, which games are categorised by all the time. Voretus^talk 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being isometric or not, may effect gameplay. That aside why not categorize games as isometric? a user may want to look at examples of games' art styles instead of gameplay, there is already a short list of games on the isometric projection page that users often add to. Other users try to keep list there short, so users can use this category and add to it instead of making the list of games at isometric projection too long, and also include sequels. - I can understand wanting to rename it but I don't think it's needed as I don't know how a game could use isometric projection and not be a computer/video game. "Category:Platform games" is not named "Category:Computer and video platform games" either, for the same reason. - Carlwev 20:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is entirely POV. Vastly most, if not all, of the films listed were never cited as being "anti-war" by their creators. The idea that "all war films are anti-war," which must be what this category was built on, is definitely POV, and at least redundant, if not propagandist.

• Delete - As the nominator stated, this category has a POV problem. According to this category, any war film that includes critical thinking is an anti-war film. George J. Bendo 12:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 12:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV. I vaguely recall seeing it before. (Radiant) 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See May 3rd discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Discussion here is of a knee-jerk nature, as I've just looked at the category and see that many of the films there were intended as such by their directors. That's not POV, that's verifiability. Please keep deletion/keep votes based on facts and verifiability rather than instinct or gut feeling. Badagnani 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If Category:Vietnam War films had not been made a subcategory of Category:Anti-war films, I would believe you. Moreover, even if the category's current contents were all explicitly described by their creators as anti-war, the category may still potentially have POV problems in the future. George J. Bendo 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since Der Fuehrer's Face or The Great Dictator or MASH (film) or Patton (film) could each qualify, or not, depending on your perspective. - jc37 09:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When looking at the list, who is to know whether it is in good shape or not that day? Without that comfort it is unusable by the discrimating user. Choalbaton 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anti-war film could be made into a fine article. The intent of the filmmakers and the audiences reactions could be discussed and documented with citations. This category it is at best a POV magnet and not very useful. -- Samuel Wantman 07:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[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. David Kernow (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatantly POV category that collects incidents where someone has alleged in writing that there was a conspiracy to blame the incident on someone else. See its intro text. At the very least the category name is misleading. "Incidents that someone has alleged in writing to be a foreign flag operation" would be more accurate, but I question the precedent keeping such a category would set, as it would make Wikipedia a catalog of defamatory allegations. Note we already have Category:Conspiracy theories. --agr 11:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 12:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Well, the American government has said some of the entries in the category are indeed 'false flag' operations! Are you accusing the American government of lying? Operation Northwoods is declassified! The government admits it was a planned false flag operation. How can declassified documents from the Joint Chiefs of Staff be accused of being POV? Thats nonsense! Operation Ajax is also declassified. You can learn about it on the official CIA website. Are you saying the CIA are lying on their public website? Quite a serious accusation I must say. Why would the American government and the CIA lie, claiming they had planned / carried out false flag operation on their websites? What is your justification for making such implicit claims? Thats POV if ever I saw it. Putting your personal opinions, onto declassified documents released from official government websites, claming the documents mean something other than what they clearly state. As for conspiracy theories, when something is based upon declassified American government documents, drawn up and signed off by the Joint chiefs of Staff, I don't see how you can call it a 'conspiracy theory.' Its a fact. Your personal revulsion at the facts in this instance, is the POV here. Your text seems to show complete ignornace of the subject matter, and I don't see how something signed off in writing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff could be called a 'conspiracy theory.' If you don't accept the signed written word of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what would you accept as a verfiable external source for WIKI entires on American military operations? Timharwoodx 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article10.html - The day-to-day running of TPAJAX. The plan comprised propaganda, provocations, demonstrations, and bribery, and employed agents of influence, "false flag" operatives, dissident military leaders, and paid protestors. Is user agr accusing the CIA of lying? On what basis is he making that claim. What research can he quote to prove the CIA is lying in this instance, when it says it carried out a 'false flag' operation? Having made the claim, he must cite his written, externally verfiable source. And what about the New York Times article on AJAX. Is the New York Times not an acceptable source either? Please state why the New York Times is not a acceptable external source! Timharwoodx

• Speedy Delete -- I see "USS Liberty incident" and "Robert Kennedy assassination" there now, which means that it's being used for blatant propaganda purposes. To remove such temptation in future, delete with extreme prejudice... AnonMoos 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The WIKI entry on the Liberty incident states sources that claiming it was a false flag operation. How can you have false flag content, but not a false flag category? Thats completely inconsistent editing. And on what basis do you cast doubt on what the survivors of the attack have to say about the matter? They were there. Timharwoodx 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above response illustrates precisely why the category should be deleted. Allegations in an article can be balanced by other sources, but a category tag cannot, unless we want dueling categories ("Incidents unjustly accused of being a foreign flag operation according to some source") I notice that the September 11, 2001 attacks are not tagged, though there are many who have claimed in writting that it was Israeli/CIA plot. Indeed almost ever conspiracy theory alleges some shifting of blame. --agr 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom and AnonMoos Brimba 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The inherent neutrality problems are obvious. Mackensen (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Mackensen. Clearly this is a propaganda drive, and has no place in wikipedia. False flag and conspiracy theory acusations can be properly addressed and debated in the respective articles -- they should not be applied via a standard brand. --Astarf 23:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mackensen. Piccadilly 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Mackensen and Astarf. JoshuaZ 14:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[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. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wéi (韋) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wèi (衛) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wáng (王) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Lǐ (李) (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Guō (郭) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Dúgū (獨孤) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Dīng (丁) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Chén (陳) (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Clan MacNeil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- added 24 Nov 2006 per discussion below by Nlu (talk · contribs)

Delete, these categories do not seem to provide any user value. They categorize by surname only, which is a trivial personal attribute. Such attributes, as Wikipedia:Categorization of people tells us, are better dealt with by lists -- and in fact, lists for most if not all of these have already been created. I should also note that putting Korean Lees, Jeongs and Wangs under the Chinese pronunciation of their name is extremely problematic; however, I think that only goes to show how problematic these categories are. Visviva 11:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I jokingly argued elsewhere that a Category:People named George would be useless because it would simply collect articles about people who otherwise have nothing to do with each other. I had not realized that someone had actually done this for Chinese surnames. George J. Bendo 12:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. However, if kept, should be renamed to remove Chinese. English Wikipedia should not have category names that require non-Roman support. --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Nlu. --Neo-Jay 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Wikipedia is not used for geneology, and something so arbitrary as a name is not a useful way to categorize articles. —Cswrye 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I see no point in creating categories for Chinese surnames either. If there is any need of expansion of categories, it is Category:Chinese people by province.--Niohe 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If these last names are too trivial to categorise with why do we have entire frikking articles on these last names? Including an FA, incidentally? Delete those too, will ya? That said, get rid of the Chinese characters in the names. -- Миборовский 16:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I cringe every time that I see a disambigous article about a grouping based on last names. It makes no sense to me why unrelated or distantly related people should be grouped. Categorizing them makes even less sense IMHO (if that's possible). Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I do not have the expertise to comment. Royalbroil ^T : C 16:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This categorization is not useful. --Astarf 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Comment Why do you think it is not useful to group people with their family names? Especially in English Wikipedia, Chinese names use different standard for different people, for example, Priscilla Chan, Chen Hong, and Tiffany Chin all have the same family name, but the romanizations confuse the users who want to find other people with the same surname, or say, it is impossible to do this job without create such categories. So this categories really help and are useful. Yao Ziyuan 23:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand, Jackie Chan, whose surname was 成, pronounces as "Chéng" (different with 陳), has the same spelling with Priscilla Chan, whose surname pronounces as "Chén". Yao Ziyuan 01:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Jackie Chan's real chinese surname is 陳 (Chan). 成龍 is only a his 'entertainer's name' Ohconfucius 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Saying surname is trivial is essentially western bias. Surnames are very important to Chinese people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - This category is extremely useful. Previous to this category, there was no way to locate or group articles about individuals with a particular Chinese surname, as romanizations can vary between the dialects, and according to personal preference. Thus, this is very helpful to my own research and I am certain to others' as well. Perhaps some of the editors commenting negatively above won't use the category for this purpose, but I ask at least that this be considered with seriousness. Badagnani 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Why exactly should Chinese people be grouped by family name? This is not done for Western family names which make up the bulk of English Wikipedia bios. Mike Dillon 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Maybe you should do some reading. The only answer I can come up with at this moment is ethnocentrism on your part. It's even worse that you should vote before having done this. You certainly don't even seem to have read my comment just above either. Badagnani 03:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I read you comment, but I just don't see a precedent here on English Wikipedia. I can't see how creating Chinese surname categories does anything to reduce "ethnocentrism". Mike Dillon 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't want make this problem politicized, but technically speaking, these categories help. It organizes people with names in Chinese characters in a certain way, and a useful way. That is my opinion. Yao Ziyuan 03:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It was mentioned above (yet ignored by most of the "Delete" voters) that the Chinese have a pervasive believe in a shared bond between individuals sharing a surname which is different from that of the West. Beyond this it is also of great utility for researchers to being able to locate individuals with the same surname who may use a slightly (or even wildly) different romanization, due to the differences between Chinese dialects. This alone makes the categories extremely useful. Keep in mind also that for historical reasons there are a very restricted number of Chinese surnames, in contrast to the likely tens of thousands or more surnames of Anglo-Saxon origin. Badagnani 03:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - How does this mean that English Wikipedia should start having surname categories? Attempting to promulgate a Chinese categorization in a way that is unlikely to increase the understanding of those who don't already understand the language is also ethnocentric. Attempting to maintain NPOV by including conflicting ethnocentric viewpoints isn't necessarily bad, but I maintain that the categories are not useful (as in likely to be used correctly) on English Wikipedia. Mike Dillon 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Again your comment is presumptuous and absolutely incorrect. I have already stated that the category is not only useful, but very useful, in order to research and locate individuals with a common Chinese surname. Believe it or not (you clearly do not), that is something that often comes up in East Asian historical and cultural research, and due to the limited number of Chinese surnames the categories would not get out of hand the way they would for surnames of Anglo-Saxon origin. I've asked that you seriously consider such research (my own, and that of other users who come here to add to their knowledge of East Asian subjects) but you seem determined to prove, somehow, despite the fact that other editors are telling you that they would use such categories regularly in their research, that it is not useful. I don't believe we can continue our discussion if that is the mode of discourse you will continue to adhere to. Badagnani 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think you're mischaracterizing me to say my comment is "presumptuous", but I'm not going to fight with you about this. I've said what I have to say on this topic. Go ahead and continue your canvassing and let's see where this discussion leads. Mike Dillon 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was forced to use the word simply because I had already stated the usefulness of the categories to my own research, yet you stated, categorically, that "the categories are not useful." Perhaps you should have added "...to me," and I would not have had to use such an adjective. Badagnani 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Badagnani, please try to keep a cool head. Proclaiming that other people's viewpoints and comments are "incorrect" is not helping you own cause.

It may be true that Chinese surname categories are useful for your research, but I would do that research on Chinese Wikipedia. At least that is what I do when I need more precise information on things Chinese, especially biographic information. Talking about Chinese Wikipedia, I wonder what the reaction would be if someone started to create categories in non-Chinese characters. My guess is that that such a move would invite the wrath of many editors and calls to move to another more appropriate version of Wikipedia. In my experience, Chinese Wikipedia is far less tolerant of the introduction of "foreign" concepts that English Wikipedia. Just my two cents.--Niohe 16:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Check out O'Neill and O'Donnell. Not only are they interesting to read, but they are also strongly linked with Western historical events. I hope these don't come up for deletions anytime soon. For further interest, it was recently discovered that huge numbers of male individuals with Gallagher, Boyle, O'Donnell, and O'Doherty are actually genetically related to the 5th century Irish warlord "Niall of the Nine Hostages" of the “Ui Neill” dynasty [1]. So infact, surnames and family do matter! :) Sjschen 06:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Interesting! But it's the categories, not articles, that are in question. (Such as Category:Chén (陳) (surname)). Badagnani 06:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong, strong keep per above. There're good reasons why articles like Yuan (surname) can become featured articles. Also, we need to establish categories for the remaining common Chinese surnames, as is already done without controversy in the Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yikes, my bad, again. Sjschen 06:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems that some editors having already voted "delete" have dealt with editors trying to begin categories for surnames of European origin. Unfortunately they have voted without first considering this (those who didn't already know). I have attempted to explain the limited number of Chinese surnames (fewer than 100 common ones, and not many more above that) and the utility of such categories to the research of those interested in East Asian culture and history. It seems that the question is, why have categories for Chinese surnames and not for names of European origin? I see at Category:Surnames that there are articles for various surnames of European origin. However, there is the necessity for a targeted category for Chinese surnames, for the reasons stated above, as simply inserting the Chinese surnames into the "Surnames" category would render them difficult to find. A Chinese surnames subcategory, linking to individual surname articles containing Wikilinked lists of individuals with that surname might do the trick, by a different route. Let's explore these options before wantonly voting in an off-handed manner. Badagnani 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. However, please note that Category:Chinese family names is not up for deletion, only the categories. While it is clearly useful to be able to find Chinese surnames, it is not as clearly useful to be have surname categories containing X number of otherwise unrelated individuals. :-) -- Visviva 06:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per above. In some ways I can understand why certain people will suggest deletions for these articles. Yet so far, the reasons I have seen for proposing deletions are either somewhat misguided, and in certain cases, simply ignorant. For myself, until reading the articles, I had no idea that so many different names from different cultures are related to one another. But cultural significance and personal preference aside, the articles do give insight to the origins of the surnames, which more often that not intricately linked to East Asia's often tumultuous history; an important consideration. I do agree that putting the surnames of all other cultures (read "non-Chinese") under the Mandarin pronounciation is a culturally biased and quite problematic, but that does not justify all out deletions of the articles. Major reorganization perhaps, but definitely not deletions. Sjschen 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I speak Chinese and I am fully aware of the importance of Chinese surnames, so please don't call me misguided or ignorant. For encyclopedic purposes, I simply don't see what the added value of having a Chinese surname category would be on English Wikipedia. A separate article and/or disambiguation pages are far better solutions that will not burden the number of China related categories.--Niohe 16:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's not the articles that are in question, but the categories, such as Category:Chén (陳) (surname). There are many articles for both Asian and European surnames. Good point about Mandarin romanization. Badagnani 06:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Oops..someone can't read English. Thanks for the catch. Sjschen 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: 1. Wikipedia can, should, and in most cases does provide a means for locating people sharing a common surname. This is done by the individual surname articles, which should include a comprehensive list (or lists) of notable people bearing that name, regardless of romanization. It is always a challenge to keep such lists current, but maintaining categories does not seem to be any less challenging. 2. I'm not as familiar with the Chinese situation, but in Korea there is not so much a bond between people bearing a family name as between members of a specific lineage, such as the Munhwa Ryu or Gyeongju Kim. Where such lineages exist with sufficient numbers and notability, it would be A-OK to create categories for specific ones, as subcategories of Category:Chinese families. Being a member of a notable family is a notable attribute, worthy of categorization; happening to bear a notable family name, methinks, is not. If the Chinese situation is different, please explain. -- Visviva 06:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that the individual surname articles could be a place to list people with the same surname. Perhaps Yao Ziyuan would agree to compromise in this way, leading to a happer and more pluralistic outcome than is usually the case at this page. The only concern is a huge listing of people in the articles. Probably, though, it could work. However, the problem is the different romanizations between Chinese (and its dialects), Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese, so the list of names would be separated into several articles, grouped by nation. Badagnani 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think that's what we've been working towards for some time. For example, see Zhang (surname) and Jang (Korean name), which was spun off from the former. If the categories are kept, we will need to do something similar for them too, if only to keep them manageable. From my experience with the surname lists, the big problem (as with List of people by surname itself) is that very few people are willing to invest the time to keep such lists updated. However, I don't think that categories will be any less problematic in this regard; they will simply leave us with two separate systems that are seldom updated. -- Visviva

• Anyway, categories are much easier to maintain than list. For list, you have to edit two separated articles. I don't know what your habit of editing. I'm lazy, I usually only edit the biography article itself and leave the list not updated. But if we use categories, you can done this job within a single article. That's the benefit. Yao Ziyuan 08:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point. Badagnani 08:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I understand completely why articles about names are valuable and can be interesting; but the categories are useless, except in the case of people being actually directly related (e.g. Category:Minamoto clan, Category:House of Tudor). I really don't know if it's appropriate to be accusing people of ethnocentrism here. Please can someone explain why someone reading an article on Kelly Chen would be interested in finding other people, completely unrelated by blood or by history, named Chen? Truly, I do understand the romanization issue; but regardless of the romanization, what purpose does it serve to have completely unrelated topics like Trần Đức Lương, Arthur Chin, Chen Fake, and Chin Peng in the same category? When or why would a user want to navigate between these articles? LordAmeth 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why not simply say "useless to me?" I've already explained at least two or three times (have you read through the prior discussion?) that it is of great importance to my own research (and that of many others) on East Asian history and culture to be able to have at hand a list of everyone possessing a particular Chinese family name (however they be romanized). It can otherwise be immensely difficult to locate people with common Asian surnames because of these different dialectical romanizations. The insistence on using the word "useless" without adding "...to me, because it isn't my area of expertise" is a bit grating, when other editors know that this is not correct as regards their own use of Wikipedia. As mentioned earlier, Chinese Wikipedia does contain Chinese surname categories, which has caused no controversy. It is my understanding that there is a general feeling of solidarity between individuals bearing the same family name (as for example with Chinese family associations), though they may be only distantly related. Badagnani 08:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a lot of things that are useless to me, or to you, based on our specific research foci. But considering the complete lack of historical, familial, even cultural, connections between, say, people whose name is "Chen", I'm afraid that objectively, it's just as useful as "category:people named George". It may prove interesting and useful for someone studying the history of the name George, but it serves no purpose in terms of encyclopedic organization. Jumping from people to their direct familial relations, or to wars they fought in, or to people who fought in the same wars as them, just as examples, are the sorts of things that prove useful for organizational purposes. John Lennon and John Jay, or for that matter J. Edgar Hoover and Herbert Hoover are just as unrelated to one another as Takeshi Murakami and Haruki Murakami. It may apply to your personal research, and that's great. But the vast majority of the rest of us, even those who specialize in Chinese history, find this useful or necessary. LordAmeth 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Could you give an example of how these categories would be used in your research? Sorry if I missed it above, but I think it would be helpful in establishing the relevance to English Wikipedia. Mike Dillon 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor the point, but I do believe I have explained several times now (four times now?) that it is useful to me, and likely other students of Chinese and other East Asian cultures, to identify individuals sharing a common surname. This is useful in historical, ethnographic, and ethnolinguistic research, as well as in tracing the evolution of the family names themselves -- regional distribution of family names (some are only prevalent in certain provinces of China, while others, like Cui, may indicate a Korean ethnic origin); further, the pronunciation differences between dialects as well as differences between choice of romanization between Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, varous Cantonese and Min Nan dialects, etc. can easily be seen. Then, finally, there's simply the interest of seeing the list of people sharing the same surname, which wouldn't have been possible without the category. I really don't believe I needed to justify my personal use of such categories in such detail, and that simply stating their usefulness would be enough for other editors to respect, but so be it. Badagnani 20:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for the explanation. I'd just like to point out that it is not enough for a category to be useful to you or me; it needs to be helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia for readers and speakers of the English language. As was stated by someone else here, these things seem better researched on the Wikipedia variants for the local languages. Mike Dillon 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I repeat, this is an encyclopedia written in English language, not an encyclopedia for people only speak English. That's also one of reasons that why we must have a neutral point of view (or say God's view), but not an English-speaking people's point of view. We should write articles as accurate as possible. Not everyone here can only read English. Personally speaking, for example, when I read article like Oda Nobunaga, I don't know who he is (actually I know him very well), until I read kanji "織田信長" and I know everything. The romanization always confuses me when reading Japan and Korea-related articles. This is my personal feeling, but I don't think this is only my problem. I think many people from Japan, Korea, or even native English speaker may confuse with many different romanizations actually refer to the same things. OK, This seems off topic. But my idea here is that, English Wikipedia should benefit people as most as possible. If you don't read those Chinese characters, you can read this encyclopedia, no problem. If you read some, then you can get more. There are many people in here with only a beginner level of Chinese skill, or speak Japanese or some other East Asian languages, who cannot read Chinese Wikipedia. They also have right to do those research. If we can solve the problem by only adding some categories, why must have those people who want to do such research go to Chinese Wikipedia after learning an advanced level of Chinese? Yao Ziyuan 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yao Ziyuan, no one is suggesting to ban Chinese characters from Wikpedia articles. As a matter of fact I am a strong proponent of including Chinese characters and non-English language names in Wikipedia articles. But when we start to create categories and articles that include non-Roman characters, we need to go back to basics and consider who the target audience for Wikipedia actually is. If we are making it difficult for people who do not know Chinese and Japanese to search for information on China and Japan on Wikipedia, we are failing the very purpose of a encylcopedia. There have actually been complaints about China related articles being written in a way that make them difficult to follow for people who know no Chinese.

• Comment - I read your opinion. It is only a technical problem, and it can be solved: (1) read: as I have said, if you read them, no problem, obviously; if you don't, just ignore them. (2) edit other part of the article: just edit it, no differences. (3) work with categories: You can modifies other categories as usual, adding, removing, and etc; however if you want to add an article to a Chinese surname category, you would better have knowledge of Chinese character to add the article to correct category, but if you don't care if the category correct or not, you can do the job without Chinese knowledge, copy the title of the category, paste it in the article, bracket with "[[" and "]]", Wikipedia uses Unicode, on modern operating systems, even without Chinese font installed, the copy-and-paste can still work properly, result of no question mark. So you see, no technical problems here. Yao Ziyuan 16:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now to use your own example, if I were faced with a Japanese name such as 織田信長, I can cut and paste the name into Japanese Wikipedia and then jump from there to the English article or a number of other versions of Wikipedia.--Niohe 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might misunderstood me. I mean, the Oda Nobunaga article in English Wikipedia looks great, and I want to read the English version, but the problem is I don't know who it was talking about without kanji (because I have so many background knowledges under term "織田信長", but not Oda Nobunaga). Yes, I can read Japanese or Chinese Wikipedia instead, but not always, English has 1.5 million articles, Japanese only has a quarter of. Another problem, you can see this category Category:Lacking Chinese text. It was me added most of articles in the category. For an instance, Lady Xu Mu in the category, no Chinese characters in it, not I was lazy and not want to add Chinese for it, actually I even do not know who Lady Xu Mu the article is talking about after did a couple times of googling, what state of Wei, what 660 BC keywords don't help to recognize who this Lady Xu Mu was. Yao Ziyuan 16:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a purely hypothetical case here, because the article on Oda Nobunaga already has Chinese characters/kanji and most biographical articles on Japanese people do as well. I do not think anyone would mind if you added Chinese charcaters to articles that lack them. The problem starts when you create articles and categories in English Wikipedia that include Chinese characters, then you are effectively shutting out people with no Chinese language skills.--Niohe 16:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nonono... The Chinese characters in category names is only in bracket, so it is not an critical factor. I've said many times, it's only for disambiguation purpose. Yao Ziyuan 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Family names are special, unlike given names, family names usually can't be chose by oneself, but inherited from ancestors. A famous Chinese saying says: 500 years ago, people with the same surname are in one single family. (roughly translation), people with the same family names have some relations, even though the relations are not very obviously sometimes. I am not sure if this true in West. Yao Ziyuan 09:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There seems to be a lot of assertion that it's trivial or pointless to categorise Chinese people by surname. I can't stress enough how this is western bias. Chinese people have formed social and community associations based on nothing but having a common surname, even when the people in these associations are not "directly" related. I can completely see why someone might be interested in reading about notable Chinese people with a specific surname. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Be careful before you denounce opposing view points as "Western bias", whatever that is supposed to mean. If I introduced non-Chinese character categories in Chinese Wikipedia, would I be justified to accuse my opponents of Han Chinese chauvinism just out of hand, or do you think I should try to understand their arguments by their own merits? This is a real problem in Chinese Wikipedia, as people who have taken part in the debate on the term zh:中国本土 are aware of. --Niohe 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I suggest we make an experiment on Chinese Wikipedia, introducing Latin name categories for families of plants and animinals. I think such an introduction of categories would be of immense value both users of Chinese Wikipedia, and we would set a precedent for categories, which can be exported to other language versions of Wikipedia. Thus we would create categories such as zh:Category:学名分类Homo for human species, zh:Category:学名分类Oryza for rice species, etc. Are you with me?--Niohe 19:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a comparable example, as I believe all the Asian Wikipedias present the Latin names within the articles themselves. Further, it isn't the presence of the hanzi in the Chinese family names categories that is of utmost import here; it is the existence of categories grouping people by their Chinese surnames. Let's address that, not fool around. Badagnani 20:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have been trying to address the point, but from the tenor of your contributions I take it that you are not willing to engage in a civil discussion so I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Thank you.--Niohe 03:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've no particular bias about this subject, but it seems that a perfectly workable compromise has been mentioned that could be acceptable to all, and that is to make articles about each of these surnames that include lists of people now in the categories. In each person's article, their surname can be linked to the article. This seems as useful as having a category (perhaps more so). Articles have the ability to discuss and explain things that categories cannot, and the links to it would be at the lead of the article instead of at the bottom. I wonder if family names are any more important to the Chinese than they are to the Scottish, and suggest for the purpose of international harmony that we don't start categorizing by last name. I for one, would not know where and how to draw the line if we allow some surname categorization and not others. It is likely that if we allow this, then Scottish names will get categorized using this as a precident, and soon every biography will be categorized by surname. It is easier to stick to the guideline and not have any surname categories. Since having articles with lists are as good (or better) than having a category, It doesn't seem like a sacrifice. -- Samuel Wantman 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for the input, Samuel. Your taking the time to explore the subject in a thoughtful way rather than a simple up-down vote is sincerely appreciated, and I wish you might be able to impart the idea of participating here in such a way to your colleagues who frequent this page. Regarding your comment about the Scots, I do notice that there is a Category:Clan MacNeil but that notwithstanding I think your proposal could work. For the more common surnames there might be a list of 100 or more names, then, in the article, although I suppose in such a case that the list got too long it could be split into a separate article such as "People named Li." There is still the problem of how exactly to title the articles, due to the various romanizations (Mandarin, Cantonese, Min Nan, etc.), and the existence of different surnames with the same pronunciation but different tones and/or Chinese characters. Perhaps they could all be listed in the same article, each with its own subsection. Alternatively, there could be separate articles for each family name, with the Chinese character in the title, as Yao Ziyuan has begun doing; it does seem a good solution to me. Badagnani 02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Dude. Please stop implying that people who disagree with you are not thoughtful or failing to follow this discussion. Mike Dillon 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wiki is not paper, as Jimbo Wales have said, hard disks are cheap. Please don't aware of adding categories, as long as the category is useful to readers. Yao Ziyuan 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I don't think it applies to categories as clearly as it does to articles. As Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes reminds us, "categories become less effective the more there are on a given article," and thus are normally restricted to prominent aspects of the article subject. The real question here is: for Chinese and Korean figures, is the surname alone sufficiently prominent to merit a category?

At any rate, as the originator of this discussion (something I'm beginning to regret), let me stress that I do respect your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this area. I just think that if we're going to start using categories for this sort of thing, which has previously been done only by lists, it needs to be a community decision. Although at present it looks likely to be another community indecision...  ;-) Cheers, -- Visviva 07:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, Wikis are not paper. But deciding what gets put into a category is as much an editorial decision as deciding what belongs in an article. This is not just paper, not just a hard disk, it is an encyclopedia. If we categorize every article by surname we are saying that this is a defining characteristic of each and every person. Categories organize knowledge. This isn't flickr.com, where everyone gets to tag things however they want. This is a community process where we make decisions about what categories are useful and meaningful. We have guidelines to help us make those decisions, and the process on this page helps us decide where to draw the line in the grey areas of our policy. -- Samuel Wantman 07:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just happened to look at this discussion yesterday on my parents' computer while visiting for Thanksgiving and was reminded of something pretty important: most readers of English Wikipedia do not have CJK fonts at all. On their computer, this page was full of indistinguishable question marks, not Chinese characters. As a former linguist, I have a ton of fonts installed for languages I don't know in order to be able to at least see the differences, if not understand them; however, I'm pretty sure I'm in a tiny minority of English speaking Wikipedia users in that regard. I see two usability problems for this proposal for English-language editors, given the fact that people frequently edit articles they don't fully understand: 1) people will start copying these categories to articles on which they don't belong, assuming that they are generic for the name(s) "Li", etc.; 2) some of these people will copy them in such a way that they actually become question marks. Now, these things can be cleaned up, but as was noted above, these categories probably will not be actively maintained and there will be a longer turn-around on the cleanup. Mike Dillon 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this thread is getting too long, I replies at bottom. Even for users who don't have Chinese font installed, he can still copy-and-paste text with Chinese characters in it on modern operating systems. No problem. Yao Ziyuan 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they cannot if they are unlucky enough to have the wrong font (which is nearly always, if they do not enable CJK support in the OS). The characters will appear as question marks/boxes/garbage chars and get copied around as such. I tried it before on both Linux and Windows XP. Kimchi.sg 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not about font's business. They select, and do copy-and-paste, even without any fonts installed, they can still do copy-and-paste, no problems, and works very well (perhaps they cannot see what they copied, what they pasted, but the text indeed have pasted, and pasted correctly.) Yao Ziyuan 17:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may be the case with operating systems updated within the last one or two years, but many (if not most) people in the English Wikipedia demographic still have OS's and browsers with crappy unicode support. Mike Dillon 17:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the benefit of Unicode. All modern operating systems and browsers should support it. And that's also why interwikiers running English OS can work among different Wikipedias. Yao Ziyuan 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "They should" ≠ "they do". Please be understanding of the population that do not have unicode support - it is more than you think. Kimchi.sg 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. "They should" here almost equals to "they do". Don't you know Wikipedia itself is now using Unicode (UTF-8) encoding? If "they" don't have unicode support, they can't even read this discussion. Yao Ziyuan 18:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please do not make straw man arguments. "Wikipedia" refers to the servers. These support Unicode entirely. How the diverse variety of browsers render the data sent to them from the servers is another thing totally. If you've to stoop to this sort of reasoning to argue for keeping these categories then I must say your case is very weak indeed. Kimchi.sg 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not servers' thing. The server send HTML response over HTTP connection. The HTML response is in UTF-8 encoding, which must be decoded by the browser at client side. I suggest you go to a technical space and ask people there if you don't believe. I'm an IT expert. Yao Ziyuan 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Support for displaying UTF-8 has been decent for a little longer than two years. It's support for editing texts with missing glyphs that has only recently caught up. Mike Dillon 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's not "two years" thing. Full Unicode support on Windows since Windows 2000. Windows 98 with latest version of Internet Explorer have no problems too. I'm using Mac OS X, which has full Unicode support. Linux/BSD/..., every modern OS, no problems. Consider my example above, you can do interwiki between http://te.wikipedia.org (you can't read it without proper font) and English Wikipedia, now. Yao Ziyuan 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a matter of being able to display it. You're assuming that everyone who edits these articles can type Chinese, which would be a highly erroneous assumption. Again, English Wikipedia shouldn't have category names that require non-Roman support. --Nlu (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment - I second Nlu's contribution above. There more I read the comments above by Yao Ziyuan and others, the stronger I feel that they are trying to make Wikipedia into something that it is not. Frankly speaking, I do not care if Unicode has been working for two years or two hours, the fundamental point is that we should not create a situation where parts of Wikipedia become inaccessible to non-speakers of Chinese.

Delete a character from the categories proposed for deletion above, and you are going nowhere. Delete a character or a diacritic from Lǐ (李) (surname), and you end up nowhere too.

The whole point of English Wikipedia is the create a encyclopedia which is accessible to speakers of English and to which speakers of English and other languages can make contributions. I am very worried about tendencies is some part of the Wikipedia community to create spaces that only are accessible to speakers of a certain language. I know of talk pages and user talk pages that are littered with text in languages that most people using Wikipedia do not speak. The only thing these people seem to care about is that the "correct" version of "their" community gets "represented" on Wikipedia, careless whether that their contributions make sense to other members of the community. I once had to engage in a lengthy debate with someone who wanted to create a special article for Chinese city walls under the pinyin transcription for city wall - Cheng qiang.

None of this is a problem as long as we keep these tendencies under control, but I am worried that we will provoke a backlash against subjects on East Asian topics if we go further down the path of . unintelligibility. I think that surname categories - with or without Chinese characters is one step in that direction and that is why I voice my concern here.--Niohe 20:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, since our normal use of Chinese characters here is so minimal, and in fact only supplemental in nature, the situation is actually the opposite of your fear: the presence of the hanzi (Chinese characters, that is) serves to educate and elucidate for non-Chinese readers. That's the case across the board in English Wikipedia, for articles on a wide variety of Chinese topics: the characters' presence in the article is certainly not only for native Chinese readers, or even Chinese learners, but everyone can benefit from them. They clarify the subject being talked about with an additional level of detail that leaves no doubt what is being discussed. The case is not as extreme as you pose, because the character is used strictly for disambiguation. Also, we're always happy to help users whose browsers do not display correctly. CJK is a standard part of Windows, though input methods must be downloaded and installed if one wishes to type in these languages. Badagnani 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've seen, nobody here wants to remove Chinese glosses (or any other language) from articles. I certainly don't and welcome them wherever they make sense and can elucidate a particular topic. Mike Dillon 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Niohe 21:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment regards the "Chinese walls" discussion mentioned above. If there was a very particular sort of Chinese wall that has a certain Chinese name, perhaps that deserved to be called that way. We don't call pu-erh simply "Chinese tea" or dizi simply "Chinese flute" because there are so many kinds of Chinese teas and flutes. But I don't know enough about Chinese walls to say. Just some things to think about. Badagnani 20:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all the scorn you heap on others for not understanding your contributions, it is quite remarkable that you haven't even bothered to think this through. Of course, we can teach people to type CJK, but if parts of English Wikipedia becomes unaccessible to people who just want to search for articles and not learn to type charcaters, then we are failing the purpose of this project.--Niohe 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you interpreted scorn (let alone a "heap" of it) from the above, but in any case, what I said is that hanzi (Chinese characters) can be useful. In any case, we are discussing Chinese family name categories having hanzi as a parenthetical adjunct here. Generally categories aren't searched for via the "search" box but instead found down below, in the "categories" section of a particular article. Thus, it wouldn't be necessary to type in Chinese characters to use such categories, especially as there would be an overarching category "Category:Chinese surnames." Badagnani 21:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. We should not create categories that are superfuluous and are difficult to access. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have [[2]] for that.--Niohe 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now we're away from the argument against the use of hanzi in category titles and back to the legitimacy of the family names categories themselves again? It's getting confusing? As stated above, you should state "superfluous to me" instead of simply "superfluous," in regard to the utility of being able to locate individuals with WP bios sharing the same Chinese family name. I don't believe that information can be found on Wiktionary. Regarding difficulty of accessing, I don't think that is a problem due to the supercategory "Chinese surnames," which would contain all of the discrete surname articles and categories. There are varying ways of gaining access to this information, however, as mentioned above; there's the possibility that the discrete family name articles themselves can contain lists of individuals with that surname as a substitute for the category. It's this sort of compromise we should be working on, so we can all have the best, most useful Wikipedia for all of our purposes. But continuing to insist that being able to locate individuals of Chinese descent according to their surname is "superfluous" and "useless" when (many) other editors have said that it is indeed useful, is not helpful. No one has addressed the fact, either that there is at least one Scottish surname category which has not been actively opposed. Why is that? Badagnani 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because not that many names are included in that category and that it links to the more general Category:Scottish clans. The best lesson from this category is that it should be OK to create pages for Chinese surnames and then link them together through Category:Chinese surname. That would make it simpler and will not burden Chinese related articles with too many categories.--Niohe 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks that noone is bothered by the use and abuse of Chinese characters, read this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Unimpressed_with_Chinese_Articles.--Niohe 21:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how seriously to take that particular editor's criticism, because no articles were specified, even after the editor was asked. Of course there are many poorly written or organized articles on all subjects. But that's the beauty of our system, that s/he was presumably able to improve their clarity. Your comment below was good. Badagnani 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is nominally a CfD on all family name categories (per the title), I'd argue that Category:Clan MacNeil should be included in addition to the listed categories if it is indeed a "family name" category and not a "clan history" category. While I can see such a category including people who are central to the clan's history (and I would support something similar for Chinese names if there were a demonstrated need), I don't think it should be kept as a general family name category. Mike Dillon 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense.--Niohe 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to be so hastily dismissive, and think these things through. There's not a simple standard governing these things because the concept of surname and clan do overlap in some cultures. There again seems to be a failure to distinguish between the shared belief (between Scotland and China) in a common bond between individuals possessing a particular family name (as seen, for example, in the Chinese family name associations). This aspect of Chinese surnames has been mentioned, but not seriously addressed, above, by some editors of Chinese heritage. This isn't the case, for example, with a name like "Johnson" because it simply means "son of John," or "Cooper," which means "barrel maker," because people with these names may have more diverse origins, for obvious reasons. I believe both the MacNeil and Chinese surname categories to be very useful, but, as mentioned earlier, there may be a way to compromise if we all work together (and respect one another's expertise and comments about the utility of particular groupings of information. Badagnani 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added Category:Clan MacNeil per discussion above. --Nlu (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badagani. Actually, if you paid more attention this debate, you would realize that people of Chinese origin are represented on both sides of this argument. Don't reduce this to a question of "heritage".--Niohe 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "This aspect of Chinese surnames has been mentioned, but not seriously addressed, above, by some editors of Chinese heritage." No aspect of that statement is incorrect. Of course I realize that not everyone with a particular heritage or from a particular ethnic group will agree. You are ascribing to me a dichotomy I did not impose on the discussion, every aspect of which I have paid close attention to. Badagnani 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just notified ZekeMacNeil (talk · contribs), the creator of Category:Clan MacNeil to let him weigh in on the discussion. Mike Dillon 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Names, which concluded it is undesirable to categorize people by name. --Kusunose 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. My objection boils down to the non-use of Roman characters, which I still believe is a fundamental issue for most users here. Having carefully read the interesting and passionate debate both here and at AfD for the surname Li, I still cannot see how we can keep these categories. There are indeed good and pertinent reasons why family categories can and should exist due as has been eloquently explained. However, Wiki is not 維基百科. The polarisation of this debate is because some do not accept we should live within the restrictions of using purely roman lettering, as I feel we must. Accepting the confines of the qwerty keyboard naturally implies that we would only have broad categories like [Category: People with the surname Li] (barenaked and without accents), and I fear would not satisfy those who are opposing deletion here. Ohconfucius 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The use or non-use of hanzi (Chinese characters) in the category titles is not the issue of greatest importance here; it is the existence of categories that allow our users to locate people with a common Chinese surname. I have asked, in all sincerity, contributors to assist in developing consensus or compromise on this subject; why not work together to do that rather than simply voting? Badagnani 07:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment quite agree that there are two issues being discussed here. And, yes, my objections are indeed two-fold. The premise that you are talking about is that people with the same surname Lǐ (李) regard themselves as relatives through that common "heritage". wiki is not a directory of genealogical entries. What is of real pertinence to an encyclopaedia is, cannot be whether Li Ka-shing and Lee Shau Kee are related fifteen generations up the line (which incidentally nobody in China would ever be able to prove except by folklore), but whether they have contributed to the history and evolution of the surname, and THAT, I would have to say is a very firm negative. The surname has NOTHING to do with how they got where they did today, and one could only tenously argue that the two above named individuals had something to do with where the name 李 has got to today. Ohconfucius 16:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That's obviously a very strongly held opinion on your part -- so strongly held, in fact, that you seem to be seeking to prevent all English-language Wikipedians from having any means to group individuals by common surname, despite the several valid research purposes of having such a grouping (such as research regarding geographical distribution of particular surnames), and without providing any alternative for such researchers to obtain this information. You've got to admire someone with such conviction and tenacity to prevent others from gaining the information they seek. I certainly don't have it. The criteria that the person must have done something to advance the family in order to be listed is obviously an arbitrary and again a personal criterion; many could argue that simply by being notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia, the individual with that surname is bringing notoriety to the family name. Badagnani 20:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No, unlike your sarastic (and potentially inflammatory remarks), that is a statement supported by Wikipedia policy.--Niohe 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not put words into my mouth. I've done is put forth my opinion in a civil manner, so there's no need to get personal. Ohconfucius 09:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The categories reflect the Chinese ideas of family and lineage, somewhat better than our covering of closely-knit clans. They are easier to research than long lists where classification mistakes are painful to correct due to length. User:Dimadick
  • Comment - To return to the discussion whether we should have separate categories for surnames, I would like to quote from What Wikipedia Is Not: "Wikipedia is not a directory: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not: ... 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries."--Niohe 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Another reason the categories should go - it is more troublesome than having Mediawiki do it. See Special:Prefixindex/陈 for example; for each Chinese biographical article just create a redirect with the subject's Chinese name as the page name and tag it ((R from alternate language)), then Mediawiki does the rest. Why do manually what can be done automatically? Kimchi.sg 16:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow... that's not far short of brilliant. Of course the main problem is that many such redirects haven't been created yet, but they can & should be (it would be a fairly straightforward bot job for the known articles, working from the surname lists) regardless of the outcome here. -- Visviva 16:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really cool idea. Mike Dillon 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations on an elegant and creative solution. Ohconfucius 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Or else listify. — Instantnood 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a good reason. Not every redirect that start with a chinese character redirect to people with such surname. For example, see Special:Prefixindex/金. Some of the entries are not about people who have surname 金. --Kusunose 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all (make lists) There are alternatives, and this is a bad precedent. -- Samuel Wantman 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a genealogy[edit]

This is a disposable headline to make editing a bit easier. Please remove when discussion is completed.

• Keep. On average, the arguments of Keep voters have been far more sensitive. One misconception among Delete voters is the often repeated argument "wiki is not a directory of genealogical entries". I think this is based on a misunderstanding of the the word "genealogy" as "something related to family relations". As our article says, "Genealogy is the study and tracing of family pedigrees." This is not what these categories are about. — Other options:
  • Changing each category to a list is not a good idea; we would get all the disadvantages of lists, while few of its advantages make sense in our case.
  • Listing individuals in List of common Chinese surnames: Would be a desaster for some common names.
  • Using name articles instead of categories. In that case, the individual person's articles could roughly be found with "what links here". However, as in the case of "金", that list would include links from articles that are not about a person. — Sebastian (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concidering that there are so many people who are unrelated but share same surname, these categories would be useless for "the study and tracing of family pedigrees.". For example, Donald Knuth and Gao Xianzhi would be included in the same category Category:Gāo (高). We need better, well-defined categories than these simple people-who-happen-to-have-same-surname categories for such purpose. --Kusunose 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a misunderstanding--the editor above said that tracing family pedigrees is *not* what these categories are for. Contrary to the above statement, the family name categories are very useful for the purpose of grouping individuals sharing a common surname, allowing for research about the geographical distribution of specific surnames, the tracing of prominent individuals with a particular surname through Chinese history, etc. It seems clear that some editors feel that this is of great usefulness while others consider them "useless." That's not a contradiction; it just means that the first group of editors find such a grouping of information very useful, while others don't have such an interest in the distribution of Chinese family names. I see no mention that Donald Knuth is of Chinese descent or possesses the Gao surname, so I don't quite understand that part. Badagnani 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the Chinese version of the article on Knuth, you'll find that he indeed has a Chinese name which includes the character 高. A question here: since when was this discussion a question of "Chinese descent" or "ethnicity"? I thought one of Yao Ziyuan's arguments for inclusion of these categories was that many of these surnames included non-Chinese. People of Chinese descent with the same surname may not be related at all, and many non-Han Chinese, such as Manchus and Hui, use Chinese surnames with no problem. Since when was there a problem that a foreigner uses a Chinese name?--Niohe 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. There should be no ethnic, or genealogical distinction. It's just about the name and potential perceived belonging. I think we don't have to worry about the longnoses, though. Even in the worst case if we included all of Category:Non-Chinese known by Chinese names with its subcategory (which I'm not proposing) it would only amount to 72 more entries. — Sebastian (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a fairly minor point. Norman Bethune or Joseph Needham, both of whom also had Chinese names, might merit inclusion (I'm not sure how either was "inducted" into their particular Chinese family), and similarly Chinese minorities who have adopted a Han surname, as mentioned above. However, the Donald Knuth article on English Wikipedia apparently doesn't consider his China connections important enough to mention at all. Badagnani 11:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to the original points:

• I don't really see how the disadvantages of lists apply. Certainly redundancy with categories won't be a rpoblem if the categories are deleted (and the lists have been around much longer, in fact).
• Surely nobody is suggesting listing individuals in a list of surnames; since most common surnames already have their own articles, this would make no sense at all.
• If the article contains (as it should) a comprehensive list of notable people bearing that surname, then Special:Whatlinkshere is only needed to help ensure comprehensiveness.
• Sorting people by trivial attributes is exactly what lists are for; it is specifically not what categories are for. -- Visviva 11:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing: as seen above, the categories may be trivial *to you*, but quite the opposite to others. And also the intent, as mentioned earlier, is not primarily for the individuals themselves but also to see the geographical and historical distribution of the names, as well as to transcend the various dialects and romanizations. Further, some editors have pointed out the drawbacks of the lists, but I believe these points haven't been responded to adequately, or at all. Badagnani 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[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 close, wrong deletion forum, I'll move this to WP:UCFD. --ais523 11:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Category:Wikipedians interested in comic books to Category:Wikipedians who read comic books, per this previous discussion. - jc37 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[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 no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories named after television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary layer between Category:Television series and the individual series categories, which be in appropriate subcategories. Tim! 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, I don't see how this is an unncessary layer. It is necessary to clean up the television categories. It is to be used the same way as Category:Categories named after people. All these eponymous television show categories are being thrown into all the same categories as the article. This is creating a mess in categories, so I created this to follow Wikipedia:Categorization_and_subcategories#Topic_article_rule. It is very necessary to ease browsing of television cats. For example, you should haven't to browse through eponymous cats in Category:Sitcoms to find actual subcats necssary for browsing such as Category:Black sitcoms or Category:Animated sitcoms. It is also unnecessary duplication to include cats in both the cat and the article. I removed the duplicate cats from these cats but a user chose to add them all back without even contacting me on my talk page. Now everything is mixed up again. --musicpvm 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - duplicates the subcategories of Category:Television series, which are organised better. - jc37 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We do not need this category, nor do we need a Category:Categories that contain categories named after television series or a Category:Categories for categories that contain categories named after television series or so on and so forth. Category:Television series is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. George J. Bendo 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, otherwise categories are incorrectly placed in categories which only the main article should be in. For example, is every fictional character in Charmed a 1990s television series - no, they're fictional characters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So that would be: Category:Charmed characters per standard at Category:Television characters by series. - jc37 12:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but Category:Charmed characters is a subcategory of Category:Charmed. I digress. Is Book of Shadows (since we're running with this theme) an 1990s television series? Categories like Fantasy television series etc. should only be populated with articles IMO, even if that means categories named after television series (same goes for comic book characters) are left uncategorized.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A useful why of identifying series with more thorough coverage. Osomec 13:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per musicvpm. Currently there are nearly 200 of these, and when there are so many it works better to create a supercat just for them, just as we did for Category:Categories named after people -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. (Radiant) 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and review and delete many of the eponymous television categories The problem here is that many of the categories named after television programs should be deleted as unnecessary. Most television shows do not need their own category. Cast lists can be included in the main article or a subarticle, and the show is likewise listed in the actor's bio article, eliminating the need for "XXXX actors" categories. Episode listing merely need to appear as subcategories of Category:Episodes by television series. For many shows, there is no need for a unique, eponymous category specifically for that show - rather, the main article for the show can act as the central hub to find all information and other articles directly related to that show. So this nomination is, I think, simply a result of the symptom of the underlying problem which is that there are too many categories named after television shows to begin with, and many of them should be deleted. Continuing to add eponymous television categories for more and more shows will only exacerbate the problems. My two cents. Dugwiki 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are hundreds of categories about television shows, and I think the chance of getting them deleted is extremely slim. I personally find them useful, and it seems as if many others do as well. This category does not promote these cats, but is just a holding place for them to help organize the television category structure. --musicpvm 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. categorycruft. Vegaswikian 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Several users seem to not understand the purpose of this category. I don't see how it can be considered a "duplicate" or "categorycruft". The category was created to hold the hundreds of categories named after television shows so they can be removed from all the other categories that are solely for articles. This should be the only category those eponymous cats should be placed in (this follows Wikipedia's topic article rule). Currently, all these cats are being placed into all the same cats or a completely random portion of cats of the main article (there is absolutely no followed pattern or structure). Just browse through Category:Television series and you'll see what a mess it has become. I gave an example above. Another one is Category:Comedy television series: We can't have important browsing subcats such as Category:Sitcoms, Category:Television sketch shows, Category:Canadian comedy television series mixed up with cats like Category:Desperate Housewives and Category:My Name Is Earl. This type of categorization system makes absoultely no sense and just creates confusion and makes it difficult for Wikipedia's readers. Instead, all these cats such as Category:Desperate Housewives should ONLY be placed in Category:Categories named after television series which solves the problem. If this was a duplicate cat, then Category:Categories named after people would be a duplicate of Category:People. I also fail to see how this can be considered "cruft" when it is trying to solve a major categorization problem. --musicpvm 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per musicpvm Hanbrook 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per musicpvm. I wish most of these eponymous categories would go away, but it seems to be a Sisyphean task to remove them. I've given up trying. If we have to live with all these silly categories, (many of which contain just a small handful of articles, all linked from the articles of the same name) can we at least keep them from cluttering up other categories? That is what this category, and the other eponymous category holders are for. The worst option is to keep the eponymous categories and delete the category holders. -- Samuel Wantman 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[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 by Glen S. Whispering 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men with hats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category doesn't seem to add any value, navigational or otherwise. It's literally a collection of articles which contain a picture of a person with a hat. The username of the editor who created this article leads me to believe it's some sort of trolling. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 05:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, along with Category:Men without hats. It was created minutes ago by a drive-by vandal. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete both. And now I've got that damn "safety dance" running thorugh my head :) Grutness...wha? 06:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Apparently already deleted. I suppose it can be closed? - jc37 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[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 Jewish Americans along lines suggested by Hmains, in lieu of any other stated preference. David Kernow (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 subcats use either "Jewish American X" or "Jewish-American X" in equal number! Naming has to be standardized. I prefer the dash, but ultimately, whatever people decide is fine with me, as long as its standard. - crz crztalk 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I honestly wonder whether some of the "Jewish-American" or "American-Jewish" categories are needed. For example, is it helpful to categorize Jewish American scientists? Are their accomplishments different from ordinary American scientists? Are Jewish American lawyers' accomplishments different from ordinary lawyers' accomplishments? Having said this, I think it may be worth keeping a few categories, such as the one for Jewish American writers, because of the subcultural differences between their work and other people's work in the same field. Nonetheless, this issue needs to be examined more carefully. George J. Bendo 09:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and rename all to 'Jewish American x' after all categories have been tagged. WHY: more Ethnic group categories in the US do not have a 'dash' than have dash so this will forward that trend. Hmains 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename per nom.RaveenS 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a self-cat of general fitness training and was created on October 4th, 2006. Its potential scope as a 'fitness training' category seems to be much too similar to the scope of Category:Exercise to warrant existance at this time. Right now this category only contains two articles, both of which are general topic ones, and this further demonstrates insufficent material to presently warrant a seperate category for this fitness topic. Kurieeto 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - jc37 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[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 (I'll leave a ((category redirect)) as for Category:Authors). --RobertG ♬ talk 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latin authors to Category:Latin writers

• Rename per WP naming convention which prefers "writer" to "author" in category names. Her Pegship 01:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Category:Ancient writers seems to have examples of both writers and authors. And so does Category:Writers. - jc37 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "Writers" is standard. Any other exceptions should also be renamed. Osomec 13:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dohnányi to Category:Dohnányi family

• Rename, per the article Dohnányi family and the usual convention for non-royal families. Sumahoy 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[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 and merge Hawaii Catholic bishops with it per Mairi. David Kernow (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or create Category:American bishops by city, seems way too narrow ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wouldn't it be category:American bishops by diocese? Sumahoy 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Honolulu is an actual position (according to Wikipedia), and the church has apparently defined a Diocese of Honolulu (according to Wikipedia). George J. Bendo 09:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is getting too detailed. --MarkS (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the absence of Anglican or Orthodox bishops this category duplicates its sole entry, Category:Hawaii Catholic bishops. The latter ought to be renamed Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Honolulu in line with Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese but that is for a separate CfD.-choster 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also Category:Hawaiian bishops. -choster 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have nominated that for deletion. George J. Bendo 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move Category:Hawaii Catholic bishops to Category:Bishops of Honolulu (since there are no other bishops of Honolulu, no reason to specify denomination)... or just keep this and delete that category. Mairi 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cyborgs or Category:Fictional cyborgs as appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. I created the category without seeing that there was already a cyborg category. Soz! .V. 05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --MarkS (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge - The creator of the category has endorsed the merge. George J. Bendo 09:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[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 and rename Coup attempts to Attempted coups per Radiant in order to pluralize "coup". Suggest articles titled using "coup d'état" listed for renaming per comments below (if not already listed!). David Kernow (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Coups to Category:Coups d'état
• Category:Coup attempts to Category:Coup d'état attempts
• Category:Fiji coup of 2000 to Category:Fiji coup d'état of 2000
• Category:Leaders by coup to Category:Leaders by coup d'état
• Category:Past leaders by coup to Category:Past leaders by coup d'état
• Category:Military coups in Turkey to Category:Military coups d'état in Turkey
• Category:Ouster by coup to Category:Ouster by coup d'état

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions, "when creating an article one should ... create a category of the same or similar name on the same topic." The article for the above categories is coup d'état, to which coup is a redirect. I therefore believe that the above categories should be renamed to include coup d'état instead of coup. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Another rule is to use common terms, and my impression is that most of the time "coup" stands alone in English-language usage. Sumahoy 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I'm not sure that applies here though. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sumahoy. The article should probably be moved as well. Long ago, when this term was borrowed from French, the full version was used in English, but now the abbreviated form is a common English word that is used on its own. Osomec 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving the article would be another option, but I do believe that article and category should use that same word. I prefer coup d'état, but I'm not opposed to coup. As long as article and category are consistent. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but create redirects from "Coup" to "Coup d'etat" The convention that should almost always be followed is that a category and its related main article should use the same phrasing and spelling. So articles and categories about "coups d'etat" should use the same, consistent spelling. However, that being said, obviously a lot of people will simply search for the word "coup". So rename these categories to match the main article, but also create redirects so that someone searching for "Category:Coups" is automatically redirected to "Category:Coups d'etat". Dugwiki 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The full form "Coup d'état" is fast heading towards obsolescence, if it is not there already. For example the New York Times has made 20 mentions of coups in the last 7 days but it didn't add "d'etat" a single time. Hanbrook 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion as to the above, but Rename "coup attempts" to "attempted coups". (Radiant) 09:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, just coup is probably now the more common, and certainly makes for a simpler category name. - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom... Baristarim 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[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.