< November 27	November 29 >

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Monuments in Liepāja to Category:Monuments and memorials in Latvia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Monuments and memorials in Latvia, convention of Category:Monuments and memorials by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see this as overcategorization. Also, I cannot find any written convention on the super-cat. --Soman (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Monuments by city is too fine a categorization. Notable monumnets should be linked through text. Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge' up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Now that the topic has been consolidated, this category is only used for one article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Ghostbusters and Category:Fictional technology. Otto4711 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Now that the topic has been consolidated, this category is only used for one article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Ghostbusters. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Nomination is based on a false premise, as the category has six articles.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Now that the topic has been consolidated, this category is only used for one article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as of this writing there are six articles in the category. If they were merged and unmerged then that issue needs to be resolved before the category is deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a very un-encyclopedic category to use. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something - it is about the fictional stereotype, so maybe Depictions of mad scientists as fictional MS is ruled out, as not all articles are about individual characters. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the contents look to be films and we already have Category:Mad scientist films which along with List of mad scientists renders the category fairly superfluous. Otto4711 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category is totally unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 12:34, 30 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is empty and unlikely to be re-filled. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 28#Template:Doom-monster. Pagra shtak 20:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I created this category, there were several pages in it (one for each Doom monster). Since now they are gone (I just checked a few of them, and they have turned into redirects or disambiguation pages), there is no need for the category anymore. --cesarb (talk) 22:34, 29 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: This category has only one entry, the SkyOS article, and thus appears pointless - there are no other articles that should be placed here, so it would remain a single article category. Xmoogle (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is unnecessary as it has only one article in it. Marlith ^T/C 02:02, 3 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a "decanonized saint". Further, though the category text says it's supposed to include saints removed from the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar, it does not. Many of the fake saints inside are now included in Category:Folk saints, rendering it even more useless.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the above, the fact that an individual's name might be removed from one calendar doesn't necessarily mean that he's been removed from others. Category is badly misnamed, biased toward Roman Catholics, and relates to an aspect of the individual that is not even remotely relevant to the life of the individual. Granted, many of these people are only important because of their status as "saints", but the problems expressed by the nominator and myself remain. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case for a "category for Saints that were formerly in the Roman Caththolic Litugical Calendar, but no longer appear there." (which is what this is supposed to be), like Saint George, but he of course is not in this ragbag. If kept, rename to Category:Former Roman Catholic saints, but as sort of pointed out by those above, most members of this were probably never in the Calendar anyway (a couple were), and on the whole it is best deleted. I don't think it can be argued it is not defining. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and John Carter, warlord. Snocrates 02:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as Roman Catholic Saints without feast days or something. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per the numeric person above. A list article would allow for explanatory text as to why a particular saint was removed or never added to the liturgical calendar. Otto4711 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and John Carter. Object to any category suggesting that Saints who no longer appear on Liturgical Calendar are no longer Saints or are former Saints, as they clearly still are. This category has been abused terribly by people wanting to further the black legend (in the case of Saint Dominguito del Val) and Catholic bashers who won't let truth get in the way of a good lie ( St. Simon of Trent; where they have given him official status as the Catholic "Patron Saint of Anti Semitism and of Blood Libel"). Die4Dixie 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all reasons above. --Paularblaster 03:44, 4 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Leave alone pending the ongoing discussion of the main article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South Tyrol to Category:Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns in South Tyrol to Category:Cities and towns in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Districts of South Tyrol to Category:Districts of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Lakes of South Tyrol to Category:Lakes of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in South Tyrol to Category:Monasteries in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Nominator's rationale: The main article is Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Suppar luca 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note was Kept in September: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_29#Category:South_Tyrol Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus found in the last discussion was to wait some time before renaming the categories, and several months have passed.--Suppar luca 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

obvious oppose. constant POV-pushing by Italian users, see Category talk:South Tyrol where base category has clearly been voted upon to "keep". Gryffindor 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to make accusations, there is no conspiracy here. :) Johnbod can inform you that the results were neither to keep or reject, it was to wait. I'm fine to wait for a couple more months too, as Johnbod implies. Icsunonove 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid racist comments.--Suppar luca 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Where was my comment "racist"? Stop slandering other users or else I'll have to slap an official warning on you. Gryffindor 09:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he obviously didn't feel good about you saying "constant POV-pushing by Italian users". How about this: everyone stop slandering each other? Takes two to tango. :) Icsunonove 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid preposterous threats and keep the discussion civil.--Suppar luca 13:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU need to avoid unfounded accusations. Rarelibra 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the last time. Normally I would always support the category name following the article, but this unstable one is a special case, as set out by various editors last time. The current article name is a specially invented WP neologism, like saying "Wales-Cymru" - the city is Bolzano in Italian & Bozen in German, and the official Italian titles in both languages use only one form, as the article makes clear. Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say the current title is a WP invention, as it comes from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The provincial website's main English page uses Province of Bolzano/Bozen, and official English translations from the provincial council use Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen. As the name Bolzano is most often used in English, probably the most correct usage would simply be Province of Bolzano. However, we've attempted to stay neutral, something which would be very difficult to accomplish if either Alto Adige or South Tyrol is used. Icsunonove 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The provincial website says both "Province of South Tyrol" and "Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol" and the English site you reference says "Welcome to South Tyrol". I don't see where this infers to the usage of "Bolzano/Bozen". There is no reference of "Bolzano", as the German page says "Bozen - Südtirol", the French site says "Tyrol du sud", and the Ladin page says "Balsan - Südtirol". Rarelibra 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out, in the body of the main English page [1]: "Description of the autonomous legislative and administrative powers of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen". For the regional name in French they really use Haut-Adige, in Italian Alto Adige, in Spanish Alto Adigio. Less used are Tyrol du Sud, Tirolo del Sud, and Tirol del sur, respectively. In English both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are used commonly. My own experience, as a native-English speaker, has shown Alto Adige to be used most often (at least in the United States). Finally, note that Südtirol is German; it is not Ladin. Icsunonove 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, listed on the Ladin page. And as a native-English speaker myself, I have looked into this a lot during the past year and have noticed the more prevalent usage of "South Tyrol" - travel books, references, and *some* maps (not all). Let's not argue - but agree - yes, there are references appearing and maps that are using Alto Adige (after all, I was *for* that usage on the Region page). But it doesn't seem so here. Rarelibra 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be listed on this page that has been translated into Ladin by the provincial authorities (SVP), but just as they goofed up the French, they messed up the Ladin. On the websites that are actually written by native-Ladin speakers they simply use Provinzia de Bulsan not the German word Südtirol. Süd is not Ladin. Both Italian and Ladin use Sud. I definitely agree with you that both terms are widely used in English, and I've said before that I like both terms. I wouldn't like the name Tyrol to disappear, neither do I admire the comical idea of some in unionfs asking for people to say Sudtirolo instead of Alto Adige in Italian. All the names should be respected and preserved. Still, it doesn't change the situation that it's really impossible to pick Alto Adige over South Tyrol, or vise versa in this case. It is next to impossible to decide which is most common English usage, and which ever would be picked just flames the fires. Rarelibra, seriously, read the the intro page and toponym section. No one is left out. The title of the article itself respects both Italian/German and is sourced from Brittanica... Icsunonove 21:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted the other day that istat uses Bolzano-Bozen, see for instance, Popolazione residente al 1 Gennaio 2006 per età, sesso e stato civile :: Provincia: Bolzano-Bozen That’s a page in the Italian language, but which wants to be neutral as well as official. So, no, it is not a Wikipedia invention. —Ian Spackman 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I'm not convinced. Check out the 152,000 ghits for "Wales-Cymru", very many of which are from UK (and Welsh) government sites [2] (not punctuation sensitive, includes / - space etc). I think I would be happier if it was "Bolzano/Bozen", which is less misleading, and the correct punctuation for an alternative as opposed to a compound name. This and the similar link at the article are to headings on statistics, hardly an RS for this. No uses of "Provincia autonoma di Bolzano-Bozen" from official (or any other than EB) sources cited yet that I can see. Johnbod 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like this double name, but I want to move the category because it has to be consistent with its article (consistency and logic, as always).--Suppar luca 08:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference Ian, I'm going to add it to the page. You know what, and also kudos to the officials in Italy for trying to be neutral as well. I feel disappointed myself to usually only see the Italian translations use dual names, but not the German ones. :( Icsunonove 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian - thanks for the reference, although we all know that wiki isn't about one reference or another, it is about the collective and based also on popular usage and not necessary on convention. The Italian government uses one thing, but the collective of English usage is "South Tyrol" - and also based on the Germanic majority of the province. This is the case for many articles on wiki - they don't necessarily use the 'official' name as much as the 'popular' name. This is a case where it is an attempt to change from the popular (and stable) usage to one which is complicated and doesn't represent the majority. Rarelibra 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your opinion Rarelibra. I believe you are wrong with your idea that the collective English usage is South Tyrol. I've said before that most often in the United States you will see this province referenced to simply because of its wine (they don't exactly export cars or computers from BZ). The bottles are consistently labeled with Alto Adige, by choice of the local wine makers, regardless of mother tongue or ethnicity. This alone has led to much of the reason why we often refer to this area as Alto Adige in English. You see this in many American magazines [3], and commonly in British articles as well [4]. Those who are vaguely interested in Italy also know that the provinces are all simply named after the major city, so Province of Pisa, Province of Trento, Province of Bolzano, are the common ways to list and refer to these places. In fact, most people I've met that have traveled to Italy tell me they've simply visited Bolzano or Pisa, because the major cities and provinces are so intertwined (they are not like States in the US). Regardless, to be absolutely fair, probably an argument can be made equally for Alto Adige, South Tyrol, and Province of Bolzano. However, experience has shown that all three of those choices will likely cause bad feelings -- so at least with Province of Bolzano-Bozen we have something that is well documented as a valid term (and is bilingual). Also it has none of this Alto this or Sud that. By your idea, should we move T-AA/ST back to Trentino-South Tyrol? It is rarely used in English but the German majority in BZ may (or may not) like it more. Though, if you haven't noticed, there has not been an ounce of fighting on that page since it was moved to the official name in the Italian constitution. Is that SO BAD, so WRONG? I know you (and Gryffindor and PhJ) have feelings that this is some battle and have the opinion that the editors (and there were a good dozen) who voted for the page move did so in bad faith (or without your consent). That is your opinion, fine. But this isn't some war to see who is king of the hill in the end. We are trying together to come up with a pleasant long-term solution. Just having South Tyrol, or a forced German-to-English translations like Bozen-South Tyrol just isn't it, and nor would Alto Adige be it. Icsunonove 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin should take into account the validity of the arguments rather than the number of "support" and "oppose": it is indisputable that the name of a category should match the title of the main article.--Suppar luca 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing admin should take into account the message I left on User:Supparluca talk page about his edits. [5]. Moving articles such as Marienberg Abbey [6] to his newly created categories such as Category:Monasteries in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen, calling his edit a "fixed category", and then putting up the old category Category:Monasteries in South Tyrol for a rename when it was voted upon in August 2007 to be kept [7] is not the way to do it. This he did to every article pertaining that region, getting into a tiff for example in Talk:Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft with other users. We cannot have rename runs every two months about the same old issues. Gryffindor 09:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no need to discuss this every two or three months. The "consensus" Supparluca speaks of was not part of the decision but the statement of a single voter. --jergen (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Supparluca, Ian Spackman, Icsunonove, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timrollpickering were in favour of reconsidering the question; Gryffindor, Number 57 and Duncanhill were not.--Suppar luca 12:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be in favor of reconsideration - though I was not involved in the vote. Rarelibra 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supparluca is completely correct. The consensus was to re-visit the question. Icsunonove 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Please stop ideological warfare. -- PhJ 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. As per Gryffindor, PhJ, jergen and Johnbod. This is senseless changing of what was already majority-voted and agreed upon. It seems the POV is to continue to call for a vote until certain people get what they desire. That is not the wiki way. Rarelibra 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - obviously the categories should match the page Province of Bolzano-Bozen. That location is used because it is sourced from English-based references (refer to the Toponyms section) and is logically more neutral than using either Alto Adige (the Italian perspective) or South Tyrol (the German perspective). I'll make the same comment as Supparluca, the closing Admin will hopefully not count votes (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Icsunonove 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. As per Gryffindor, PhJ, jergen,Johnbod and Rarelibra. This is senseless changing of what was already majority-voted and agreed upon. It seems the POV is to continue to call for a vote until certain people get what they desire. That is not the wiki way.-Phips 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per WP:ENGLISH. --Paularblaster 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This appears to be a new battleground for an unresolved discussion on the actual article. Group29 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose I spent years living among Englishs-speakers in Europe, and South Tyrol was the only name anyone knew that region by. Any other name would inevitably cause confusion. Jonathan David Makepeace 18:11, 4 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Drink images to Category:Beverage images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Drink images to Category:Beverage images

Nominator's rationale: Merge, they deal with the same topic! I would have speedy'd it, but I didn't see this under the criteria. Eliyak T·C 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge as an obvious duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Limited to one article. Too narrow to be useful. Pagra shtak 18:56, 28 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Intelligence by type. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Intelligence by genre to Category:Types of intelligence

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "genre" does not quite seem appropriate here. The category's name stemmed from the fact that it had included the topics which are now at Category:Intelligence (information gathering). I have just split those out to distinguish these two separate meanings of "intelligence." --Eliyak T·C 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Intelligence by type. X by Y is the common standard. Otto4711 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see both in use at Category:Categories by type. "X by type" sounds to me as though it should be used for a parent category which contains various topical subcategories, such as "Category:Fooian X's" and "Category:Barrian X's". ("by" is short for "sorted by"). But this category does not do that. --Eliyak T·C 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to one or other - slight preference for I by T per Otto. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 29 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename both as nominated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:OSINT to Category:Open source intelligence
Category:ELINT to Category:Signals intelligence

Nominator's rationale: Rename, expanding acronyms for clarity. In the case of Category:ELINT, the acronym actually stands for "Electronic Intelligence," but that is a subset of Signals Intelligence, and ELINT does not have its own article, while SIGINT does. --Eliyak T·C 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per noms. Sting_au Talk 12:38, 30 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Evolution video games to Category:Biological simulation video games. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The main article associated with this category is itself being listed for deletion, and this category adds nothing to one that lists strategy games. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's suggestion: Merge to Category:Strategy video games. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make more sense to merge this with Category:Biological simulation video games ?? Felix the Hurricane (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is no consistent genre, here. it's just a bunch of different games that have evolution as a theme. EVO is side scroller, for god's sake. Randomran (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand this category. It is not solely for E.V.O.: Search for Eden, but for evolutionary simulation games in general, which is why I suggest moving this to the "Biological simulation video games" category instead of strategy. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 16:36, 7 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename both, as nominated. Old cats to be retained as soft redirects. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. --Eliyak T·C 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose GCHQ is clearer, it is better known as an acryonym. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to match the article Government Communications Headquarters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and leave redirect: GCHQ is in common use, but the full name is used for the article and it's better that the category matches the article. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and leave redirect per Bencherlite; everyone says geeseehaichqueue in the UK, but no doubt it is not well known elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the main category and leave a redirect, but Keep the sub-category. It's much better known as G-C-H-Q on this side of the pond, as well -- but not proper form for the name of a category (I have to admit, I would have been hard pressed to remember what the "C" stands for). However, I think Category:GCHQ cryptographers should remain as is -- the proposed rename is too unwieldy, and the comination of "GCHQ" plus "cryptographers" has sufficient clarity.Cgingold 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I don't believe any of the participants actually expressed an opinion on renaming the sub-category, perhaps they should be polled on that question, seeing as I was the only one to address it directly. Cgingold 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly intended that GCHQ should be spelled out in full for both: the principle of matching the name of the main article also applies to sub-categories. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 7 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - previous no consensus close was based on the need to merge the contents per the outcome of a previous AFD. That has been done and the category should now be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that the merge is done, the category can go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:05, 28 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Ukrainian Australians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Ukrainian Australians, convention of Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.Baka man 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, to standardise category titles. Lankiveil (talk) 08:44, 5 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:LPFM Radio Stations to Category:Low-power FM radio stations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Low-power FM radio stations, expanding the acronym. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, partially expanding the acronym. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into both Category:Mayors of places in Japan and Category:People from Osaka, or Keep, seems premature to me. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it may be premature, but I'd venture to guess that all mayors of Osaka (a city of 3 million people) will likely pass WP:BIO and this category could grow. We do have similar categories for other cities, but usually with more than one article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree ... we'll probably want something like this someday. However at the moment there's only 7 Mayors of places in Japan. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez. I would not be at all surprised if there are already mayors among the 65 articles in Category:People from Osaka. In addition, I've just finished creating & populating categories for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Tokyo has "governors".) Cgingold (talk) 16:28, 5 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Italian singers and Category:People of Albanian descent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Italian singers, or at least rename to Category:Italian singers of Albanian descent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double merge into Category:Italian singers and Category:People of Albanian descent - this is overcatergorisation by trivial intersection. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Italian singers per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double merge per above. --Soman (talk) 10:39, 29 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Famous Seventh-day Adventists in society to Category:Seventh-day Adventists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous Seventh-day Adventists in society to Category:Seventh-day Adventists in society

Nominator's rationale: Famous is not a good idea per WP:NCCAT. Alternatively, upmerge to Category:Seventh-day Adventists. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Seventh-day Adventists - don't know what "in society" adds to the equation (excludes hermits maybe?) but that doesn't seem to be normal nomenclature at WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Carlos. "In society" modifier is non-standard and unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, I created the category, for those notable as both Adventists and for their role outside the church, as opposed to categories for theologians, etc. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, society is a quite odd wording, famous is an unclear criteria. --Soman (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agreed at the time with the reasoning of Colin to separate those who were actively involved in church theology with those who were active members but were known because of their non-church activities. Not sure now how to work it but upmerging seems to be the consensus so far. Ansell 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge per carlos - This is why we need religion+occupation cats, so that we dont have weird cats like this running around.Baka man 19:14, 3 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Famous Cheeses to Category:Cheeses. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Famous Cheeses to Category:Cheeses

Nominator's rationale: "Famous" is a bad idea per WP:NCCAT. I suggest to merge to Category:Cheeses as Cheshire Mammoth Cheese seems to be the only other famous cheese in the encyclopedia and that's where it is cat'ed. Alternatively, move both of these to Category:Cheese. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Cheeses. We don't do "famous" because it's redundant of "notable" and, as that is a requirement for articles anyway, is unnecessary. We need Category:Cheeses for individual cheeses as distinct from cheese-making processes, cheese-recipes, and other cheesy topics that would be within Category:Cheese. Mmmm... cheese. --Lquilter (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; 2 individual pieces of cheese aren't enough for an category, impressive though it is to see English cheeses leading the world in this respect. Oh yes, you French, you zink you arre so cleavair ..... Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. 'Famous' is highly dependent on cultural context, what might be famous in the US is not necessarily famous in Pakistan, and vice versa. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. X may be popular in culture and may not be popular in other culture. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Redundancy. If its on wiki it is probably famous somewhere.Baka man 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. "Fame" is a word that best describes something accomplished. When "accomplished by a cheese" is considered, "Popular" or "top selling" would be a better fit. They can be measured in terms of sales and distribution.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - empty at end of discussion (only contained two user sandboxs). I note in passing that during this discussion the list itself was deleted for lack of sources/notability without prejudice to proper recreation. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Too narrow in scope. Only two characters are not contained in List of Warcraft characters and they are on their way there. Pagra shtak 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; list seems better for these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 12:16, 29 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Film directors by medium to Category:Film directors by genre, no action on the remainder at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - overcategorization of performer by type of performance. There is also no theoretical limit to the number of genres in which a director can direct so directors who work in a number of genres will end up with large numbers of clutterful categories on their articles. If retained then the parent category needs to be renamed to Category:Film directors by genre since these are examples of different genres and not different media. Otto4711 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is not the same as performer by performance. It's performer by type-of-performance, which we have all over the place (Category:Heavy metal guitarists, Category:Quadratura painters, Category:Ballerinas). These are reasonable groupings because they usually apply to an individual's entire career.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same, because ballerinas for instance are generally only ballerinas. They are not also exotic dancers or ballroom dancers or any other sort of categorized dancer. Whereas someone like Steven Spielberg has directed dramas of a variety of types, comedies of a variety of types, horror, science fiction, a B-movie and others that I'm undoubtedly forgetting. He could end up with a dozen or more categories based on the genres of films he's directed. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So put headers on the categories to make them for people who predominantly worked in one genre. It's possible that a musician could end up in lots of categories too. But we cull to make sure dalliance in one genre doesn't get you into that genre.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more precisely, are closely identified with the genre/medium/whatever at question. Someone might be closely identified with two or more -- pathbreaking in X and in Y, for instance. --Lquilter 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom; directors are not usually tied to genre. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The tree does seem problematic because many (maybe most) directors do move in and out of genres. But there are certainly directors who are primarily or entirely associated with a particular genre -- e.g., Sergio Leone with spaghetti westerns, Hayao Miyazaki with anime, Hammer horror directors. These categories would help in these cases. If we eliminate them, what would be the best approach to associating those directors who are strongly identified with a particular genre, with the relevant category? Just file the director into the genre category? Because then, when cleaning up that category, one would be tempted to create a category for people. Maybe Category:People associated with x genre, that would include, say, Elvira or various scream queens as well as directors or producers? Or just throw it all into lists? (I note that not these "genres" are not all the same "kind", complicating things: "b-movie" and "silent" refer to production aspects primarily; "spaghetti western" both genre & production; "anime" & "animated film" a medium; horror a genre ... --Lquilter (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these categories were less specialised - Spy/cop/romance/musical film Directors etc, I might agree (and I would agree to deletion of those). But, with the exception of Westerns, most of these are actually relatively specialised. Are there currently people in more than one, I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward D. Wood, Jr. is currently categorized as a horror film director and a B-movie director. I'm sure there are others. Otto4711 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that is sort of fair enough; I have heard of him in both capacities and - believe me - I haven't heard of that many film directors. Actually, I see Raoul Walsh and Cecil B. DeMille both could be in "silent" as well as "Western", but aren't. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't yet you mean. Otto4711 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Horror movie genre has a special relationship with B-movies, I would say, but horror movies is clearly a genre; and B-movies is more about production values/budget etc. --Lquilter 15:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion - Directors of films would seem to be more roughly eqivalent to authors of books, than performer by performance. Not saying the director is an author, but rather in the sense of the ratio. However, Rename to Category:Film directors by genre, since only 1 or 2 of the subcats are even close to possibly being "by medium" (animated and music video), the rest are genres (as noted above). To make it clearer, Film is a medium, so by calling them "film directors" it defeats the purpose of the category. See also Category:Categories by genre. (As I look under that cat, I see at least 3 subcats for people: artists, composers, and writers.) - jc37 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to medium ... indeed; I actually missed that the overall cat structure was "medium", just looking at the individual items. --Lquilter (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Film directors by medium to genre per nom; Keep the structure per several above. We don't use these arguments for writers, and to call a director a "performer" is clearly wrong - any performances they give are captured in shooting documentaries only. We have seen many recent attempts to stretch "performer by performance" but this time the elastic has definitely snapped. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use these arguments for... may or may not be true but whether we do or don't treat other sorts of artists in a particular way dos not automatically mean that we must treat film directors this way. Maybe it's a bad idea to treat other creative people this way too. I don't know. The question as far as I know hasn't come up before. The point still stands unrefuted that directors have no limits on the genres of films they can direct and a prolific director will end up with vast numbers of categories on his or her article as more and more of these categories are created and divided ever finer by genre. "Performer" is interpreted loosely, and deliberately so, because arguments like "directors aren't performers unless someone shoots them for a documentary" should seriously not gain any traction. Directors perform the act of directing. Otto4711 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And writers perform the act of writing. Are we going to remove people by any action? - jc37 05:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Btw, is there a reason Category:Porn directors has been omitted? Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted it because of the gay porn directors subcat. I didn't want to chance the discussion getting bogged down in a gay porn directors vs directors of gay porn quagmire. Otto4711 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought There is a middle course - which I don't advocate, but would prefer to wholesale deletion - of deleting the cats about genre - western (inc. spag)/B-movie/horror - and leaving those others based on fundamental technical or type distinctions - anime/animation/silent/propaganda. That would, for one thing, hugely reduce the number of directors potentially able to be in more than one of these. I notice Category:Music video directors has also not been nominated. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty interesting compromise, sez I.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. It's rather obvious that this was intended for grouping directors by genre. I don't think anyone (so far) opposes this (or opposes the rename). At this point, we're just discussing whether to keep or delete part of a "directors by genre" category. That said, I think the main one that is likely to be slated for deletion is B-movie. It's not so "obviously apparent" (to me anyway) as the others. The other genres seem more clearly defined. (Though I'm sure someone will educate me momentarily : ) - Anyway, that said, there are some genres that are just too broad. Western, Horror, and sci-fi (I realise it's not nominated), for example. Consider that Sam Raimi directed The Evil Dead and Spider-man : ) - On the other hand, the Spaghetti Westerns are fairly clear, I would presume (Though I suppose that one could possibly be listified.) Hopefully all this stream of consciousness writing was understood : ) - jc37 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason I like Johnbod's approach here is that I feel that the medium is really about things like anime and silent and so forth. That is, by looking at fifteen seconds of an anime film, you can tell what it is. So those categories are on very solid foundation with me. But I can see reason to consider removing the broader categories; I don't support that approach, but I can see it. So some are "absolutely keep," and some are "I think we should keep," and that's a useful distinction for anyone closing this debate.--Mike Selinker 14:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting Otto's nom to rename to "...by genre", and keeping all. But I suppose if my other suggestion were adopted, the rename would not be necessary. Or one could split them into "by genre" and "by medium" groups, but that's too complicated, and eg silent films aren't quite a different medium I feel, though clearly a different technical type of film. Johnbod 14:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the question of "propaganda films" (certainly not a technical-medium; I don't think I even see a genre), anime & animation directors pretty much stick within that medium, I believe, and it involves somewhat different directorial skills, no? I worry about silent, though; I understood that while a number of actors couldn't make the transition from silent to talkie, that directors had no problems. --Lquilter 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How about if, since we all seem to agree to at least the rename, this is closed with that result, and then this is relisted to discuss cleanup/deletion? - jc37 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay? if i understand your proposal correctly then yes. <g> --Lquilter 18:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or rename/reorder per discussion above) There is no theoretical limit to the number of any kind of jobs any person can hold either, a person can be an artist and a writer and a singer and a dancer and so forth, and many are -- yet most aren't, so categories for individual professions are quite useful. Spielberg is not a typical example, he's relatively unusual in having prominently directed so many genres; he's like using Leonardo Da Vinci or Isaac Asimov as reasons against categorizing people as artists or scientists or writers. Most B-movie directors do, in fact, stick to B-movies, and when Mel Brooks or Woody Allen direct an anime or a horror film, let us know. Categories aren't meant to be exclusive, it is perfectly fine to have some overlap. Unlike other parts of the encyclopedia, categories are meant to be useful rather than restrictive. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:40, 7 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete Category:Neighbourhoods in Algeria, keep Category:Settlements in Algeria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The first category contains only further subcategories which are not really related, and the second one is simply empty. Both categories are replacable with Category:Cities and towns in Algeria. --escondites 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question & Comment does the status of "city" or "town" have governmental significance as they may do in some countries. If so, then merging in villages and other settlements that do not have that status is probably not appropriate. If not, seems Ok to me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Officially, all of these (cities, towns, settlements, and neighborhoods) do not exist, there are only municipalities (which do not have a category...) --escondites 08:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Category:Settlements in Algeria. This is part of a pattern; there is a 'settlements' category for each of the 200 some countries in the world. Each covers where people live and so are very much related. Reading the categories and definitions will reduce deletion attempts of what is not understood. Hmains (talk) 04:49, 29 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was close as forum shopping. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afghan politicians to Category:Politicians of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not all politicians of Afghanistan are Afghans. For example, Abdul Rashid Dostum is an Uzbek, Latif Pedram and Tahir Badakhshi are Tajiks, etc. Also, "Afghan politician" could refer to an Afghan politician of another country, such as Zalmay Khalilzad who is a politician working for United States. To avoid these two issues, the category should simply be moved to Politicians of Afghanistan. There is no controversy or ambiguity with that category name and it refers to all politicians of Afghanistan. Behnam (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - per this discussion to rename "Politicians of Afghanistan" as "Afghan politicians", followed by this nomination to reverse the change (closed as keep) and this follow-up (closed as speedy keep) (the last two nominations also being by Behnam). I don't see the difference between the reasoning this time round and the reasoning the last two or three times CfD looked at this. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No actually it's not the same reasoning. I have an additional reason now. Last time my reason was "Afghan politicians can refer to Afghan politicians in lets say America, and there are several Afghan politicians serving other countries, for example Zalmay Khalilzad." This time there is an additional reason, and that is that not all politicians of Afghanistan are Afghan, such as Abdul Rashid Dostum, Latif Pedram, Tahir Badakhshi, etc. -- Behnam (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that additional reason also has precedent against it: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_27#Afghan_people and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_20#Category:Afghanistani_musicians. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two different categories. This reason is not that relevant to those categories. But to this category, it is very relevant and should be enough of a reason for the move. -- Behnam (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, every sub-category of Category:Afghan people by occupation uses "Afghan" not "of Afghanistan", so it's not just those categories. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that those titles are most suitable. My argument applies particularly to this category, that there are non-Afghan politicians. And actually, on Wikipedia Commons, they have "______ of Afghanistan" for all people related categories. See here. -- Behnam (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There are terms for referring to ethnic groups that are used by the majority ethnic group, that are considered insults by the members of the ethnic group being referred to. If this is one of those instances then no amount of precedence would convince me that majority should rule. I was going to offer the example of Category:Eskimos -- only to learn that we do have some categories under the name Eskimo. Maybe Americans don't know that "Eskimo" is an insulting term, not used by innu people themselves. Thought experiment: If we were writing in WW2 Germany, would we agree that majority should rule, and stick with Category:Y*d politicians to refer to Jewish politicians? If we were writing in the anti-bellum South, would we agree to Category:N-word anything? Geo Swan (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the participants in the previous discussions helpfully included a link to Article 4 of the Constitution: The nation of Afghanistan shall be comprised of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and other tribes. The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan. The constitution, it appears, was adopted after considerable discussion by many representatives of different backgrounds (e.g. BBC News and BBC News). I won't comment on the straw-man arguments about Nazi Germany. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any country can write their constitution to serve their interests and agendas. In this case, the ruling government of Afghanistan are Pashtuns (ethnic Afghans) and have an agenda of Pashtunizing or Afghanizing the rest of Afghanistan. So ofcoarse they will write this into the constitution, which was written in a rush in 2004 and wasn't even reviewed and was also forged (several of the signatures were forged). For example, the same government that wrote that Afghan is a citzenship, then claims that Pashtuns of Pakistan are also Afghan due to their ethnicity. They are using as an ethnic term at the same time as a citizenship which is against logic and only done to serve their interest. A more reliable source would be Princeton University's WordNet which uses Afghanistani. And yes, calling me after the name of an ethnic group that has committed so many atrocities and oppression against my ethnic group, is an insult to me (please read Afghan call for ethnic cleansing). I'm not arguing to use Afghanistani instead, but rather I'm suggesting to use Politicians of Afghanistan to avoid any ambiguity or controversy. -- Behnam (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Library, another authoritative source, clearly states that Afghan is Pashtun. Please read it here -- Behnam (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another authoritative source that states that Afghan is Pashtun is: Banuazizi, Ali and Myron Weiner (eds.). 1994. The Politics of Social Transformation in Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East), Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-2608-8. -- Behnam (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you don't believe that the constitution in 2004 was rushed (the country just came out of decades of war and people did not pay attention to it at that time), not reviewed, and also forged... below is the transcript from a program on Tolo TV (Afghanistan's most watched TV channel):

Afghan TV discusses linguistic tensions, "forged" constitution Print E-mail Saturday, March 17, 2007

Afghan TV discusses linguistic tensions, "forged" constitution
Source: Tolo TV, Kabul - BBC

(large copyvio removed) Otto4711 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Behnam (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there is alot of ambiguity and controversy over this term. So Wikipedia should take the neutral stance and use an uncontroversial category: Politicians of Afghanistan. There is nothing ambiguous or controversial about it. -- Behnam (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think since no one ca argue against it, it's settled then, Wikipedia should take the neutral stance and avoid ambiguity and controversy and should move this category to Politicians of Afghanistan. -- Behnam (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the assertion that various ethnic groups in Afghanistan would be non-Afghans is a strong POV statement, and should not be generally endorsed. There is no reason why Afghanistan should be exempt from the general standard at Category:Politicians_by_country (where there are a handfull of tricky cases, like Micronesia, but Afghanistan is certainly not one of those). --Soman (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Afghanistani politicians, which is less ambiguous & potentially POV, and I think at least as common nowadays as "Afghan", no doubt for just this reason (ok perhaps not - added, see next bit). Other categories should follow. I see it is used by the Times of India & other Indian media, the UN daily web paper, and Afghanistani American here - but not by main US/UK media.Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod. DGG (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The demonym for people from Afghanistan is "Afghan". This is stated not just in the current constitution of Afghanistan art. 4, but in the 1990 Constitution, art. 33; the 1987 Constitution, art. 33; the 1976 Constitution, art. 21; and the 1964 Constitution, art. 1. In other words, five different constitutions in a row (not just the supposedly rushed and/or forged one) have stated that all citizens of Afghanistan can be called "Afghan". The current constitution distinguishes between "Pashtuns" (one of the ethnic groups in the country) and "Afghans" (all of the citizens of the country); they are now considered different concepts. Although the word "Afghan" historically meant Pashtun, I have not found any reliable sources that say that "Afghan" is an incorrect term to refer to citizens of Afghanistan who are Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara, etc. WordNet, cited above, says that "Afghan" is a synonym for "Afghanistani". The British Library, also stated above, states that "Afghans" has as a modern meaning "any inhabitant of Afghanistan". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's the not only issue here. Politicians such as Latif Pedram reject this and do not consider themselves Afghan, they do not even use that word. This is the main reason it should be moved as several of these politicians do not call themselves Afghan. Also, those constitutions were written by the ruling Pashtun monarchies. These constitutions were not approved by the people and the people had no say in it as the monarchies were dictatorships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.54.87 (talk • contribs)

Pedram does use the term "Afghan" from what I have found. In this article, he is quoted as saying, "I am an Afghan and I have the right, therefore I declared my candidacy." And in this article, he is quoted as saying, "Under these conditions, Afghans have the right also to wonder what the foreign forces are doing in their country. ... This is a priority for all the democratic forces and it means a real reconstruction of the State and the society in the interests of the most vulnerable Afghans." When he talks about "Afghans" in these contexts, I presume that he is referring to citizens of Afghanistan in general, not just Pashtuns. In addition, the last four constitutions of Afghanistan were written after the monarchy was abolished; the last monarchical constitution was the one promulgated in 1964. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is : Unless Category:Afghan people and all its subs are going to be considered for a general rename, it would be inconsistent to rename this one subcategory of it. If someone from Afghanistan rejects the term "Afghan" then they probably also object to the country's name being "Afghanistan", but we use it nonetheless, and we should use the corresponding demonym. Snocrates 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point is "Afghan" is/was a name for the Pashtun people. Afghanistan is not controversial in the same way - there is no alternative name at all. I would support a general rename. Johnbod 01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Afghan is/was a name for the Pashtuns, are you telling us that the 28 million Pashtuns of Pakistan should be called Afghans by the government of Pakistan? Would Pakistan consider them as Afghans? I think not, because even the 28 million Pashtuns (twice the number of Pashtuns of Afghanistan) call themselves Pakistani, which is the correct dynomyn of Pakistan. You need to learn that Afghan is the only correct nationality of all the people born in Afghanistan. Your argument does not make any sense by saying Afghan refers to Pashtuns when the constitutions of Afghanistan along with the constitution of Pakistan telling you it's not. Don't forget that Pakistan's constitution says that Pashtuns of Pakistan are Pakistanis not Afghans.--Churra 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:The Persian speakers have always used the word Afghan for Pashtuns and calling all these Persian speaking politicians from Afghanistan "Afghan" is like calling an Arab "Ajam" or calling a Greek "Barbarian"..etc. In Webster's Dictionary Afghan is synonymous to Pashtun[8]. Latif Pedram has openly critisized the Constitution for stating that everyone is an Afghan and has proposed that Afghanistan's name should be changed to Khorasan.

--Anoshirawan 09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "Afghan" as meaning "Pashtun" is one of the definitions in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, not the only one. The same dictionary also defines "Afghan" as "a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan" in the same entry. Also, Pedram, as I mentioned above, stated, "I am an Afghan ..." which suggests that he uses the word to mean any citizen of Afghanistan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedram has never used Afghan but he has always used either Afghanistan or Khorasani, Plus this is only an english translation of what pedram said in farsi and I am sure the english writer changed Afghanistani to Afghan in his article--Anoshirawan 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Pedram has never used Afghan to refer to people of Afghanistan, I've only heard him say Afghanistani. In these two articles the writer must have changed it during the translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.16.84 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as this is effectively (poor) categorization by name. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no real common thread to the subcategories except that they all contain the words 'by medium'. This is a nonsense name for a category. They may all be loosely related to visual arts, but there are better existing categories that house the subcategories here. Clubmarx (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete confusing Group29 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category has useful functionality as a parent/super-category, and could be used for browsing topics as the apply to different media. The odd man out in its subcategories is Category:Film directors by medium, which should really be Category:Film directors by genre (it's up for deletion/renaming). --Eliyak T·C 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has no use to contain things divvied up by genre, because most of those sub (and sub-sub, etc.) categories do not belong to this parent. And besides, medium is being misused here: film, print, etc. are each a medium; horror, B-movies, etc. are not. As our article medium is a dab, if this is kept, it should be pruned of that which doesn't fit and should be named in accord with the proper choice of dab, unless we want to add all the spiritualists claiming to be a medium. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just, per Eliyak. The Film directors, the only one to which Carlos's 2nd point applies, are likely to be removed by the other debate, as Eliyak says. Category:Mass media owners by medium should go too - not "Arts". Advertising is hanging on by the skin of its teeth, but there are other arts categories that could be added, I think. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a very confusing category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpiece2000 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Video games based on films. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very broad category, not likely to get expanded. Seems to be overcategorization in my view. Articles should just be in Video games based on films category. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I question whether any video game category on a particular subject is noteworthy Group29 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Video games based on films per my comment in the Kong nom below. Otto4711 23:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as though there's a whole series of sub-categories of Category:Video games based on films and it's not immediately obvious why this and the King Kong sub-category have been singled out. The sub-categories reduce category clutter by providing an intersection between "film name/series" and "video games", meaning there's only 1 sub-cat instead of 2 and allowing navigation between related groups / games more easily. My reaction is to say keep pending consideration of the matter more broadly, given the existence of the parent category and multiple similar subcats; failing that (and I don't see much support for that view above!) double upmerge to Category:Matrix series and Category:Video games based on films so that the Matrix link is not lost. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:39, 7 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Video games based on films. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very broad category, not likely to get expanded. Seems to be overcategorization in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I question whether any video game category on a particular subject is noteworthy Group29 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Video games based on films. Small category but its constituents should remain in that category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Keep pending consideration of the matter more broadly; failing that double upmerge to Category:King Kong and Category:Video games based on films so that the link with the rest of the King Kong structure is not lost. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:40, 7 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep (and no merge). No consensus in support of proposal apparent at this time. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Flemish academics to Category:Belgian academics

Nominator's rationale: Merge, since we have removed categories of academics by religion and ethnicity, this remains to be merged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The fact that some ethnic categories have been (wrongly) removed in no way amounts to a mandate for removing others, Carlossuarez. And I doubt that you bothered to look into Category:Flemish people by occupation, which has 16 sub-categories. Perhaps you should nominate all 16 of them for merging/deletion and see what happens. Once again, you are simply trying to impose your oft-expressed personal antipathy for ethnic categories against the clear judgement of knowledgable editors that those categories are warranted. Cgingold 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: since Belgium became a federal state there have been no such thing as "Belgian" educational establishments - making "Belgian academics" somewhat problematic. --Paularblaster 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since "Flemish" is neither a religion nor an ethnicity (depending on the source, not an ethnicity at all, or not only an ethnicity), but a political entity (major subdivision of a country), comparable to Category:Quebec academics. Fram 08:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (at least for this discussion) - I was just coming on to say something like Fram. I understand that there is even some discussion of Belgium eventually splitting into the Flemish & Walloon regions. The "national" subdivision of things needs to be looked at closely and individually for situations like this one. --Lquilter 14:58, 4 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep (and no merge). Consensus clearly favours retaining, and the utility and real-world recognition of this as a notable intersection is demonstrated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:African American academics to Category:American academics

Nominator's rationale: Merge, since we have removed categories of academics by religion and ethnicity, this remains to be merged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment -- for God's sake, when will you people learn how NOT to erase mounds of valid data? When and if you nominate an ethnic category for merging, you have to make sure to propose to merge in to BOTH the ethnic category (in this case, Category:African Americans) along with the main category (in this case, Category:American academics) so that the ethnic/racial identity of dozens if not hundreds of people is not lost in the category shuffle. How many times must I repeat this before people can begin to understand this SIMPLE issue? --Wassermann 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CATGRS. African Americans are covered by WP:CATGRS, unlike religion, and per WP:CATGRS, the history of African Americans in academia is rich and full and well-studied, and can certainly support an article. Access to and segregation of institutions of higher education; development of historically black colleges; continuing disparities in faculty representation of African Americans are all topics that should be covered in an article on this topic, one that is, I might add, badly needed. I am working presently on articles for the various occupations in Category:Women by occupation and intended to work on African Americans after that, but there is plenty of material. --Lquilter (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Carlossuarez46's characterization of the CFDs is a bit disingenuous; we just discussed and kept Category:African-American social scientists and Category:African-American psychologists which are part of this tree. --Lquilter (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your follow-up comment is a red herring: we're talking about academics, not specialties. Substitute "Jewish" for "African American" in your comment and it reads equally true, but you were quite content to delete Category:Jewish academics. I will WP:AGF but it looks like two different rules for groups who both fit the rationale you posit. Treating these groups different from mainstream seems consistent with their histories when both have been subjected to different rules from mainstream groups; but it's not right. The time has come to stop WP's bias of treating certain racial or ethnic groupings as favored or unfavored. As WP:CATGRS states: "Whenever possible, a valid occupational subcategory should be structured and filed in such a way as to avoid "ghettoizing" people" There are no other racial categories under American academnics, and as far as I could find, no other than the Flemish one also nominated for merging. So WP is ghettoizing African Americans, but so is society of which WP is a reflection, perhaps, is that OK? NO! We shouldn't ghettoize people or classify them by race where the race is not important to the occupation; here except for some extreme positions, most people would recognize that African American academics are not fundamentally different than their non-African American counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else -- I didn't express an opinion on Category:Jewish academics or Category:Academics by religion, so please don't put words on my fingertips.

(2) I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "specialty" -- are you trying to say that WP:CATGRS should apply to academic specialties, but not academics? That really makes no sense. Academia is an occupation, and has had occupational barriers, institutional policies, and so on, sufficient to generate research and publications. A few of the top relevant Ghits on the subject: (a) The Characteristics of Career Achievement Perceived by African American College Administrators, Carl R. Bridges, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 26, No. 6 (Jul., 1996), pp. 748-767 (b) "Black Issues in Higher Education", an annual series of reports; (c) "Paving The Way", ASEE Prism, Jan. 2004, Margaret Loftus. Of course cites on historically Black colleges and the integration of academia are also relevant to the head article that could (and should) be written on African Americans in academia. Notice I haven't even discussed postdocs & grad students; there's been significant research on minorities at those levels of academia, as well as significant litigation (multiple major Supreme Court cases over last 50 years) that has been based primarily on the African American experience in academia. (I'm not even talking about the straightforward affirmative action cases.)

(3) As has been patiently explained to you before, ghettoizing is avoided by application of WP:CATGRS which simply says that GRS categories should not be the bottom rung; i.e., don't remove people from the parent occupational category.

(4) I am not sure how it perpetrates injustice or shows "favoritism" to ethnic groupings to recognize, per WP:CATGRS, that they are subject of research and publication. Wikipedia should cover any topic that has been researched and written about, whether it is offensive to you or not.

--Lquilter (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments miss the point, answered point by point: (1) You certainly expressed an opinion at the debate, although you didn't record a !vote; (2) whether Fooian academics has something being written upon is not the question, because most fooian categories would do so, Jewish+academics generates 1,240,000 ghits, including numerous journals and books, from the first page of the google results: (a) Charles H. Anderson, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1968), pp. 87-96 (also discusses Mormons, admittedly not an ethnic group but deleted along with the Jewish academics); (b) Singer, Charles (1876-1960): Correspondence relating to Jewish academics in Nazi Germany; (c) Freidenreich, Joining the Faculty Club: Jewish Women Academics in the United States, Nashim (Indiana University Press): A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies & Gender Issues - Number 13, Fall 5767/2007, pp. 68-101; and lots of hate sites, academic boycotts of Jews and Israel, and allegations on how Jewish academics perpetuate the "myth of the holocaust". Plenty to chew on, as likely for any other fooian academics, but that doesn't mean we should ghettoize them. As though lumping people into African American academics is to deny their relevance as American academics. (3) wrong. the logic that supports your position 3 allows for Category:African American murderers without other races - if we can find some sources that that is a notable intersection - "African American" + "murderers" getting 1.4 million ghits one need only look at today's news ([9] about the murder of an NFL player) and other pieces in USA today ([10]); this is clearly the ghettoizing but would be permitted in your view of CATGRS because "murderers" is the lowest-level and there are notable interactions. If that is the correct interpretation of CATGRS, then the policy needs radical changing; and (4) favoritism is inherent because regardless of notability I have real hopes that WP will reject Category:African American murderers because WEDONTLIKEIT which flies in the face of NPOV. Since editing in the XFD world, I have noticed that Jews and Kurds tend to be the "easy" categories to remove because there are contingents that strongly dislike the people being categorized on purely racial grounds. Why do I come to such a shocking conclusion: it is inconsistency in positions between two analogous situations. While, I regard your position as based on principle - and we just have an honest disagreement on that - but I will expectantly wait for you to strongly support keeping an African American murderers category consistent with your interpretation of CTGRS, rather than let WEDONTLIKEIT trump your principles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Carlos, the cites you list are all relevant to the other CFD. Had you produced them for that one I might have said something definitive. As it was I didn't form a strong enough opinion to make a recommendation; so I just made a comment, clarifying WP:CATGRS for those who did have more familiarity with the subject. (2) Again, how to avoid ghettoization is already addressed by WP:CATGRS. (3) The phrase "notable intersection" is not very descriptive, IMO, so I don't use it. WP:CATGRS talks about whether a head article can be written on the topic -- that means notable, referenced, etc. You keep bringing up Category:African American murderers, apparently to try to scare off liberals or antiracists -- it won't work, because one can, consistent with WP:CATGRS, support occupation-by-ethnicity categories without supporting criminal-by-ethnicity categories. Aside from the ways in which "criminal" is not an ordinary sort of profession (professional associations, employers, colleagues, educational requirements), we both know that criminal categories have unique problems associated of defamation, undue weight, and so on. So it's really a different kettle of fish from the ordinary occupation. And that is my point and the point of WP:CATGRS -- each of these categories has its own unique issues. In fact, that is precisely the test that WP:CATGRS establishes: Look at each category to see if it can support a head article. So it's simple: If you see a GRS/professional category for CFD and you're not sure about it, look around: if there are research articles, reference books, professional associations and task forces dedicated to that subject -- then yeah it can support a head article which suggests the category is a reasonable one. It's actually a little weird to keep trying to say that every ethnic or gender category should follow the same rationale as every other one -- you can analogize Jewish people to African Americans to Welsh Americans until the cows come home, but it's irrelevant, because WP:CATGRS ties these decisions to the published literature. Which, despite what you or I may think of it, has a lot of research published on women and African Americans in various professional fields. Unless we should leave out of wikipedia entire bodies of scholarship on identity/ethnic/area studies? I know some people don't like them, and think they are silly, but that's a case to be made to the P&T committees at universities & the peer review process at journals. Wikipedia is not the place to quibble over the existence of or point of or need for well-studied academic fields. They exist, and that's it. --Lquilter (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the world as it is, this is sufficiently notable and distinctive.DGG (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- an important subcategory for research in to American academics; having this category also keeps Category:African Americans from becoming even more large and unmanageable. --Wassermann 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Contrary to Carlossuarez's repeated assertions, there clearly is no concensus for across the board elimination of ethnic categories. Much of what needs to be said about this subject has already been said by Lquilter. The plain fact is that Category:African American academics is the parent cat for African Americans working in a broad array of academic fields to which it is widely understood that they bring distinctive perceptions and experiences -- in other words, we are talking about a noteworthy socio-cultural phenomenon.

In addition, it is entirely legitimate for Wikipedia readers to search for articles on such individuals, a task which is greatly facilitated by categories like this. In particular, as I've noted many times:

Here in the United States, it is entirely commonplace for school teachers to give assignments that involve researching notable individuals of one or another ethnic background. Moreover, the education standards in most (if not all) states require that particular attention must be paid to the history and contributions of different (often specified) ethnic groups. And most of the history and social studies textbooks that are adopted by school systems in the United States must meet requirements in this regard that have been spelled out by the boards of education for major states, such as California and Texas.

In short, this and other similar categories should be regarded as an essential -- and integral -- part of Wikipedia's category structure. Cgingold (talk) 22:45, 4 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 11. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Welsh scholars to Category:Welsh academics

Propose renaming Category:Scottish scholars to Category:Scottish academics

Suggest merging Category:Irish scholars to Category:Irish academics

Suggest merging Category:Swedish scholars to Category:Swedish academics

Nominator's rationale: Rename/Merge to convention of academics by nationality, and the categories explain thusly: "In Wales/Scotland/etc. scholars refer both to tradisitonal scholars as well as modern academics. While a fine distinction can be drawn between scholars within and outside of academia, but these categories are basically duplicative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these four nominations were merged by me to facilitate discussion. --Eliyak T·C 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Scholars who are not academics cannot be called academics. --Eliyak T·C 19:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a subtle distinction could be made, but none of these categories is making it. Indeed, the 3 British Isles cats explicitly say they are not making that distinction, so they are meant to subsume the "academics" cats. If that's the way the term is generally understood in those places, then a reverse merge of the Irish academics may be in order and these 3 will have a different nomenclature and criteria than the other academics categories and probably should be dropped from that tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and put thinking caps on for how to recategorize those such as Sulien who can't be called an academic. No reason why academics in these categories shouldn't be called "academics", but the scholars pre-university days shouldn't be in with them, really. Ideas? Bencherlite ^Talk 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't lets split them like that, whatever we do. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole problem with many of the Category:Academics by subject categories -- it's split from scholars unnecessarily. --Lquilter 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep both or merge the other way to "scholars". The distinction is that academics typically include teaching as well as scholarship; while scholars need only include scholarship. So academics is narrower than scholars. But must academics are frankly known on campus and in the world for their scholarship, not their teaching, and some fields have scholars going back and forth between academia and practice. So "scholars" captures the most defining aspect of academics, and is inclusive of scholars who are not in the academy -- which is what most people who are not interested in the nuance will expect to see. --Lquilter (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are a great many of academics who only teach, but they are not usually notable. DGG (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the Category:Educators tree for them. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my thinking at present is that it is more harmful for scholars to be unnecessarily and meaninglessly separated into Category:Academics and Category:Scholars than it is for some of them to have to have both Category:Scholars and Category:Educators categories. For that matter since some academic/scholars move in & out of academia, if we had both A & S categories, we would have to apply both to those scholars. It would be a mess. And of course the main reason anyone would use either a scholars or an academics tree would be to see the scholars/academics -- and they would have to go to two separate categories to do what they could do with one. --Lquilter 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that I've discovered Category:Educators with all of its sub-cats -- which I was unaware of previously -- I am starting to come around to Lquilter's view of things. I'm going to have to give this some more thought before I endorse that proposal; however, I will say that it would be very desirable to integrate the categories for scholars and academics in some fashion. Cgingold (talk) 00:29, 5 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Billboard Adult Top 40 number-one singles to Category:Billboard Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The chart is now titled Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks [11]. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Should be renamed to the current official title. Spellcast 17:46, 3 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Multi-purpose stadiums. That's the least-POV common term for these monstrosities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The term "cookie cutter" is pejorative without any clear definition. I suggest deleting the category, but would also support a move to "Category:Multipurpose stadiums" as a compromise. Note: This category has appeared on WP:CFD before. The previous result was no consensus, but a careful reading of that discussion showed only two votes for keep and one of those votes was "just to be difficult". --D. Monack

Rename to Category:Multi-purpose stadiums (with the hyphen). I agree that the phrase "cookie cutter stadium" is POV. The article formerly named "Cookie cutter stadium" has been renamed "Multi-purpose stadium" to address exactly that issue. The article, however, still needs a bit of a rework to that end, but that's not here or there with this discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename with hyphen to agree with the article on the topic. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename with hyphen (2) also to agree with the article on the topic. The article also needs rework. I believe Multi-purpose stadiums to be a legitimate category denoting stadiums that can be used for American football and baseball. It could also be similar or synonymous with Multi-purpose arenas to denote those that can be used for hockey and basketball. As a side note, all stadiums and arenas host concerts, tractor pulls, religious revivals or trade shows, so it could be argued that ALL stadiums could fall into the Multi-purpose bucket. Group29 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that pretty much every stadium is multi-purpose which is why I'd prefer to simply delete the category. "Multiple configuration stadiums" is closer to what we're talking about. That's wordier though and I'm not sure anyone uses that phrase to describe these things. --D. Monack | talk 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be limited to a small number of stadiums that were built in a narrow window of time. I'm not sure that we really have a case for a defining characteristic here. As far as Multi-purpose stadium goes, it needs a lot of work. It spends most of its time discussing specific stadiums and not the content needed in the article. Second is to too tightly focused and likely WP:OR. So delete for now and if a reasonable article can be written, then the category can be recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do I feel like I opened a large can of beans by even mentioning the article? Remind that we're discussing the category, not the article. The category, if renamed Category:Multi-purpose stadiums, is neutral and easily verifiable. The article has nothing to do with this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:11, 4 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 28

Category:Monuments in Liepāja

Category:Ghostbusters objects and technology

Category:Ghostbusters comics and novels

Category:Ghostbusters characters

Category:Mad science

Category:Doom creatures

Category:SkyOS

Category:Decanonized saints

Category:South Tyrol

Category:Drink images

Category:Pikmin characters

Category:Intelligence by genre

Intelligence acronyms

Category:Evolution video games

Category:GCHQ

Category:Skull Island species

Category:Ukrainian diaspora of Australia

Category:LPFM Radio Stations

Category:Mayors of Osaka, Japan

Category:Italian singers of albanian descent

Category:Famous Seventh-day Adventists in society

Category:Famous Cheeses

Category:Warcraft characters

Film directors by medium

Settlements and Neighbourhoods in Algeria

Category:Afghan politicians

Category:Categories by medium

Category:The Matrix video games

Category:King Kong video games

Category:Flemish academics

Category:African American academics

Academics categories

Category:Billboard Adult Top 40 number-one singles

Category:Cookie cutter stadiums