< January 10	January 12 >

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. the wub "?!" 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wet chemistry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Redundant category with very informal name, basically an incomplete duplicate of Category:Laboratory glassware. Itub 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with Itub's arguments. --Bduke 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:06, 12 January 2007 (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. the wub "?!" 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Empty. China has no active aircraft carriers. Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag is under study and may be activated in the future, but is not currently. Josh 16:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I agree with your decision to remove Varyag from the cat, and I agree that the empty cat should be deleted. I'm not sure why I put Varyag in there in the first place, because as you say, it may happen in the future but it's definitely not active now. TomTheHand 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless. Arjun 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Empty categories are useless --- Safemariner 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as empty and given the support above. Vegaswikian 07:11, 12 January 2007 (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 Category:Internet television channels. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Internet television channels, Category:Internet television networks, or Delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Internet television channels. Xiner (talk, email) 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Internet television channels TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Internet television channels. Hoylake 00:30, 14 January 2007 (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. --ais523 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Eastern New Mexico University alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I created this category. I'm fine with renaming it per style. TheQuandry 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all. Xiner (talk, email) 19:47, 12 January 2007 (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 Foo cast. the wub "?!" 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shameless actors, Category:South Park actors, Category:SpongeBob SquarePants actors, Category:Three's Company actors, Category:Ugly Betty actors, Category:What's Happening!! actors, Category:Wings actors, Category:Yes, Dear actors, Category:You Can't Do That on Television actors and Category:Zoey 101 actors.

These categories contain regular cast members, rather than guest actors, and should be renamed to reflect that. Precedent here and here indicates a consensus for categorizing cast rather than guest actors. >Radiant< 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I created the Three's Company and Wings categories, and they both contain both regular cast members AND guest stars--this is the precedent I've seen set with other similar categories, including Category:Desperate Housewives actors. In fact, the description for the DH category states: "This category contains actors and actresses who have appeared on the American television dramedy Desperate Housewives as main, recurring characters or guest characters." Is that the way these categories are supposed to be, or not? --CrazyLegsKC 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the current consensus seems to be that if these categories exist they should be restricted to regular cast only. See some of the related discussions over at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. There is also debate over whether or not these actor categories are needed at all (since the main article almost always has the cast list in it). Dugwiki 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and restrict to regular cast (or delete) In fact, I'd also favor deletion of these categories as they are redundant with the cast lists in the main article. But assuming they're kept, the rename and restriction to regular cast is appropriate. Dugwiki 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and restrict per Dug. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Arjun 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these, and all similar categories. If we don't we'll be discussing this forever. It seems impossible to stop the spread of these categories unless we remove all of them. People will see an actor categorized for being in a minor role on a TV show, and automatically think that their film or theatre roles are more important, and so they will start creating them. We have to draw a line, and the only line that will work will be "no actors categorized by their performances". It should be a simple speedy delete. I see no point in responding to the rename/restrict proposal. -- Samuel Wantman 10:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because cast lists are more informative. If not deleted then rename. Twittenham 11:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (preference) or Rename using "main cast" - I would prefer to see these categories deleted, as categorizing by performance creates category clutter. If this is not possible, then I would like to see the words "main cast" used in the category titles so that it is clear that no guest stars should appear in the category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per previous precedents. Kafziel ^Talk 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all because cast lists should be exactly that: lists. Categorizing people by every cast they've been in just clutters the categories at the bottom of the page to the point of uselessness. A list can be annotated, sourced, explained, verified. Doczilla 18:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. We just got rid of the Scooby-Doo actors category.[1] Doczilla 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A significant amount of the support for deleting the Scooby Doo category (including my own) was based on the fact that it is a cartoon and therefore the category contains voice actors, rather than on-screen personalities. It's not in the same ballpark. Kafziel ^Talk 14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to cast and oppose deletion. More detailed reasoning here. Tim! 09:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Delete Deletion is preferable, but certainly don't leave them as they are. zadignose 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to cast, remove one-time guest stars and retain category. I thought I had already commented on this one — it must have been one of the other similar discussions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People are so eager to create categories. Other methods of organizing information exist. I remain baffled as to why lists aren't used more effectively. --Vbd 09:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vbd Nathanian 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions Send message) 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A little late to this debate, but anyway... Categories are an unsuitable vehicle for this sort of information. Far better to contain this within the relevant actor/programme articles.

Xdamr^talk 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note recent precedent here (re: Law & Order cast vs. actors) in favor of rename to cast.--Vbd 22:15, 30 January 2007 (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 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Close United States presidential elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Poorly defined. How close is close? A difference of 10 percentage points or less? Electoral votes maybe? Delete or find an standard for inclusion other than the POV of random editors. — CharlotteWebb 12:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Subjective inclusion criterion. Attempting to find a standard, e.g. difference of 10% or less, becomes Arbitrary inclusion criterion. CiaranG 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 1 to 2 point race is a close 3 is pretty close 4 is a win 5 a easy win 6 or above is a blowout--St.daniel 12:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no apparent criteria, and not useful. Lists in order of closeness and by type of closeness are much to be preferred and I'm sure, even without looking, that they must already exist. --lquilter 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best it seems to use an arbitrary inclusion criteria. Dugwiki 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yeah no criteria, per nom. Arjun 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately, as it could be an interesting category; as of yet, it's still too subjective, as per St. daniel. Anyway someone can think of to unsubjectify it? -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it sounds subjective, it really is not. There are more than ample reliable NPOV sources on this topic --- Safemariner 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are plenty of sources that call an election "close", but that doesn't mean the term "close" is objectively defined. Technically this is Category:Elections that have been called "close" by a prominent media figure. So delete as not helpful. >Radiant< 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for POV and as not useful. Doczilla 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is better dealt with as a list, where you can define the terms better, and it is a list List of close United States presidential elections.--T. Anthony 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathanian 18:23, 17 January 2007 (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 09:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This two member category was recently renamed, but I believe the debate should have been kept open for another seven days as the trend of the discussion was moving towards deletion, indeed at closure there were more people in favour of deletion than of renaming. Hopefully by putting it up for straightforward deletion, without the tempation to vote for a rename (which was required in itself if the category was to be kept) we can kill this off. Actors' articles suffer from some of the worst category clutter on Wikipedia, and this category would (if it was actually in use to any significant degree) overlap excessively with Category:American stage actors, especially in relation to the more prominent individuals. Please note that the companion category Category:Broadway musicals stars is to be deleted for similar reasons, so keeping this one is inconsistent. Chicheley 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a "Broadway actor" isn't an occupation as such, and where would we draw the line? Is one night in a bit-part in a failed production enough? Twittenham 11:56, 12 January 2007 (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 for now, although another CfD might be needed. the wub "?!" 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early American movie moguls into Category:Movie moguls

• Merge - The term "early" is vague; it is unclear as to what qualifies as being early and what does not. If "early" was defined, it would be an arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of overcategorization. The category should be merged into Category:Movie moguls (although "movie mogul" itself needs to be clearly defined). Dr. Submillimeter 11:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Subjective inclusion criterion. Although as the preceding comment says, moguls is not well defined either. CiaranG 11:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and define chronlogically or delete both. The former category is potential useful, but the target category is the real problem. Chicheley 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – after reading the three posts above, I've attached Category:Movie moguls to this discussion. There was no consensus to rename or delete it when it was discussed in September 2005. ×Meegs 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There could be an "American movie mogul" category, although the term is very vague. Xiner (talk, email) 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To avoid confusion, can we focus on the proposed merge for now and discuss Category:Movie moguls later? Dr. Submillimeter 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American movie moguls. It makes no sense to merge into Category:Movie moguls and then discuss creating Category:American movie moguls. Vegaswikian 20:57, 11 January 2007 (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 09:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think it's going to be useful in dealing with any overcrowding in Category:LGBT people. In addition half of these names are already in Category:LGBT scientists, which is not overcrowded. "Gay mathematician" does get some Google hits Outside Wikipedia, but I'm skeptical it's an established phenomenon or culture of its own.--T. Anthony 10:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial intersection. CiaranG 11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial intersection. Pinoakcourt 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's an unnecessary triple intersection -- gender, sexuality, profession -- and current subcat is not overcrowded. --lquilter 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CiaranG. However it would be fine as a list or an article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, there's no obvious connection to how being gay affects someone's mathematical work. Random intersection. Dugwiki 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless we can find more than two people to populate the category, this is just more gay-cruft (don't worry, there are other kinds of cruft, this isn't an anti-gay statement). -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Richard Montague who could be added, but that's it. (John Nash may have been bisexual, based on what I read in A Beautiful Mind, but he disputes that. He is not "gay", as in mostly attracted to men, and no one has suggested he was so far as I know) Anyone I didn't mean this as anti-gay either. If there was a society of gay mathematicians, or something, I might have even left it be.--T. Anthony 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Twittenham 11:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial intersection. Chicheley 01:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What does one plus one equal, according to "gay mathematics?"zadignose 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness I'm betting that's not what the creator of the category was thinking. They were probably thinking in terms of Category:Mathematics and culture. The thing is I didn't find any evidence that there is enough of a phenomenon of "gay culture in mathematics" or "mathematics in gay culture" to justify such a thing.--T. Anthony 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I suspect they were thinking of identity + occupation; i.e., like ethnicity + occupation; nationality + occupation; gender + occupation; religious identity + occupation; and so on. A lot of people think there's nothing wrong with identity categories (and I'm not sure I'm not among them; I'm still trying to decide how useful they are). At any rate I'm opposed to this one because "gay", as a subcat of LGBT, is specific to sexuality AND gender, and it's overspecification at this point. --lquilter 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way I think we'd agree they weren't thinking there was such a thing as "gay mathematics"--T. Anthony 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Borat voice: WHaaat!?

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. the wub "?!" 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Atheist scientists to Category:Irreligious scientists. I'm aware they don't mean the same thing, but at present it's in Category:Scientists by religion and the rename would make it more pertinent to that.--T. Anthony 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Category:Metaphysical naturalists in science. A bit wordy, but it sums up that they reject the supernatural and, by extension, most religions. (Jainism and Buddhism both believe in things like souls)--T. Anthony 12:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (preference) or keep original name - Classifying scientists by religious beliefs is not useful. Moreover, the term "atheist" could be misapplied to people (for example, people who do not believe the literal interpretation of Genesis but who are undeclared in terms of their other religious beliefs). The category should be deleted. If not deleted, then the category should use the standard term "atheist". Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think atheist is being used, anywhere, to mean "anyone who isn't a creationist." I think that would be such a strange/POV usage it'd be reverted fast.--T. Anthony 11:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my example more carefully. It's more subtle than that. Dr. Submillimeter 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm just saying that it would take a very lazy person to think that "people who reject creationism and aren't of a religion" are atheists. I know people who pray and believe in God, but outright reject both creationism and organized religion.--T. Anthony 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial intersection. CiaranG 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's no more trivial than any of the religionXoccupation intersections. Atheist is an accepted term. I don't think it's unusual to have the antithesis of something in its category, since the category is a relational grouping, not just a goruping of members. However, the way the category is currently phrased ("x by religion") is more specific than that, suggesting the members are members of the group for which the category is named, and not just members of the category. "X by religious belief" would be better and then could plausibly include the variety of beliefs / practices around religion that exist. Of course it would run into the "no cats by belief" argument. Well, I have irresolution as well as irreligion on this cat. --lquilter 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I should add that I oppose renaming to "irreligious" because it's inaccurate & not often used & much, much vaguer than atheist. My main caveat is with the supercat Category:Scientists by religion. --lquilter 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we should remove All scientists by religion or None of them. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well happen. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:Scientists by religion is looking like it might lose this time. If that does go delete and this doesn't I might renominate this, but for delete instead of rename. (I didn't put Category:Jewish scientists up for a rename as it counts as an ethnicity too, so it surviving would be different.)--T. Anthony 08:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am willing to nominate all "science by religion" categories for deletion if desired. Dr. Submillimeter 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support such a nomination, however, judging by Mathematicians by religion it would probably result in a no consensus result. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We did just delete Category:Roman Catholic scientists. Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go ahead, rub it in "g" (meaning grin, I'm not remotely angry. Category:Christians in science and Category:Roman Catholicism and Science were sufficient if not quite as good)--T. Anthony 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete all scientists by religion categories. Oppose renaming as inaccurate. Xiner (talk, email) 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless someone can provide an example of someone whose religious beliefs significantly affected their mathematical work, delete this and all other mathematician-by-religion categories. Note that there might be scientists who work in fields tied to religion, so there might be a need to keep some of the scientist-by-religion categories. (For example, a religious archaeologist who focuses on uncovering information related to his faith could reasonably fall under that type of category.) Dugwiki 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One could argue that Galileo Galilei's religious beliefs significantly affected his work...not that I think that justifies a category. Otto4711 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, for reference, a) far as I know Galileo was not an athiest; and b) I don't think his religion affected his mathematical work. Dugwiki 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a large difference between being atheist and being irreligious Bluap 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strenuously oppose changing "atheist" to "irreligious." If other scientist by religion categories are kept, then keep this one; if they're deleted, delete this one. Atheism should be treated with the same level encyclopedic respect as any other mainstream religious opinion. It's not that difficult to figure out who's an atheist and who isn't, as long as it's based on the person's statement. "I don't believe in any form of God" = "atheist." "I don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis" != "atheist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is atheist is not a religion in itself. It's a position related to religions, but not a religion. Essentially I was really meaning replace "Atheist scientists", which I created, with "Irreligious scientists" as that would fit Category:Scientists by religion more clearly. Still I made the proposal late at night and realize now I should've chosen a better rename. I'd considered "Secularist" or "Materialist", but wasn't sure those would work. The main thing is to change it to something that more clearly relates to religious views.--T. Anthony 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, "atheist" isn't a religion but it is a religious belief. For categorization "shorthand" I see no problem with putting it under scientists by religion. Otto4711 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was worrying having this in Category:Scientists by religion was irritating atheists and causing confusion. I'm thinking of withdrawing this nomination.--T. Anthony 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense it's too late to alter the proposal, I might just withdraw depending on how things are by Saturday.--T. Anthony 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or keep original name. "Atheist" and "irreligious" are not synonymous. "Atheist" is a more concrete term that can be determined more concretely/objectively. Doczilla 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree with rename as per Doczilla and inclined to support the deletion of all categories that catagorize scientists by their religion, but that needs to come here as a specific proposal. --Bduke 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rename that would work and am I allowed to change my rename request?--T. Anthony 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can change your vote, I've done it many times. Just strike out the old one. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - relative section that is well enough populated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to make things interesting, there is no God in some major religions of the world. An example would be God in Jainism, Confucianism, Nontheistic#Nontheism in Buddhism --- Safemariner 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I originally went for a rename to "irreligious" as "nontheist" (my initial thought) could include Unitarian Universalist, Jain, and Buddhist scientists.--T. Anthony 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding atheist scientists It might be possible that some scientists are atheists, and their atheism directly influences their scientific work. For example, a scientist who is an atheist and based on that belief actively works to scientifically disprove the existence of God, or who tries to study and promote the harmful effects of what he perceives to be false religions on society. However, I simply can't see how any of that would apply to a mathematician - how would a mathematician's belief that God doesn't exist affect his work? Dugwiki 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, a few hypotheticals. (1) If Richard Dawkins were a mathematician who felt the natural beauty of math suggested no god and wrote significantly about the connection - this would obviously be someone in the category as defined, right? (Would it make a difference if he were very wrong about the connection, as in, relying on some mathematical theorem that later turned out to be false? Or he was obviously deluded or accepted as a quack for this particular assertion, even while widely respected for every other mathematical contribution he made?) (2) If there were a notable mathematician who was also religious, and while not a noted theologian nevertheless also wrote books about her faith that didn't talk about math, would that be included? (3) If there were someone who was notable for theology, who was a part-time or amateur mathematician, would they belong in the set? Would it make a difference if her mathematical contributions were not notable enough to warrant an entry if that had been all she had done, but whose passion for math was significant in her own life? (4) What about someone notable for neither math nor theology but for, say, serving in Parliament, who was also passionate about both math and his religious faith? Any difference whether his contributions for either math or theology were independently notable to anyone besides himself, or whether he had contributions to the intersection of math & theology? ... to me, all these situations and more will come up, and it's why I am starting to move toward treating "beliefs about or in religion" as just a neutral identifier to be potentially cross-reffed with any occupational field (and perhaps any other such neutral identifer categories like gender, ethnicity/heritage, nationality, and sexuality). --lquilter 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There are scientists who are also atheists, scientists whose science may have influenced their atheism, and atheists whose atheism may have influenced their science. This are three meanings, but not three distinct groups and any attempt at precision will be difficult. Better to avoid the whole issue. DGG 05:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this stuff has nothing to do with one's scientific work, as all scientists are always bound to methodological naturalism in the laboratory anyway. Therefore this is overcategorization as irrelevent intersection. — coelacan talk — 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla It would indicate that we MUST delete this category. Doczilla 07:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is one interpretation, not the only valid one. The actual statement is "As above, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Ignoring that if rigorously applied we'd have to delete most subcategories of say Category:Mexican Americans, there's the problem that religious viewpoint has been significant to several scientists careers. (Although the idea it could be is clearly deemed repugnant) Many scientists were hired or fired for their religious position and there are associations of scientists by religion.--T. Anthony 09:21, 25 January 2007 (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. the wub "?!" 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non standard categorization, we do not categorise regions by ethnicity or race. Also Kurdistan (Kurdish inhabited region) with an estimated are ranging between 74,000 sq mi (191,660 km²)-392,000 km² does not by nature have well defined borders. There are many maps conflicting the one given in the category page in question. Cat out 10:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Falls under WP:OC: Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Arbitrary inclusion criterion --Cat out 10:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: This category is an important sub-category of parent categories such as: Category:Culture by region; Category:Divided regions; Category:Ethnic groups in Asia. To imply that the present category is somehow "frivolous" is not correct. This is a valid category, as based on its key articles: Iraqi Kurdistan, Demographics of Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurds in Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan etc. IZAK 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate User:Cool Cat depopulated this himself in advance of the discussion, which was a bad faith attempt to manipulate the outcome in my book. Chicheley 11:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please visit Wikipedia:Assume good faith. There's no need to characterize another editors actions as bad faith; noting why you believe the editor is mistaken is sufficient. --Scimitar 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I have repopulated the category (as the deletion template requests) and warned user of inappropriate presumption. While I agree that there are problems in defining the scope of this category, I understand that its deletion would leave majority Kurdish areas without means of common identification by category. The name of this category has been haggled over, and that is why it is as vague as it is. Keep, at least in some form. — Gareth Hughes 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? We do not categories Washington DC as a black inhabited region do we? --Cat out 12:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Should state of Pennsylvanian also be a part of this category? Many Kurds live there too. Many Kurds also live in Paris. --Cat out 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and User:Cool Cat needs to cool it. IZAK 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am cool... and stay on topic. --Cat out 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Like what, let's agree to bump off the Kurds from Wikipedia? Sorry that is not my agenda. IZAK 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am sorry, but ethnic and racial based cats don't make sense since they are undefined. Should we also include Berlin in this cat because there are many Kurds living there? However, feel free to use the Iraqi Kurdistan cat, since that is a defined entity. Baristarim 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, why not, if there are large population/ethnic/religious groups living in a city or area they get to be included, see for example Category:Chinatowns; Category:Ethnic enclaves; Category:Neighbourhoods by type and many others like this. So why is that so bad when it's applied to the Kurds? Do you have something against them? I'm beginning to get alarmed by your anti-Kurd POV-pushing. IZAK 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I fail to see the connection. "A Chinatown is an urban region containing a large population of Chinese people within a non-Chinese society." Entire States or Cities are not tagged under a chinatown category. The categorization currently assumes every part of entire provinces is kurdish inhabited with your analogy. --Cat out 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Picky, picky, picky. I see that nothing I say will satisfy you today. IZAK 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Focus on content, not people. Thank you. Baristarim 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool Cat said "ethnic and racial based cats don't make sense since they are undefined" and I then provided ample examples of "ethnic and racial based cats" and then Cool Cat claims (using different words but talking about the same thing): "A Chinatown is an urban region containing a large population of Chinese people within a non-Chinese society" to which I now say: Kurdistan is a large region, sometimes urban (as in Mosul) and sometimes regional, that contains a large population of Kurdish people within a non-Kurdish society/country. IZAK 21:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A Chinatown is part of a city, not the entire city. A china town does not include entire provinces. A Chinatown is also has significance aside from Chinese people living there. Furthermore the borders of any Chinatown is very easy to define.
            • Unlike Chinatows, Kurdistan does not have defined borders, occupies a broad area including areas where no human can live (such as mountain tops and lakes) and its very existence is disputed by some sources.
            • Is that 'large population of Kurdish people' claim based on a census? Assuming it is, how is that relevant in our categorization of cities.
            • --Cat out 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • (1) The point of the Chinatown examples was not their size or proportion in relation to the rest of the cities they are in, but that they exist at all and that they are recognized as separate ethnic entities, so much so that they are entitled to this recognition on Wikipedia, and the Kurdish areas/zones/communities/boundaries/etc are no less significant than any Chinatown anywhere in terms valid recognition, especially on Wikipedia. (2) Most Chinatowns are very small and do not have "defined borders" at all, it's just based on if you will find a noticable mass of Chinese people in a certain area. Period. Most "Chinatowns" in the USA are found in many former Category:Little Italys and Category:Irish-American neighborhoods and are part of and mixed with other Category:Ethnic enclaves and Category:Neighbourhoods by type etc, it's not an exact science like splitting an atom you know. (3) Do they conduct a scientific census in Asian countries? How well any census works in the Third World is doubtful in any case, and misses the point. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence as to where and how the Kurds exist to fill many news reports, books, and academic studies to validate their existence in specific territories (why else are they so hated and hunted by the Turks, Iranians, Iraqis and others? If they didn't exist and weren't a problem no one would be fighting them. They are way ahead of "I think therefore I am.") IZAK 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The map says it all. It is assuming nobody lives in these areas but Kurds. When in reality Kurds are a small minority north and west of Mosul. It doesnt take into consideration that the majority are Assyrians, Turkmans, and Sabeans. Chaldean 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that other communities live there does not detract from the fact they are regarded as significant Kurdish enclaves and communities. If the Assyrians, Turkmans, and Sabeans live there in large numbers then they should and must be acknowledged as well if that is a job that some editor may wish to do for them. IZAK 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no such assumption as referred to above. Pinoakcourt 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Regions with significant Kurdish presence". Xiner (talk, email) 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would we determine where they are of significant majority? And even if we did have an indisputable source for such info (sadly we don't), why categorise based on that? We would have so many categories for every ethnicity, race, religion, favorite colour, and etc. --Cat out 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename per Xiner. This is a relevant and informative category. In this case, subjective qualities simply don't apply well enough IMHO: too informtive, and not really too badly subjective (I don't hear much Kurdish being spoken in Pennsylvania, but there's a lot in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc.) -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- has been kept three times before -- see Category talk:Kurdish inhabited regions. --Diyarbakir 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Diyarbakir Twittenham 11:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really think this category can be properly used or verified if it is true that the region does not have any well defined borders, not to mention the lack of specificity in what classifies as a region 'inhabited by Kurds'. I'm sure there's Kurds all over the world, but we don't need a category that lists just about every country you can imagine. Perhaps if there can be some sort of specifics as to what classifies as a region inhabited by this group then it might have a place here, but I don't really see the use for this category, so I must say delete unless these issues can be addressed. Cowman109^Talk 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, btw, you shouldn't remove the category from article before the CfD ends... bogdan 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is the fourth CfD in this category, the name was already changed once. Unless Cool cat or anyone else can think up a better name for the category it should be kept. Alternatively it should be Merged with Category:Kurdistan, or the category could be Renamed to Category:Geography of Kurdistan. - Francis Tyers · 14:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Fourth time POV nomination. Hoylake 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  POV? See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_26#Category:Hispanic_inhabited_regions --Cat out 09:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the other three attempted CfDs on this category, two of which were initiated by this same nominator. How many more are there going to be? Dbratton 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are large Kurdish population in London, Germany (apparently up to 800,000). Do we include them? Ultimately, could fellow editors mediate on the fact that such titles are unhelpfull and generate unecessecary controversies? Of course, the information can be (and probably is) included in other relevant articles. Politis 13:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not comparable to the Hispanic category because Kurds are an ethnic group who mostly reside in their historical homelands. "Hispanic" is a mainly American term for an immigrant minority that is based on language rather than ethnicity. Osomec 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable and encyclopedic. `'mikka 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator shouldn't have attempted to manipulate the process. Nathanian 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Francis Tyers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 18 January 2007 (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. the wub "?!" 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Jews and Judaism by country format is entirely inaproporate. Category is too specific and underpopulated. Cat out 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Falls under WP:OC: Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Arbitrary inclusion criterion --Cat out 10:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Cool Cat is now adding new "criteria" justifying his original nomination of three days ago, a full response is in order: There is absolutely no validity to any of his "justifications" because Category:Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan is no different to hundreds of articles and categories in Category:Jews and Judaism (one of the oldest parent categories on Wikipedia, set up on 13 June, 2004 [2] !) In the sub-category of Category:Jews and Judaism by country there are a number of countries that serve in turn as parent categories of sub-categories such as Category:Jews and Judaism in Poland is a parent category for Category:Jews and Judaism in Galicia (Central Europe) and similarly Category:Jews and Judaism in the United Kingdom is a parent category to Category:Jews and Judaism in Wales and Category:Jews and Judaism in Scotland and more. In some cases, seemingly larger categories become sub-categories to parent categories by region, such as Category:Crimean Jews and Category:Caucasus Jews. The reason that categories are named "Jews and and Judaism" is because very often there are categories about Jews only (like list and names of people) of those countries and sometimes about Judaism and synagogues or Jewish history or any number of other approaches that require an over-all system of categorization that will encompass all the categories that relate to Jews/Judaism/Jewish history and more and place them in one category, whcih is what Category:Jews and Judaism is for. So coming back to User:Cool Cat's first claim that this category is "too specific and underpopulated" -- it's not correct (in any case, he nominated this category within 25 minutes of its creation and expects it to be fully "populated"? is Wikipedia being built in a day, or 25 minutes?) and then as to his most recent charges, that this falls under "WP:OC: Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Arbitrary inclusion criterion" he is also greatly mistaken because all he has to do is to see the vast scope, helpfulness, inclusiveness, relatedness, and conncectivenes of all the categories within Category:Jews and Judaism and how Category:Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan is inherently and organically linked to them and to all the other carefully considered categories and sub-categories in it. Perhaps to the untrained eye and newcomer things may look a little overwhelming at first, but no-one says that studying Jews, Judaism, Jewish history, Torah and Talmud is easy, and that is precisely what these categories are here for, to organize and categorize the material and to help everyone in the process of learning about this vast and complicated set of subjects and categories. Thank you. IZAK 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kurdistan is a place and there is no reason to restrict such categories to places that happen to be independent countries, eg Category:Jews and Judaism in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also exists. Chicheley 12:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  New York city is a city with defined borders, New York state has defined borders. Kurdistan is not a place with defined borders. --Cat out 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this category was created by me and within 23 minutes [3] it is nominated for deletion by User talk:Cool Cat without even a word of warning, as the courtesy should be! Who ever heard of a category being "too specific"? Which is a joke when it is about Jewish population groups and Judaism because there are only about 14 million Jews in the world, so according to that kind of misguided thinking there would never be any categories for Jews and Judaism. In any case, categories need to be given time to grow. If User:Cool Cat was genuine about his worries, he could have reached out to the many editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism who could have helped him out here. IZAK 13:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not report to any wikiproject. --Cat out 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly the problem, you imagine that you have to "report" or that other's function that way. All I was saying is that you should have asked a question, who said anything about "reporting" -- that is really twisting my meanings. IZAK 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not quite. It is an undefined geographical region. There is already a Kurdistan cat, and Religion country cats can cover the issue satisfactorily. The problem is with the fact that it is a controversial undefined geographical region which can lead to WP:V issues. However, feel free to create a Cat:Religion in Iraqi Kurdistan since that is a defined entity. Baristarim 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so it's not a country, but it is no different to many other well defined (geographic/ethnic/cultural/religious) regions or areas with famous names and people living in them, such as Category:Crimea; Category:Caucasus; Category:Scandinavia, and many others like this. So your argument is very flimsy. The fact of the matter is that the Kurdish people and their culture is very distinct and similarly Kurdish Jews are very distinct. Why let anti-Kurdish POV rhetoric interfere with this? IZAK 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the CIA's map at Image:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (2002).jpg (The "Kurdish map" extends to Armenia -- another group that was abused by it's "nice" neighbors, see Armenian Genocide.) IZAK 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has nothing to do with Armenians, stay on topic. I challenge your map with this one: http://www.kurdishinfo.com/userimages/kurdistan-map.jpg which strictly excludes Armenia. --Cat out 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not "my" map, I was just presenting the one that's used on Wikipedia. Take it up with the CIA, maybe you think you are smarter than Uncle Sam's spooks, I don't. IZAK 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK Pinoakcourt 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK Twittenham 11:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with the Religion in Kurdistan category - no need for so many subcategories that don't seem to have much potential to be populated. Cowman109^Talk 23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pls remember that there are already categories in Kurdish people, Kurdish Jews etc etc. This one is about the geographical region which has WP:V problems. Baristarim 08:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Baristram: You do not seem to realize that the Jews are part of both an ethnicity and also part of a religion (unlike others who are either part of one or the other.) See the Jew and Judaism articles that explain this. IZAK 09:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kurdistan is a defined region. Discussions on whether articles belong in the category belong on article talk pages. - Francis Tyers · 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only problem with this category is that people who don't want Kurds to be recognised will be upset to see it. Hoylake 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why must you be so dense. What does a category have to do with Kurds' recognition? That is not the point of categories... --Cat out 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why must you be so rude??? I was just perusing the discussion, but your rudeness gave me reason to pause, Cat. Does belittling Hoylake make you feel more justified in your convictions? You've made it clear that you "don't report to any wikiproject," but basic rules of wikipedia etiquette -- as well as some general life principles that someone should have taught you along the way -- suggest that you "be polite!" I don't think calling someone "dense" qualifies. --Vbd 08:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As long as the category can be filled within a reasonable amount of time, and it is not overtly inappropriate (ie. Inflamatory, racist and the like), it should stay. The Prince Manifest 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The Prince. This shouldn't have gone to XfD nearly this quickly, as there's no indication whatsoever that the category won't be filled. Dbratton 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Francis Tyers. Seems quite unobjectionable. --Redaktor 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important subject, even if somewhat lightly treated on Wikipedia now. Beit Or 14:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Highly inappropriate nomination. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish livi8ng in different countries have pretty different cultures and even religious customs. Even in Israel many Jews keep the identity of thier origin country group. IdeasLover 18:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In Israel at least there is a nickname for Jews from Kurdisatn "Kurdi". I have freinds that are knows to be "Kurdim". IdeasLover 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Chicheley. KazakhPol 06:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid category. Danny Schoemann
• Keep I think it is a valid category, given time it will be interesting. --YoavD 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seeing this is part of a pattern of disruption, is anyone up for initiating proceedings against Cool Cat with a view to having him banned from editing Kurd related articles? Osomec 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable and encyclopedic. `'mikka 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Duh! Gzuckier 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Vbd 08:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Francis Tyers, Brian Gotts, and IZAK. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:29, 18 January 2007 (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. the wub "?!" 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is too specific and underpopulated. Cat out 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Falls under WP:OC: Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Arbitrary inclusion criterion --Cat out 10:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It isn't too specific, and for all I know Cat may have depopulated this one himself as well (it's harder to check and I have limited time). Chicheley 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its new (I created it a few hours ago) and it's getting populated very quickly. What's the rush, every region and country gets to be in Category:Religion by country. IZAK 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kurdistan is NOT a country nor is it a region with defined borders. Religion in Kurdistan can be a nice article but is entirely inaproporate as a category. --Cat out 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it gets to be a sub-category of Category:Religion in Armenia; Category:Religion in Iraq; Category:Religion in Iran; Category:Religion in Syria, and Category:Religion in Turkey to be more precise, but it does not get wiped out. IZAK 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not believe parts of Kurdistan even touches Armenia according to some definitions of Kurdistan. It doesn't have defined borders. --Cat out 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See the Kurdish Jews article: "...the region today known as Kurdistan, roughly covering parts of Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Syria..." IZAK 13:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to [4] many of the maps exclude armenia. The fluctuations between the maps is the problem. WP:V issues here. --Cat out 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As mentioned above, according to the CIA's map at Image:Kurdish areas 2002 CIA.jpeg, the "Kurdish map" extends into Armenia. IZAK 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not quite. It is an undefined geographical region. There is already a Kurdistan cat, and Religion country cats can cover the issue satisfactorily. The problem is with the fact that it is a controversial undefined geographical region which can lead to WP:V issues. However, feel free to create a Cat:Religion in Iraqi Kurdistan since that is a defined entity. Baristarim 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Baristarm: Since you reposted your comments, I will repost mine from above: Ok, so it's not a country, but it is no different to many other well defined (geographic/ethnic/cultural/religious) regions or areas with famous names and people living in them, such as Category:Crimea; Category:Caucasus; Category:Scandinavia, and many others like this. So your argument is very flimsy. The fact of the matter is that the Kurdish people and their culture is very distinct and similarly Kurdish Jews are very distinct. Why let anti-Kurdish POV rhetoric interfere with this? IZAK 13:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not assume. There is no anti-Kurd rhetoric - this is not a high school debate club. Scandinavia is a very well defined region - Kurdistan is not. There is no disagreement as to what constitutes Crimea, Scandinavia or Caucasus - but with Kurdistan there is, and much of it coming from other indigenous peoples like the Assyrians and Armenians, as well as Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Baristarim 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't insult our intelligence. We know as well as you do that you have had anti-Kurd propaganda drummed into your head all your life. Hoylake 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless you've been associated with this editor his entire life, please refrain from making sweeping, asinine generalizations. There is no need for criticism of the editor, even if you disagree with his viewpoint. --Scimitar 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK Pinoakcourt 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No categorization value. Xiner (talk, email) 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As much "categorization value" as Category:religion in Turkey. Twittenham 11:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls remember that there are already categories in Kurdish people, Kurdish Jews etc etc. This one is about the geographical region which has WP:V problems. Turkey is a state, whereas Kurdistan is a undefined geographical region and it is not ethnic based, which means other indigenous peoples like Assyrians or Armenians would have to be included in this cat. Hence the WP:V issues. Baristarim 08:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, expand, or merge, and by this I mean that all the subcategories should be done away with as they are and will inevitably remain underpopulated. If the category can be expanded to include more articles, or if it can be merged into a more populous category concerning Kurdistan in general, then I think that would be better for the category. Cowman109^Talk 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid category. - Francis Tyers · 14:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously a valid category. There is no conceivable basis for deletion other than anti-Kurd prejudice. Hoylake 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why must you be so dense. What does a category have to do with Kurds' recognition? That is not the point of categories... --Cat out 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Let the category remain for a reasonable period, say, 2 to 3 months, and if by then it is clear the category is underpopulated, and the contained articles are best referenced directly in those they stem from, then it should be deleted. Until then however, a definite Keep. The Prince Manifest 10:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This shouldn't have gone to XfD nearly this quickly, as there's no indication whatsoever that the category won't be filled. Dbratton 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What's the problem with it? Beit Or 14:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This nom appears to want to get rid of all Kurdistan related cats. This one was created shortly before the nomination and is now respectably populated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid category. Danny Schoemann
• Keep What's the problem with it? --YoavD 14:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Osomec 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reevaluate after some time, if it seems the category is inappropriately populated. Editors can be allowed some discretion to evaluate whether an article falls within certain grey or nebulous borders. Contest those items which clearly fall outside the definition. However, I'd like to say that there's no need to call people prejudiced or biased simply because they don't agree to one's definition of a verifiable category. I've already been accused of anti-gambling bias though I'm a gambler, and anti-hindu prejudice, though I have no cause for such bias and have never expressed it. I'd hate to think what would happen in a discussion of a Category:Black_Entrepeneurs.zadignose 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable and encyclopedic. `'mikka 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I imagine the residents of Kurdistan will make more of an attempt to define their borders when they learn that we are having trouble. Gzuckier 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That'd be the day. --Cat out 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Brian Gotts and Francis Tyers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:27, 18 January 2007 (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 into Category:Series of children's books. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Series of children's books into Category:Children's books by series. The two categories cover the same articles and sub-categories. The Category:Series of children's books is older and has more entries, but the naming of Category:Children's books by series is more appropriate. Note that the following also exist... Category:Children's literature, Category:Children's books, Category:Children's poetry etc. APB-CMX 10:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the other way, into Category:Series of children's books. The problem with the proposed direction is that individual articles do not fit naturally into Category:Children's books by series; consider that A to Z Mysteries is a "series of children's books", but is not a "Children's books by series". The by series construction, like by nationality, is usually used only for categories reserved to hold other categories. Upmerging Category:Children's books by series to Category:Series of children's books, on the other hand, would be fine for both articles and subcategories. ×Meegs 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Reverse merge - "Series of children's books" sounds a bit more elegant and clear to me, and fits with the convention of "Series of books" that already exists. (Film and TV series are done the other way, I note.) --lquilter 14:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
• Reverse merge per Meegs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:13, 12 January 2007 (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 (obvious technical misunderstanding). `'mikka 04:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cavity wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Contains one article, to which it used to redirect. John Reaves 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's possible that the creator of Tie (cavity wall) (which is in this category) was trying to simulate a Wikilink from Tie (cavity wall) to Cavity wall, or something, by creating this. At any rate this cat should go. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for obvious reasons.. Cowman109^Talk 23:10, 12 January 2007 (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. the wub "?!" 23:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gaming companies to Category:Gambling companies

• Rename, The gambling article admits "gaming" is a euphemism to offset public prejudice. While the companies may wish to be called "gaming" companies, wikipedia is in place to describe what things are, not what they'd prefer to be known as. Additionally, "gaming company" confuses gambling with board- and video-game companies, which can be avoided. I call for a category rename. Alvis 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that the referenced article is also without sources and references. Two of the four links provided before this discussion started use the word gaming in their titles. Also gambling basically describes what the players not what the companies do which is to win. The article is not about what the companies are doing or know as or the business descriptions in any mannor. Vegaswikian 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. CiaranG 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – worth it to avoid the ambiguity alone. ×Meegs 13:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also take care of Category:Defunct gaming companies to Category:Defunct gambling companies. ×Meegs 15:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also obviously inappropriate as none of those are gambling companies. Let's not try and reinvent the language. 2005 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was, in fact, the gambing companies themselves who attempted, and to some degree succeeded in reinventing the language. zadignose 05:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Meegs. Xiner (talk, email) 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The change is needed to avoid the confusion between gambling and other activities that are called "gaming". Dr. Submillimeter 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - gaming != gambling although there is a relationship. --lquilter 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (abstaining while I think about it further). --lquilter 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is precicely why the rename is inappropriate. These are gaming companies. They are not gambling companies, and it obviously would be ludicrous to say they were. 2005 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Gaming is too ambiguous with board-gaming and RPGs, etc. Gambling is more accurate. Dugwiki 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the gambling article says that casinos often use "gaming" as a euphemism. This is perhaps somewhat US-centric; in the UK the term "gaming" is a legal definition in this context, see for example this British Act of Parliament. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Since it is correct and I believe the first use of the term. All of the later uses have other names that work as better descriptions. In addition to the link pointed out by Tonywalton, we also have the Nevada Gaming Commission and the Nevada Gaming Control Act. From Webster we have 1 : the practice of gambling. Then you have the free dictionary's definition. Then there is the PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD and what they call a licensed gaming entity. All of these support gaming as a proper term for this activity. Maybe we need to revisit the gambling article and see if it is correctly titled. Vegaswikian 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides these regulatory agencies, all US states regulate "gaming" and most have specific "charitable gaming" laws. Oversight, legal and standard usage are all "gaming". 2005 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my issue is that this notion of "gaming" is pushed by casinos and their lobbyists. That's why these agencies are named as such. Wiki should be resistant to this kind of spin and describe what things ARE. Alvis 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally could not care less about your political agenda. Please don't try and inject it into the Wikipedia. We should describe things how they ARE. These are gaming companies. The world calls them that. the governments call them that. It's just weirdo fanaticism to insist on calling a duck a "flying creature". 2005 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin???? This is beginning to sound like a POV agenda for the rename. If we rename here, what do we rename next? Gaming laws around the world? The names of companies listed on stock exchanges? Vegaswikian 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the contents of your own link. The dictionary definitions provided make it explicit that gaming is gambling, while also showing that the secondary definintion relating to video gaming can cause some ambiguity or confusion. zadignose 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being obtuse? They are not the same word. No one goes to Las vegas to go "gaming". In fact, the words exist to show the precise difference between offering gambling games, and partaking in gambling actions. 2005 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Bizarre nomination. These are gaming companies. That is what they are called. Gaming companies provide gambling games to customers. They are not "gambling companies". That is both an absurd idea, and obviously non-standard usage. Additionally no rationale is presented to not use the standard naming of a thing. An alternative like "Gaming companies offering gambling" is silly too, it's clearly better than the directly wrong "gambling companies" idea. NONE of these companies are in the business of gambling. 2005 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The suggestion may be controversial, but it is neither bizarre, nor absurd. Those who reject the use of the term "gambling," to describe a casino that offers blackjack or slot machines, are strongly opposed to calling a thing what it is. The term gaming in this case is very definitely a euphemism, designed to make the practice of gambling as a business more socially and legally acceptable in the face of anti-gambling prejudice and anti-gambling laws. The fact that the term "gaming" has achieved legal status in many places, and has been applied to businesses that stake their money against the customer, simply reflects the success of the gambling companies to carve out a niche for their business.

I personally have many years of experience gambling, and I have met a fair number of poker players who refuse to call what they do "gambling." I consider this a form of self deception.

This may be of interest here Tonywalton  | Talk 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, relevant, and is part of the ratinonale for why poker players sometimes rail against the term "gambling," but a game can very well be gambling at the same time that it involves skill. Skill is how a poker player gets an overlay, just as a casino gets an overlay by setting payoff odds that are favorable to the house, and a sports bettor gets an overlay by doing better analysis than the larger betting public. Notable poker writers such as David Sklansky never shy away from the word "gambling," even though Sklansky is one of the most prominent figures supporting the notion that poker is a game of skill. zadignose 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That raises a valid point. When the game is poker, doesn't the house make its profit from the rake? So what name do you give to these companies? Rake companies? Clearly the owners of casinos with this activity are gaming companies and not gambling companies. They are offering a game and are clearly not gambling companies. Vegaswikian 05:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the card rooms of California make their money exclusively from rakes and tourney fees, as they are legally not allowed to engage directly in gambling. The card rooms of Vegas, Tunica, Mississippi, Colorado, and Indian reservations such as Foxwoods are all part of companies that engage directly in gambling through slots, blackjack, etc. All of them could be fairly described as "gambling companies." So, I am suggesting that California card room MAY be in a slightly different category from the others, though again "gambling companies" is not such a poor description for anyone who believes these companies are akin to the others. If anyone wishes to make the fine distinction, they should resort to a Category:Card_Rooms, or Category:California_Card_Rooms. Similarly, there could be categories for paramutuels, and state lotteries. The manufacturers of slots machines are not a good fit for this category, and should simply be grouped into a category of "Slot Manufacturers," or "Gambling Equipment," or "Manufacturers of Gambling Equipment."zadignose 07:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, since of course some online poker rooms exist via rake alone. That's not the point though. The structure of the category is correct, allowing sub-categories for slots manufacturers, poker companies, and in future private bingo or lottery or other companies. "Gaming companies" is far more standard usage 1 versus 2. No argument has been made why we should use incorrect, non-standard usage that mae categorization impossible. The solution has been presented below, and it appears only stubborness is keeping you from saying "yeah, that is a good idea that helps users and makes categorization easier and logical." 2005 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling is the act of staking money on a game of an uncertain outcome. If this doesn't apply to roulette, poker, sports bets, etc., then the word "gambling" becomes meaningless... and yet all native speakers of English know what gambling is, and this is clearly gambling. Now, gambling with an overlay may be a very sensible, reasonable, and profitable practice. If you're going to gamble, then that's the way to do it. But if it's "gambling" for the loser, then it's "gambling" for the winner too. Casinos that stake their money directly against their customers in games of chance are just practicing the art of "gambling with an overlay" on a big scale, and making a fortune at it. They are, in fact, gambling companies.

Perhaps a distinction could be made for paramutual wagering, lotteries, bingo, raked games like poker, or tournaments funded by an entry fee, where the company has no direct stake in the outcome of the game. In these cases, the companies are offering gambling services, and their customers are indeed gambling (yes, even the poker players!), but the company technically isn't. But "gambling business" is not such an inappropriate description for companies that make a profit by offering gambling services. And this distinction is the back door through which gambling businesses entered and set up shop in states and countries with established anti-gambling laws. By the way, I say "hooray for gambling companies," I'm all for 'em. But I'm also for calling them what they are. "Gaming" is jargon that's more meaningful to legal professionals, and people attached to the gambling business, than it is for the vast majority of English speakers. zadignose 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that the enabling legislation and official bodies are using an euphemism? If these are the laws adopted by many states and at least one other country, that position seems rather odd. Vegaswikian 07:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. After casinos, who has more to gain from avoiding the prejudices associated with the word "gambling" than the states getting their cut? Alvis 08:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of money involved and the extent of gaming activities, I have a hard time believing that this is the case today. Today many of these are publicly traded companies, what stigma is attached? Yes, there are a few social funds that will not invest in these stocks, but most funds are more then willing to do so. Vegaswikian 08:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether or not the word "gambling" carries a negative stigma. It's a matter of whether or not the word "gaming" is ambiguous to the average reader. There are, unfortunately, two very different common usages of the word "gaming" - one has to do with gambling, and the other doesn't. Readers interested in gambling-related articles will not be interested in the non-gambling usage of the word, and vice versa. Since the word "gambling" is much less ambiguous and does clearly apply to these companies, renaming the category will eliminate the ambiguity for readers searching on either topic. Dugwiki 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that the wrong term should be used to remove ambiguity is nonsensical at best. 2005 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you admit "Gambling is the act of staking money on a game of an uncertain outcome" and then call these gamblign companies? These companies don't gamble. They provide games. Seriously, this is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen on the Wikipedia. If someone wants to rename this category to "gambling companies", all these companies currently listed will be removed and a new category populated. They are not gambling companies, as this definition plainly shows. The nomination is absurd and should be withdrawn. The wikipedia is not a place to whine that you think standard language should be turned on its head, and for no logical reason to boot other than somebody doesn't like the standard way to speak. 2005 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can state that "Gambling is the act of staking money on a game of an uncertain outcome" and then call these gambling companies, because that is precisely what these companies do! Any company that has a roulette wheel, slot machine, or blackjack table stakes their money directly on a game of an uncertain outcome. Using words like "bizarre," "absurd," and "obtuse" doesn't make your position any stronger, and constantly maintaining that gaming is the word that "the world" uses, is a bit silly. I'm part of the world. So are the millions of English speakers who routinely refer to these activities as "gambling," and who would never think to use the word "gaming" to describe the activities of a casino. zadignose 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if "gambling companies" is such a bizarre and non-standard term, then why is it used by USA Today, Business Week, Asia Times, and a variety of investment companies?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-30-miss-casinos_x.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_51/b3913097.htm

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ31Df01.html

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=135442 zadignose 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are insurance companies are gambling companies because their game has an uncertain outcome, and are sports teams because their return depends upon games with an uncertain outcome? We aren't going to name articles based on what you insist on using as a term. And again, the "activties" are gambling, but that is not the business of the companies. Slots manufacturers are no more "gambling companies" than automobile manufacturors are "race car drivers". The suggestion below of Category:Gaming companies (gambling) addresses any possible issues of confusion, and also allows that new category to be a subcategory of a broader gaming companies one, if such is populated, so unless you truly do want the rest of the world to adopt your jargon, perhaps you could offer your support of that. (By the way, each one of those links uses "gaming", so next time you might want to look more closely before proving the opposite point next time!) 2005 09:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the links I provided demonstrate clear evidence of mainstream media using the term "gambling companies" to describe these companies, counter to your claim that such a designation is "absurd" and non-standard. "Gaming" is jargon only recognized by legal professionals and those directly associated with the gambling industry. And your analogy relating to slots is a poor one, not even closely related to the discussion. The manufacturers of slot machines do not stake their money directly against the gambler. Casinos do. zadignose 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You provided links showing the exact opposite! Your links each show GAMING is the standard terminology. It appears in your hurry to try and make your point that you did not even bother to read them. "'Gaming' is jargon only recognized by legal professionals and those directly associated with the gambling industry." This is nonsensical. Quit while you are behind. The mainstream media uses gaming. Governments use gaming. The stock exchanges use gaming. The names of the companies are gaming. Only some agenda-driven folks insist on calling a duck a flying creature. And again, instead of making absurd claims, at least look at what you are talking about! Slot machine manufactures is not an "analogy" they are the TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION. Slots manufacturers are among the gaming companies you want to call gambling companies. The same goes for poker companies. Both of those are subcategories of gaming companies, which is logical and sensible, but like the others -- and like YOU even say -- they are NOT gambling companies. Now can we move past this confusing foolishness? A simple, sane solution exists: Gaming companies (gambling), and subcategorize it under the broader Gaming companies category. Instead of just manually doing it though, it would be easier for the bots. 2005 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are resorting to some gross distortions. Each of the links I provided gives clear examples of the mainstream media using the term "gambling companies." I didn't set out to prove that no one uses the term gaming, but rather that "gambling companies" is neither an absurd nor non-standard term to apply here. Interested parties are invited to examine the articles for themselves. Note also that many cases where a term like "gaming" is used occur when the articles are referring a title such as "CEO of Boyd Gaming," which has been self-selected by a company with a vested interest in using the eupemistic "gaming." I also wonder what "agenda" you are accusing me of pushing, as I've spent a year and a half living exclusively off my earnings as a poker player, and have every desire to see gambling remain legal in as many jurisdictions as possible.

• Rename Current name is a confusing POV euphemism. Twittenham 12:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternately... Gambling companies is obviously wrong, but if people want to be more precise the category could be called Category:Gaming companies (Gambling) or Category:Gaming (Gambling) companies. These at least would not try and reinvent standard usage. 2005 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing a dab for the category name, since the concern is over the multiple uses, would seem a reasonable alternative to the rename being proposed. Category:Gaming companies (gambling) would probably be the proper choice. Renaming to an incorrect name would be just wrong. Vegaswikian 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Gaming may be the polite legal term, but gambling is the meaning. Gaming in WP usually refers to other sorts of games. DGG 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are multiple uses you dab. Vegaswikian 07:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Gambling companies is obviously correct and will confuse no one. It requires no qualifications, clarifications or circumlocutions. Hoylake 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If obviously correct, then why are companies named like Argosy Gaming Company? What about the state agencies listed above and the UK Law? Are all of these wrong? Even Yahoo jobs uses gaming. How about the Hilton press release? There is a lot of discussion about how wrong gaming is but all of the facts support this as the primary description for these companies. From Webster gambling is; 1 a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome 2 : to stake something on a contingency : take a chance these terms describe the player and not the house which has the odds in their favor so they will win. It is not a gamble for them. So again it is clear that gambling is simply not correct. So if Gaming company is ambiguous, do a dab as suggested above do not rename to something that is incorrect and POV. Vegaswikian 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the player is "playing a game for money or property," then the house is "playing a game for money or property." If the outcome is uncertain for the player, then the outcome is uncertain for the house. If the player is staking something on a contingency, then the house is staking something on a contingency. The fact that the house gets an overlay does not mean they're not gambling. It means that they are good gamblers, and that they are highly probable to make a profit. They experience less variance in their results depending on the volume of bets made, which for them is enormous, so their profit is as close to a sure thing as you can get (so long as they limit the size of the stakes to be proportional to their bankroll, which happens to be huge). But, however you look at it, each time the wheel spins, or a card is turned on a blackjack table, if the player is "gambling," then so is the house.zadignose 07:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If the player is staking something on a contingency, then the house is staking something on a contingency." So the state of California is now a "gambling company"? Your position just got more silly. 2005 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another gross distortion. I never made any such comment. Typical straw man tactic. The only silly thing is that you would lable that concoction "my position."zadignose 09:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I never made any such comment." You JUST WROTE IT. Are you saying someone is forging your signature? You said "If the player is staking something on a contingency, then the house is staking something on a contingency." This is patent nonsense. You have a kneejerk, ill-advised opinion that you refuse to reconsider despite blatant facts clearly proving you wrong. Now now made an uniformed stament saying if a player stakes something, then the house is. This is not just wrong, but nonsense, as any lottery shows obviously. There is no point going over this ground again and again with you when you not just ignore reality and standard usage, but your own ill-considered statements. You said something. You didn't think it through. Move on. 2005 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, when and where did I write that "California is a gambling company?" This is the "silly" argument that you've labled "mine," and then dismissed. But I never suggested such a thing. California isn't even a company, let alone a gambling company.

The distinction which I made abundantly clear is that casinos stake their money directly on the outcome of a game of chance, which is properly called gambling. Despite your claim to the contrary, they do indeed gamble. "California" does not do this, and I've never claimed that they do. I even drew attention to the fact that California card rooms are in a slightly different class from other card rooms because of existing California law. Never the less, California card rooms profit directly from gambling activities that take place within their walls, so "gambling company" is not an inappropriate lable. But, as I suggested, you may want to draw a fine distinction by putting these in a separate category such as "card rooms," or "providers of gambling services" if you absolutely insist they not be grouped with gambling companies such as Wynn and Harrahs.

Neither is "gambling company" a lable that I, nor any other participant in this discission has coined... it has been used on countless occassions by mainstream media, by the layman, by the everyday speaker of the English language, and by some though not all politicians. It is not "jargon" because it is not used within a limited context, and "gambling" is a part of every native speaker's lexicon, whereas "gaming" is jargon because it coined for (euphemistic) use by industry insiders and some legal professionals. It is not a term that is commonly recognized by all native English speakers.

Wikipedia does not have a "gaming" article, but it does have a "gambling" article. Until the start of this debate, "gaming" was only used in the text of that article in the sentence "Because of the negative connotations of the word 'gambling', casinos and race tracks often use the euphemism 'gaming' to describe the recreational gambling activities they offer." Since this debate started, vegaswikian removed that sentence, and placed a more prominent reference to the term "gaming" at the head of the article, where it is now equated as a synonym for "gambling." Though you insist the words are not synonyms. Ironically, both you and he belong to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gambling, but not to any "gaming" project, as the Wikipedia community has not by and large embraced the term "gaming" enough for such a project to exist... still you insist it is the only proper and standard term for what these companies do.

I've made my points clearly, and you are free to disagree, but you seem to prefer to engage in deceptive tactics rather than to attempt to understand what is being said. You'd rather distort my position than answer it honestly. Fortunately, I don't have to persuade you, and you don't have to persuade me... we can remain in disagreement. The others who have attended this discussion will judge based on what they know, what they believe, and what has been shown.zadignose 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But I never suggested such a thing". And still again I quoted exactly what you said. You assert a point to "prove" that casinos gamble, when it is plainly obvious the fact that a player risks something as a gamble does not mean the house does. Your point was wrong. Your statement proved only that you had not considered the ramifications of the point you are trying to manufacture out of thin air. And again, to state the obvious, just because 50k poeple use a term one way doesn't mean we should when 240k use it another way. You have no leg to stand on here. You are asserting that because a minority of references are to something one way, we should use the non-standard way. You have avoided the fact of the far greater prevalence of the standard way used now. You've asserted a definition of a gambling business that was patent nonsense. You've refused to accept the clearly sensible compromise. And that is all too bad, but in any case the majority of the world refers to gaming companies as gaming companies. You of course can call them whatever you want. 2005 07:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. - "Gambling companies" is not the norm when referring to these companies; "gaming companies" is. This is not confusing and certainly not a euphemism. Almost all governmental regulatory bodies use the phrase "gaming" rather than "gambling". Although Vegaswikian's suggestion that Gaming companies (gambling) might provide more clarity makes sense. Rray 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governmental regulatory bodies are certainly capable of making use of euphemisms.zadignose 09:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, it's standard usage, not a euphemism. Rray 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Noteworthy Edits It is notable that, since the start of this debate, some who oppose the rename have chosen to edit the main wikipedia article on gambling to remove any reference to gaming as a euphemism, and to add more positive links to the subject of gaming in support of their argument.[5] Does such editing of a mainspace article in the middle of a debate really represent a Neutral Point Of View?zadignose 09:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Of course it is a euphemism. If the US government uses it a lot, well I expect getting to that position cost a lot in lobbyists fees. Wikipedia should call a spade a spade. Osomec 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell that to the mutual fund companies like T. Rowe Price who list their holdings in this area under gaming. For one example go to their web site and check the High Yield Fund Annual Report. There is no way it can be reasonably proved that this is an euphemism given its common usage in so many places. The closing admin needs to consider this point in weighing the renames that use euphemism as the justification. Vegaswikian 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you think they might want to sell more stock by using nice euphemisms to help people avoid thinking about what they are investing in? Greg Grahame 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notion that "gaming" is a euphemism for gambling did not originate with this debate. In his report "Gambling With Your Future—Knowing the Probabilities," Dr. Garry Smith of the Alberta Gaming Research Institute wrote: "Governments and the gambling industry prefer the word“gaming,”a euphemism for gambling designed to soften public perception of an activity that may evoke images of illegal activities engaged in by unsavory characters."[6] And in an Innovation Alberta inteview on October 11, 2005, when describing ways the industry puts a positive spin on gambling he said: "The other way they do it is by using euphemisms to soften it. We call it gambling, but they call it gaming. That makes it you know, sound like it's an innocuous thing."[7] A Sept. 1998 article in the High Country News stated: "...it is gaming, Nevada's euphemism for gambling, and tourism that run the state. Around 30 million tourists spend $22.5 billion a year in Las Vegas. Another 5 million tourists come to Reno each year and spend almost $4 billion. The gambling-hotel-resort industry employs 26 percent of the workers in Nevada."[8] The AvantGuide guide to Las Vegas writes: "Did you know that gambling is legal in Las Vegas? No really, it's true! Although in Vegas it hasn't been called gambling since the mob lost control. Today, it's gaming--a euphemism that's less offensive to the enormous publicly-held corporations that operate the city's largest casinos."[9] And Bill Haywood's Holdem Poker Dictionary defines "gaming" as: "Gaming n. Sleazy industry euphemism for GAMBLING."[10] zadignose 06:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we have someone wanting to use an incorrect word because of apparently those nasty gaming companies are bribing the US government to use gaming companies even though some wiki editors want them to illogically call them something else. There clearly is no consensus for the original inappropriate nomination. We call a spade a spade now, using the by far most common terminolgy used the word over. A possible alternate was suggested, but there is no consensus so things can be left how they are. 2005 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary there is currently a "rough consensus" of the type required here, but the outcome of the discussion will be decided in the usual manner after seven days, not by you now. Greg Grahame 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename `'mikka 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "Gambling" makes it quite clear what the category is about whereas "Gaming" is ambiguous. Greg Grahame 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The parent category is Category:Gambling and all but two of the other subcategories of that category prefer "Gambling". One of the those is Category:Gaming Hall of Fame, which was obviously named by the industry, and the other should be renamed like this category. The subcategory for Category:Slot machine manufacturers can be moved into the parent category, which removes one of the arguments against this renaming. Vegaswikian may have a different set of experiences of the use of the two words from those of us who don't live in a gambling dominated town. Cloachland 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are not only non-hierarchical. Obtusely moving slot machine manufacturers away from companies that they are related to and do business with also makes no sense at all, unless you are trying to be illogical. Where you happen to live is not relevant, although a lack of knowledge on the topic should give you pause from making ill-conceived suggestions. Additionally then poker companies has no parent since even by the silly definition they are not gambling companies. Maybe you could next go to the baseball category and suggest it be renamed to "batting a ball around" since it was named by the industry. 2005 06:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't understand the instance to rename this to Category:Gambling companies which is ambiguous and inaccurate while a compromise of Category:Gaming companies (gambling) is not being considered. Category:Gaming companies (gambling) appears to be unambiguous and more precise then the proposed solution. The problem calls for a dab solution and not a rename. Vegaswikian 06:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most if not all the companies listed can't be put into a gambling business category, so a dab category would be needed to accomdate them anyway. I believe the lack of comments on the obvious solution speaks to the agendas of some involved which is too bad that we have to have that here. 2005 06:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Vegaswikian. A rename to Category:Gaming companies (gambling) seems to clearly explain to both the educated and uneducated what will be found in the section. Torimadi
• Rename to Category:Casino game companies. This is another nomination I'm too close to for objectivity, because I've done work for both game companies and gambling companies. "Gaming" is the term the casino game industry uses to avoid the stigma of gambling, but it has been recently appropriated by the hobby games industry. Thus, "gaming" is inherently ambiguous and should be driven out. The one alternate term I hear in the gambling industry is the "casino games business," and that's very clear that that applies to slot machine manufacturers and table game providers.--Mike Selinker 07:25, 17 January 2007 (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 don't merge. — CharlotteWebb 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fictional English people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fictional Welsh people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fictional Northern Irish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fictional Scots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge: I recently find the category Fictional English people in almost all of characters' articles of HP series and I nominate to CfD. This category is excrescent and plays no role in depicting the characteristics. Also, it seems that the category is overabundant with a long list and 6 subcategories (it should be mentioned that this category lies in one of the subcats of "Fictional British people"). In addition, a lot of other subcats enter into each small cat, making the category system goes into a matrix. I suggest we should merge all into a grand cat "Category:Fictional English people" and delete some redundant ones._AbelinCAusesobad 06:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as its fiction they could be English or whichever and not British, or from historical fiction from before the days of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Tim! 07:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, I'm sorry for the typing mistake, I literally mean that we should merge it into "Fictional English people"._AbelinCAusesobad 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people are definitely not English (and may or not like to be referred to as British)! Tim! 08:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to my Scottish friend, they are all British by merit of being citizens of the British Isles but are not all English. I suggest no change because change in either direction seems worse than what we have now. Doczilla 09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are separate categories for the UK and its consistent countries in all major fields and they are all essential. Chicheley 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seem like it does, but I still find no one in the "Category:Fictional Northern Irish people" so it beats me what the point of creating such categories which only make it a huddle. These cats are being overused and totally unnecessary because they make no sense in describing the characters. I still do approve of merging them into one, perhaps name it "Fictional United Kingdom-originated people"._AbelinCAusesobad 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anyone who is confused by the terms should read British Isles (terminology). Pinoakcourt 14:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really? Each time anyone wants to find something and they must stick to that article?58.187.151.23 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No change is at all necessary. Keep as is per Tim! and Chicheley.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for accuracy's sake. But if, as Tim! suggests, we're going to have a category for every possible setting throughout history, we actually need more categories than just these. What about "Fictional Hibernians" and "Fictional Caledonians"? For that matter, we'll need to change Category:Fictional French people, as it includes Roman-era Gauls. Still, to ensure accuracy, I don't see a problem with doing that. Kafziel ^Talk 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - relevant distinction. Bottom four category's should be placed as a subcategory of the top one, if not already. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Relevant distinction and calling Scottish and Welsh people "English" may be offensive in its own right. User:Dimadick
• Comment: While I agree that all of these categories should be kept separate (and it looks like there is a clear consensus to do so), I think that Category:Fictional Scots should be changed to Category:Fictional Scottish people for consistency. So I'd like to know whether anybody agrees or disagrees with me on this point. — CharlotteWebb 10:15, 16 January 2007 (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 redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rangoon into Category:Yangon

• Merge, present name for the city. Chris 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, it's already empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I suspect that more people will recognise Rangoon. Pinoakcourt 14:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Duplicate CFD: something has gone wrong here. A CFD was started yesterday at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10#Category:Rangoon, but the link on Category:Rangoon points here (it was added after the Jan10 CFD was started). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:10, 11 January 2007 (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 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streetcars in Brooklyn[edit]

Category:Streetcars in the Bronx[edit]

Category:Streetcars in Queens[edit]

Category:Streetcars in Staten Island[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in Brooklyn to Category:Streetcar lines in Brooklyn

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in the Bronx to Category:Streetcar lines in the Bronx

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in Queens to Category:Streetcar lines in Queens

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in Staten Island to Category:Streetcar lines in Staten Island

• Rename as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4#Category:Streetcars in Manhattan. NE2 02:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and previous discussion. Vegaswikian 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename all. Xiner (talk, email) 17:18, 11 January 2007 (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 do not merge, but rename Category:Musical instrument manufacturers to Category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies and annotate the categories. Per Chicheley and others, the distinction between makers and manufacturers is perfectly clear. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical instrument manufacturers into Category:Musical instrument makers

• Merge, these categories are either identical or confusing. Suggest they are merged. Alternatively the manufacturers category could be restricted to companies, and the makers category to individual makers. Bishop pam 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposite Merge, in other words, merge the makers one to manufacturers. Sound more encyclopedic. Although I like your alterative too. --Wizardman 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge though the new category could as easily be named Musical instrument crafters. I don't understand the linguistic flavorings between manufacturers, crafters, and makers. Kail Ceannai 07:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The former is for companies and the latter is for people (though there may be some that are misplaced because it is true that the names are confusing). So rename Category:Musical instrument manufacturers to category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies. Chicheley 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either way, distinction is unclear. >Radiant< 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The distinction is that a company like Adams Musical Instruments would be categorized as a manufacturer and Stradivarius would be categorized under makers. Otto4711 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The distinction is perfectly clear. Rename Category:Musical instrument manufacturers to category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies per Chicheley. Pinoakcourt 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using company nomenclature as appropriate As above, the categories should not be merged because one handles individuals and the other handles companies. Rename the categories to make the distinction clearer. Dugwiki 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger, rename per Chicheley. And somebody please annotate these categories! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies per Chicheley. Twittenham 12:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename makers is the traditional and more comprehensive name.DGG 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies per Chicheley. Craig.Scott 00:42, 14 January 2007 (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.