< January 23	January 25 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film). The previous discussion listed below was no consensus, but this discussion has a very strong consensus for this rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Avatar (film) to Category:James Cameron's Avatar

Nominator's rationale: There are other movies called or referred to as Avatar. This is another name that helps to disambiguate it. I am also proposing that if the template survives tfd then it should also be moved to the same name. Simply south (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film), to match head article Avatar (2009 film). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the previous CfD discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know of the previous discussion and this still stands. Simply south (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film), to match head article Avatar (2009 film). Occuli (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film) despite previous CfD as it is properly disambiguated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film); categories should (almost?) always match their main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film) to match the article title. There's a current proposal to make this a speedy criterion, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note to now also view the requested move at Template talk:Avatar (film). Simply south (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the template has been renamed to ((Avatar (2009 film))) 76.66.200.154 (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film) per BHG and template. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Avatar (2009 film) to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category overlaps numerous distinctive categories.TM 19:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I checked 3 or 4 or the articles, none of which mention Karoo (which seems of uncertain definition anyway). Better to stick to towns or states. Occuli (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. Most categorisations of people-by-place follow political and administrative regions rather than physiographic ones, and so far I can see no reason to make this one an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being from this place does not seem significant enough to be mentioned on their articles. It is very unlikely that people identify with being from Karoo specifically, a loosely defined place, mostly representing nearly half of South Africa. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split and ultimately delete -- This is too broad a category. It needs all the people categorised to be recategorised into appropriate provincial or municipal categories. Only when that has been done, should this be deleted. Otherwise people will be orphaned from their location. Since the Karoo is a wide (but imprecisely defined) area, the category cannot simply be merged, which would be the normal solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created on 24 Jan 2010 and hasn't replaced any other categories; so it can be deleted without loss. Occuli (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contra SmokeyJoe, there is a strong feeling about being from the Karoo, a sparsely populated and neglected rural area. Current efforts are being expended by four provinces that converge at their remote edges in the Karoo to promote awareness of the distinctiveness of the region.Blarcrean (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Visting a place is never considered notable.TM 19:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Visiting a particular place is not a defining characteristic of a person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – an absurd basis for a category (and it is not a subcat of people from the Karoo). Most people, notable or not, have visited thousands of places. Occuli (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Visiting a place can be significant, eg Category:People who have walked on the Moon, but not the Karoo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmokeyJoe. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that there are important historical commentators on the Karoo, and actors in Karoo history, who cannot be described as "people from the Karoo" or "of the Karoo". Would one propose instead a category "people associated with the Karoo"? The Karoo is an arid fascinating area, often neglected or overlooked in historical and other writing (the stereotype suggests "miles and miles of bugger all"), that most people have and still do traverse rather than reside in (today, generally in a fast car with windows up and air con on, or by jet 10 000 m overhead), and many of the major characters in Karoo history, or who have recognised anything of interest in the place, are people who have visited rather than lived here. If someone can suggest an alternative that would serve to bring together these individuals from many very diverse contexts, let's hear it.Blarcrean (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these people appear to have defining connections as visitors to the area. Alansohn (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge and redirect Category:Malaysian Sunni Muslims to Category:Malaysian Muslims. Alansohn's objection should be met by the retention of the now-emptied category as a redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant since more than 97% or maybe 99% of Muslims in Malaysia are Sunni. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of Category:Sunni Muslims by nationality. Occuli (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Yes it might be part of the above category you mentioned, but don't you think that the category is irrelevant to Malaysian Muslims? The Malaysian authorities have strict policies against other Islamic sects including Shia Islam (taken from Islam in Malaysia). You may also want to read this [1]. Imho Category:Malaysian Muslims is more than enough to cover the above subject. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Most Malays are Muslim. Many other ethnicities are largely of other religions. In view of the last comment, their religious sect will be notable for non-Sunni Muslim Malays, but not for the majority sect. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This category is useless for Malaysia. I've written over 100 Malaysian BLPs (most of them for Muslims) and never put anyone in this category because even though I am 99% sure a Muslim will be Sunni, there is no reliable source to confirm it, because it's always assumed that a Muslim is Sunni. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am not an expert in Malaysian history, but has there been any sort of Shi'ite or Sufi influence on Malaysia in the past? It might be useful to distinguish if indeed there has been.--TM 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know of. There are only 2-3,000 Shias in Malaysia: 1. Anyone who is a Muslim is therefore assumed to be a Sunni. But I don't think we ought to be putting people into categories on the basis of assumptions. It amounts to original research. We could retain a Shia category for the small number of people who might be notable Malaysian Shia, but I don't see the need for a Sunni category.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the broader parent as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Category:Malaysian Muslims for the reasons I have given above: this category does not serve a useful purpose.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Norway national men's ice hockey team coaches to Category:Norway men's national ice hockey team coaches to match parent article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Norway national men's ice hockey team coaches to Category:Norway men's national ice hockey team coaches

Nominator's rationale: To follow the naming conventions for the teams. LarRan (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Where exactly is this convention? Which other categories follow this format? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is referring to the actual articles for men's national teams such as Norway men's national ice hockey team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, makes sense for cat naming convention to go along with articles under cat. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What with Category:United States national men's ice hockey team coaches and the corresponding United States national men's ice hockey team? I say or rename all, or rename the Norway article alone. Probably best to close as undecided. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close. A CfD discussion on this category was closed only a few hours ago. There was a consensus to revisit this category after some time has passed, so I am closing this debate. However, there is nothing to stop the creation of a new sub-category for victims of the earthquake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake to Category:Victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current category inclusion criteria are vague, I propose to restrict the category to a more concrete set of criteria. See also the discussion at the talk page, Category talk: People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake. I propose that this category be renamed, and its scope be restricted to persons killed, injured, or trapped in the rubble of the 12 January 2010 earthquake. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Including articles like Wyclef Jean and Raymond Joseph, who were very prominent in the hours and days following the earthquake but were not victims, help readers gain a broader scope of the impact of the disaster.--TM 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see the talk page, for the problem with the current naming. Also note that very prominent people associated with the earthquake include Pat Robertson, Danny Glover, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton... 76.66.192.206 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to !vote here. I created the category, with the eventual thought of creating a sub-category for victims. But Mr IP here has raised good questions about the scoping of the category if it is to remain as it is. If it is to include living people, we need a good concise set of criteria for who can and cannot be included. And I am unable to come up with such a set of criteria. In the absence of such, then, as 76... stated, what's to prevent the people he mentioned from being included? So, ultimately, while I am not going to !vote in favor of the change... without the criteria, the category as it is is woefully vague in it's membership, and is not all that useful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (self-close); I'm happy to have this kept for now. The nomination originated in a misunderstanding on my part. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. ~~Yuck. This is subjective, POV, arbitrary, unclear inclusionary criteria—take your pick.~~ Amended to a simple discussion on whether it is defining. Essentially an "award"-type category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective? Have you read any of the articles of these cities? They HAVE/HAD the title of "European Capital of Culture" in a certain year. Please go and have a look at the ((European Capitals of Culture)) template, too. --Perfectmiss (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that would be unclear inclusionary criteria. The meaning of the category is not knowable from looking at the category page. A link to European Capital of Culture might help with that. I suppose we should decide if we think this is defining enough to categorize by. It's essentially an "award"-type category, or a "featured in" thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the problem with an award-type category? The Golden Globe is an award, too, and it has its categories. I think this European Captital of Culture "award" is much more closer to the Cities where Olympic Games were held in "award". For example Athens has the Host cities of Summer Olympic Games category. - Perfectmiss (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients, which is a guideline on these types of things. The guideline is explicitly about persons, but I suppose it applies in an adjusted way to cities and places. I don't think this award would be as defining for a city as being an Olympic host, but we'll see what other users think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defining characteristic of those towns. For Liverpool, one of the first things I think of is "oh, they were the ECC town in 2008". How they managed to get that honour, I'll never know... Lugnuts (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, you think that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, after I've stopped saying bad things about Scousers, then yes ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that nominator made an uncharacteristically POV nomination, so I'm glad to see that amended. However, I think that Good Olfactory's perilous position hanging off the underside of the globe may have kept him a bit far away from seeing the effects of this title. The European Capital of Culture is not just an award: it is a year-long series of events accompanied by an intensive Europe-wide promotion of a city, and it's a hugely big deal for any city that wins it. Being ECoC had a transformative effect on two cities I am familiar with (Glasgow and Dublin), and that boost was why cities such as Bradford and Brighton and Hove put a lot of resources into trying to win the title in 2008.
As the head article says "A 2004 study by the European Commission by Robert Palmer (Palmer Study) demonstrated that the choice of European Capital of Culture served as a catalyst for the cultural development and the transformation of the city. Consequently, the beneficial socio-economic development and impact for the chosen city are now also considered in determining the chosen cities."(see report). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of arguing against myself, there's a contrary view here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you suggesting that I'm not a 21st-century cosmopolitan? Anyway, I think this might be something that is indeed a big deal in the EU but not spoken of much outside of it. I did a Factiva search of newspaper references to this from around the world and there were a ton from within EU countries, but outside of the EU there were hardly any except in Turkey and Pakistan. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination since at least within the EU it seems to be a "big deal", though I'm not sure how much a one-year award will matter and be defining for a city in 20–30 years hence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unused. Apparently, it was formerly populated by a deprecated template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, I remember. I ask for help in emptying it from the last 4-5 images a long time ago. Now that this is apparently done, I say delete. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of the page, I would like to have this speedied. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will someone please get rid of the five images using this template, so it can be deleted as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as trivia. Wikipedia's categorisation system is not a tool for creating reading lists for undergraduates. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How "common" does it have to be to be "common"? At the end of the day it's either subjective or, if a cut-off "commonness" requirement were defined, it would be arbitrary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hierarchy under Category:United States case law covers significant cases, a more solid basis than the vague criterion of those which may or may not be studied in a given 1st yr course. AllyD (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Ol'factory. The category name is also borderline incoherent. postdlf (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is an open-ended category, as different law schools will (and different text book authors) may emphasise differnet cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial and original research. As the category states, "assigned case readings in United States Law schools may differ widely..." - it's vague and unsourced.--Beloved Freak 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron supra. While there are certain cases which are considered important reading for U.S. law students, different professors and casebooks will put different emphasis on each. Besides, these cases will be independently notable for other reasons anyway. If a case is a frequent subject of study in law schools, that should be mentioned in the body of the article itself, not through a category. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a common characteristic of the cases themselves. Alansohn (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as trivia. If we start categorising stations according to every type of facility, we'll have dozens of complex categories for stations with toilets, stations with disabled access, stations without disabled access, stations with covered waiting areas, stations with a cafe, stations with a staffed ticket office, and so on. That sort of thing is quite properly covered on the website of the rail and rapid transit companies, but this is an encyclopedia not a replacement for those websites, and we will cause horrible category clutter if we try replicating this level of detail in the category system. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move info to infobox, then delete cat. This type of information is perfect for the infobox. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving the information to the infobox. --Stevevance (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial overcategorisation.--Beloved Freak 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A topic for Wikitravel.- choster (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Blatantly POV category. "Freedom fighter" is listed as a term to avoid, in WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a person is called a "terrorist" by some, and a "freedom fighter" by others, then just have him at both categories on Wikipedia. As long as there are sources. Wikipedia should be neutral. Neutral is not "avoiding information that is POV". Neutral is "presenting POV information in a neutral way". All information is POV after all, one way or the other. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding two POV categories does not make for neutrality, and the idea of also adding a "balancing" terrorist category doesn't work, because We now longer have a Category:Terrorists; it was deleted at CfD 2009 April 27.
  This is not a question of "avoiding information that is POV"; it is about whether or not we use the category system to label articles with POV terms. WP:NPOV says "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion" ... but categories are an unqualified editorial statement and do not allow that sort of attribution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and primarily because all the "terrorists" categories were deleted. Now we have the opposite POV cropping up in categories? No, these are best avoided. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom says it all, the term "freedom fighter" should avoided per WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER. --Defender of torch (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename -- This category seems to be about the insurgent participants in the Telangana Rebellion, a Communist rebellion in Hyderbad, India (beginning 1946). This is thus a legitmate category. I have added a headnote to the category to that effect. The question is what it should be called. Suggest Category:Particpants in Telangana rebellion. This is perhaps not wholly satisfactory, as those engaged in suppressing it might also be "participants". Perhaps some one else can suggest something better. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflect with last contribution)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification, Peter. I'll support a keep-and-rename is we can find an appropriate name for the category. How about "Rebels of the Telangana rebellion"? There is a well-organised Category:Rebels into which this would fit nicely, under Category:Indian rebels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron and to avoid POV labelling of "freedom fighter".--Beloved Freak 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

January 24

Category:Avatar (film)

Category:People from the Karoo

Category:Notable visitors to the Karoo

Category:Malaysian Sunni Muslims

Category:Norway national men's ice hockey team coaches

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

Category:European Capitals of Culture

Category:Vector-Images.com images

Category:Common Cases in U.S. Legal Education

Category:Rapid transit stations with bike stations

Category:Telangana freedom fighters