Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 9: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:59, 10 March 2007 editSubSeven (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,868 edits →Category:Video games using Bink Video: delete← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:12, 10 March 2007 edit undoWiki Raja (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users14,470 editsm →Category:Tamil Americans Next edit →
Line 397:		Line 397:
	::Actually it does not. Tamil is a language, not an etnicity. It is construed to be an ethnicity based on language.] 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)		::Actually it does not. Tamil is a language, not an etnicity. It is construed to be an ethnicity based on language.] 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

	:::Pardon me, but I am beginning to sense Anti-Tamil ~~sentimentism~~ in this discussion. First, we have Sarvangya's message making a joke about killing Sri Lankan Tamils. And next, you are saying that we are not an ethnic group. So, if Tamils are not an ethnic group, I suppose that Kannadigas are and ethnic group as stated on ? ] 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)		:::Pardon me, but I am beginning to sense Anti-Tamil hatred in this discussion. First, we have Sarvangya's message making a joke about killing Sri Lankan Tamils. And next, you are saying that we are not an ethnic group. So, if Tamils are not an ethnic group, I suppose that Kannadigas are and ethnic group as stated on ? ] 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

	'''To Bakasuprman:''' Since you didn't give me a chance to finish, but instead reported me for a personal attack, I will finish what I was going to further say. I do not appreciate being accused of disliking anyone because of their social or so called caste status. If that was the case, I would not have contributed a Tamil Brahmin external site to . However, it was removed by ] . Also, what is wrong with this ? We have categories for Bengali Brahmins, Telugu Brahmins, and Malayalee Brahmins. What happened to the category or page for Tamil Brahmins? I do not see you raising any issues about this. In regards to the Kannadiga group, I have personally created some Kannadiga ethnicity templates . I have done the same for other groups out of repsect and to promote their ethnicities. But, sadly, we have a few bad apples. ] 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)		::::'''To Bakasuprman:''' Since you didn't give me a chance to finish, but instead reported me for a personal attack, I will finish what I was going to further say. I do not appreciate being accused of disliking anyone because of their social or so called caste status. If that was the case, I would not have contributed a Tamil Brahmin external site to . However, it was removed by ] . Also, what is wrong with this ? We have categories for Bengali Brahmins, Telugu Brahmins, and Malayalee Brahmins. What happened to the category or page for Tamil Brahmins? I do not see you raising any issues about this. In regards to the Kannadiga group, I have personally created some Kannadiga ethnicity templates . I have done the same for other groups out of repsect and to promote their ethnicities. But, sadly, we have a few bad apples. ] 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''A Message to Everyone:''' Both user accounts of ] and ] have been confirmed as the same person . Both accounts have also been used to take part in a vote to remove a user . What is going on here? ] 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:12, 10 March 2007

< March 8	March 10 >

March 9

Category:Final Fantasy (video game)

Propose renaming Category:Final Fantasy (video game) to Category:Final Fantasy I

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, For consistency with the other categories and games in Category:Final Fantasy games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom. --SubSeven 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Viral images

Propose renaming Category:Viral images to Category:Images of viruses

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "viral" ("being caused by a virus" or "having properties of a virus") seems to be misleading in this context . GregorB 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Post-credits scene films

Delete, a similar category was deleted a while ago. (trogga) 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Already well reasoned in the previous CFD. --SubSeven 04:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:United States Presidential homes

Propose renaming Category:United States Presidential homes to Category:Presidential homes in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per convention for buildings and structures. LukeHoC 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename sounds good. per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional slingshot users

Delete, Unnecessary, trivial category. If a user wants to find such characters, they can just search for "slingshot" and "character". greenrd 19:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Characters generally are not defined by the objects that they use. We have also deleted similar categories for people with swords in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete (might be an ok list) As a general rule, categories should only include articles for which the characteristic being categorized is mentioned in the article. So even if the category were kept it should be restricted to articles that specifically talk about the character using a slingshot. That being said, this probably isn't a great category to begin with unless you were hypothetically trying to come up with a larger scheme that subdivides notably-weapon-using characters by weapon-of-choice. Constructing such a scheme would I think be problematic, and is definitely beyond the scope of this particular category. I could, though, possibly see a list article to compliment Slingshot that contains notable uses of slingshots in fiction. Dugwiki 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - cruft.
Delete as a trivial characteristic, and dear god please don't encourage anyone to turn this into another ridiculous list or "slingshots in popular culture" article. Otto4711 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:European Union diplomats

Delete, has been blanked and does not appear to be used any more. greenrd 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - was recently emptied and blanked by User:JLogan, without explanation. At least partly restored. -- Mais oui! 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - barring a proper explanation, this is an extremely useful category. The European Union has its own diplomats, just like the United Nations. Unless JLogan was removing them because they were improper categorized (e.g., it's actually a British diplomat). Part Deux 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Level-5

Rename Category:Level-5 to Category:Level-5 games. Considering most of the category is it's games, a rename to a games category makes much more sense. RobJ1981 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Renaming the category won't help the Level-5 article, where would it go? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It would go in Category:Video game developers. --SubSeven 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of Juan Fernández Islands

Category:Fauna of Juan Fernández Islands to Category:Fauna_of_the_Juan_Fernández_Islands

Merge, Duplicate. greenrd 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge both to Category:Endemic fauna of the Juan Fernández Islands - The word "endemic" should be used to indicate that the category is exclusively for animals found in these islands. Otherwise, this category will be applied to any animal found in the Juan Fernandez Islands. If such categories are used for all places in the Pacific Ocean, then the resulting category lists in some ocean-going animals will be too long to read or use effectively. (This is part of an ongoing process.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sports management games

Propose renaming Category:Sports management games to Category:Sports management video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, these are video games, not just "games", and this category is a subcategory of Category:Sports video games. RobertG ♬ talk 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rico Related Ships

Propose renaming Category:Puerto Rico Related Ships to Category:United States Navy Puerto Rico-related ships

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for conformity with the state categories. LukeHoC 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Bosnia and Herzegoniva people

Category:Bosnia and Herzegoniva people to Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Merge, into the better populated dupicate (or the other way round if preferred). Either way keep one of them as a redirect. LukeHoC 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
merge Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina into Category:Bosnia and Herzegoniva people as the latter is the defacto naming convention of the higher level category Category:People by nationality Hmains 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it would be if the country was spelt correctly. Where exactly is "Bosnia and Herzegoniva"? Grutness...wha? 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Educational insitutions established in 1986

Category:Educational insitutions established in 1986 to Category:Educational_institutions_established_in_1986

Merge, obvious typo. greenrd 17:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy merge - One name contains a typo. It is clear that the merge is warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge But I don't think either is correctly named. The former has the typo and the latter has underscores.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The target category does not actually contain underscores. Click on the link to see for yourself. Dr. Submillimeter 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dynamicists

Dynamicist seems to be an uncommon term for a person concerned with dynamics. Most articles are already classified in other mechanics related categories. Inwind 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be OR. There are dynamicists, but this term usually refers to people like Yakov Sinai and Vladimir Arnold and Andrey Kolmogorov instead of Phythagoras, Da Vinci and Einstein. linas 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports video games

Rename all as part of the recent 'computer and video games' to 'video games' migration. (This is my first umbrella renaming nomination, so I hope I've done it right.) Marasmusine 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename all per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dance Studio

Delete, I have moved the only article into a more specific category. greenrd 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Freemen of the City of London

Delete - This is another honor given to people who win many awards anyway. Like similar award categories, this category indicates little about the individuals' achievements while contributing to category clutter. Like similar award categories, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep it's quite an interesting, quirky award; and interesting to browse who else has been awarded it. The category is of value. Jheald 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - That could be said of any of the other strange awards that have already been deleted (such as some of the liverymen categories from a couple of weeks ago). This award really is no different. Dr. Submillimeter 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Royal National Theatre Company members

Delete - The general consensus has been not to categorize actors by production company, as the lists of categories in articles on people would become too long to read or use effectively. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep These are the two pre-eminent classical theatre companies in the UK. Any other such categories for the UK should be deleted. LukeHoC 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Mais oui! 19:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as performer by production company. Otto4711 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete overcategorization. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep for RSC members. The RSC is very distinctive in the UK, not only because of its status which LukeHoc has already noted, and its residential base at Stratford rather than in London, but almost uniquely as it has a full-time company which actors tend to stay with for several years. A stint with the RSC is very significant in an actor's career, and places them into a very distinctive group. People voting to delete this probably don't know much about theatre in the UK. Jheald 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - A more complete list of the members of the Royal Shakespeare Company is given at Royal Shakespeare Company. No information would be lost if the category was deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Comparison Articles

I have moved all the articles that used to be in this category into more specific categories. Also it is a duplicate of Category:Comparisons. greenrd 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete redundant, incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Elections in Asia

Merge into Category:Elections by country, it makes most sense to always divide these by country. -- Prove It 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England

Propose renaming Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England to Category:Business and Enterprise Colleges in England

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To be consistent with the other categories within Category:Specialist schools in England, and with the format used by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) at their Standards website. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Avifauna of Northeast Mexico

Propose renaming Category:Avifauna of Northeast Mexico to Category:Endemic birds of Northeastern Mexico

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Both of the birds in this category have habitats that are restricted to Northeastern Mexico. I suggest changing the category's name to include the word "endemic" so that the category is not flooded with articles on birds with much broader ranges. I also suggest replacing the word "avifauna" with "birds", as has been the preference in other category name changes. Dr. Submillimeter 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian critique on doctrines

Delete, The title of this category is ungrammatical (it should have been "of doctrines" not "on doctrines") and its only article does not contain any information on "criticisms of doctrines" of this church, only a link to such criticism. greenrd 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Video games using Bink Video

Contesting the existence of this category as I find it trivial, and it's certainly not a defining characteristic. Combination 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not a useful way to link games. --SubSeven 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Caucasia-stubs

Category:Caucasia-stubs to Category:Caucasus_stubs

Merge, Duplicate - note that Caucasia redirects to the article Caucasus. greenrd 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Taken to SFD. Why do people never read the instruictions at the top of this page??? Grutness...wha? 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Avifauna of Maine

Category:Avifauna of Maine to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of Mississippi to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of New York to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of Rhode Island to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Birds of Connecticut to Category:Birds of the United States

Merge - These are categories missed in the 10 Feb 2007 discussion to merge "birds by U.S. state" categories into Category:Birds of the United States. As stated before, the ranges of birds have little to do with the political divisions within the United States, and categorizing birds by U.S. state leads to long lists of categories at the bottoms of articles that are difficult to read and use. Because of these reasons and because this categorization scheme was already rejected in a previous discussion, these categories should be merged into Category:Birds of the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. -- Prove It 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Big-bust models and performers

Delete Category too subjective. Epbr123 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Not subjective. It's not performers who have a big bust, it's performers in the big-bust genre, which is fairly distinctive. --AnonEMouse 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep and close per WP:POINT. The nominator is currently embroiled in a CFD defense of Category:Naturally busty porn stars and has repeatedly cited this category as a reason to keep that one. I don't believe he really wants this category deleted and I suspect that he has nominated this category in hopes of using the argumentation to support his case for keeping the naturally busty category. Otto4711 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Epbr123 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of the Great Lakes U.S.

Category:Fauna of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Fauna of the United States

Merge - Animals are generally not restricted to the Great Lakes regions. The animals that are already listed in this category are found in much broader regions within the United States. Therefore, I recommend merging this category into Category:Fauna of the United States. (Also see the discussion from 31 Jan 2007, where categories grouping animal by state were merged into Category:Fauna of the United States for similar reasons.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Avifauna of the Great Lakes U.S.

Category:Avifauna of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Birds of the United States

Merge - Birds are generally not restricted to the Great Lakes regions. The birds that are already listed in this category are found in much broader regions within the United States. Therefore, I recommend merging this category into Category:Birds of the United States. (Also see the discussion from 10 Feb 2007, where categories grouping birds by state were merged into Category:Birds of the United States for similar reasons.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and Monuments Honoring Alpha Phi Alpha Men

Moved from speedy (I will retag the category). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Rename~~ Category:Buildings and Monuments Honoring Alpha Phi Alpha Men to Category:Buildings and monuments honoring Alpha Phi Alpha men dm 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete. I agree with others' reasoning on this. --dm 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete instead. This is a trivial, tangential way to categorise buildings. LukeHoC 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This is very convoluted. We are already deleting categories which list people's memberships in societies (although we have not debated fraternity and sorority categories yet), and we are also deleting award and commemoration categories. This category is an ugly combination of those two things. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keeep I find the category to be an interesting assembly of information not found easily elsewhere in wikipedia. Thus, it is a useful category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:University of California at Berkeley alumni

Merge into Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni, to match University of California, Berkeley. -- Prove It 06:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Teen Choice Awards

Delete since the only article is the main one about the show. Vegaswikian 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Television awards - The category is not needed for this one entry. However, the one article in this category should be categorized as a television award. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Already a member of that cat. Vegaswikian 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Culture-related lists

Delete - ill-defined vague category. Any list that exists is in some way related to "culture" so there is nothing gained by categorizing lists in this fashion. Otto4711 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Catholic

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

The result of the debate was Delete, it's already empty. -- Prove It 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I have moved all the articles that used to be here into more specific categories, and a general Roman Catholic category already exists. greenrd 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete, it's empty. -- Prove It 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Canadian charitable organizations

Category:Canadian charitable organizations to Category:Charities based in Canada

Merge, Duplicate. greenrd 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Armenian terrorism

Propose renaming - Category:Armenian terrorism to Category:Terrorism in Turkey

Reason - Most of these incidents occurred in Turkey thats the whole reason this was created, very POV category, not to mention the articles do not fit the description of the category, any others we have the countries of the category. Artaxiad 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Han Prime Ministers

Propose renaming Category:Han Prime Ministers to Category:Han Dynasty prime ministers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Should not be in all upper case. Further, currently, the dynasties' emperors and empresses are in Category:Han Dynasty emperors and Category:Han Dynasty empresses, respectively, and there should be consistency. --Nlu (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also proposing the following related category for renaming for the same reason:

Category:Zhou Prime Ministers to Category:Zhou Dynasty prime ministers

I am proposing a bit of a different renaming structure for several other related categories -- since, particularly in the Tang Dynasty and following dynasties, there can't really be said to be "prime ministers" any more, in that the power (at least in name) is almost always divided between several individuals. I am proposing, therefore, instead:

Also, the supercategory be changed, with same rationale:

Category:Prime ministers of China to Category:Chinese chancellors

If but only if necessary, please indicate your thoughts either as to the entire group of proposals or to specific ones.

General opinion

Opinion as to "Prime ministers of China" only

Opinion as to Han only

Opinion as to Ming only

Opinion as to Qing only

Opinion as to Song only

Opinion as to Tang only

Opinion as to Zhou only

Category:LGBT murderers

Delete, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as ] or ], should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid." This one strikes me as unneeded, verging on gaybaiting. Orange Mike 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it should be added that while in prior discussions of this item, the "keep" side argued that it could be useful, in practice this category has been almost entirely unpopulated, even though obviously there must be a statistically significant number of persons who fall into this set. Seems to me that argues for the category's uselessness pretty strongly. --Orange Mike 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - While I don't believe that this category was created for purposes of gaybaiting, categorizing murderers by sexual orientation strikes me as overcategorization. I also have concerns about the existence of any "murderers" category for WP:BLP and NPOV issues which contribute to my unease regarding this category. Otto4711 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per previous discussions unless all LGBT occupational categories are deleted. If we are going to categorise by sexuality we should not cherry-pick flattering combinations. People who remove articles are likely to be ideologically motivated and should be watched and banned from editing related articles as appropriate. CalJW 12:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - "occupational categories"?!? --Orange Mike 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Doczilla Praveen 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or restrict As with similar sort of intersectional categories, this only would possibly make sense for people whose crime was somehow directly connected to their LGBT status, such as a gay sexual predator who kills his victims. Murderers who happen to be LGBT but for whom sexual preference played no part in the murder shouldn't be included. So either delete or restrict the category accordingly. Dugwiki 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver streets

Category:Vancouver streets to Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver - Darwinek 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - not sure what the criteria intended is, but the "and squares" bit seems unnecessary for Vancouver. "Squares" here tend to fit better elsewhere such as 'parks' (Victory Square (Vancouver)) and 'buildings and structures' (Library Square). Bobanny 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Having looked at the two articles linked by Bobanny, I am at a loss as to why he thinks Vancouver should not be treated the same way as other cities. Haddiscoe 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because "squares" is a category addition that would do nothing to better organize Vancouver articles; there's already categories for "parks in Vancouver" and for "buildings and structures in Vancouver." As for being like other cities, I don't see any other Canadian city with "squares" on the 'Streets and squares by city' list either, and the only US city with "squares" is NYC, with the singular square being Times Square. Why should Vancouver be more like European cities than those in North America?Bobanny 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the proposed change doesn't meet the speedy rename criteria above - it belongs at WP:CFD, not here. Bobanny 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Victory Square is called a square and is just as much a square as any square in the old world. The nature of. Library Square is less clear, but it is called also called square, and that can only have been a deliberate reference to the widespread use of the term around the world. Grouping streets and squares is just as useful for this city as for any other. LukeHoC 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Vancouver has "squares," but that doesn't mean it makes a suitable category for Vancouver articles that are already sufficiently categorized. My concern is with overcategorization, which has been an issue with Vancouver articles in the past. Victory Square is also a war memorial, but that's no reason to change "Category:Parks in Vancouver" to "Category:Parks and war memorials in Vancouver." Bobanny 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Alternate proposal: How about Category:Streets in Vancouver? Looking at Category:Streets and squares by city, not every city's category name includes squares either (eg. Brisbane, Mumbai). And I think that's justified. Not everyone in the world ascribes the same level of equivalence between streets and squares as much as people in other places (eg. Europe) do. - Hinto 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that, for the sake of standardization, and will add "Category:Ottawa roads," "Category:Roads in Gatineau," and "Category:Roads in Hong Kong" to the lists of misfits that should be renamed "Category:Streets in ____" Bobanny 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename per discussion of July 16th. -- Prove It 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom Categorising a square as a square is not overcategorisation. CalJW 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:F.E.A.R. (computer game)

Propose renaming Category:F.E.A.R. (computer game) to Category:F.E.A.R.

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, No need for a disambiguated title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tamil Americans

Delete and Merge to Category:Indian Americans and other relevant entries to Category:Sri Lankan Americans, because every entry in the cat is a member of one of the other two per WP:OCAT#Mostly_overlapping_categories. Baka man 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:Keralite_americans for a similar debate. The proliferation of ethnic cats serves to undermine the Indian American cat. Countries with similar demographics like Category:Indonesian Americans, Category:Lebanese Americans and Category:Pakistani Americans do not have subcats for underlying ethnic groups. If there are any allegations of racism, I am Tamil myself, and though I would love to see my "brethren" as it were categorized relevant cats like Category:Tamil politicians, Category:Tamil writers and other cats can affirm the ethnicity.Baka man 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument is not workable. Somebody like Indran Amirthanayagam cannot be placed in Category:Tamil writers because he uses English to write, not Tamil. Still, he is an ethnic Tamil. This is why we have a category categorising Americans by ethnicity, and this is why we need a category for American Tamils. By your suggestion he won't be in any Tamil related category. -- Ponnampalam 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually he could still be marked as Category:Tamil people. Cat Bengali-Americans was deleted.Baka man 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Everybody can be put in Tamil people. Then the category will become completely useless as a help in navigation.

Secondly, about Bengali people, I don't know if people from West Bengal and Bangladesh in America have the same institutions like Tamils do. Tamils in the US are one community. Does this apply to Bengalis?

Thirdly, I would like you to explain what the difference is between Category:Tamil Americans on the one hand and Category:Basque Americans, Category:Hmong Americans, Category:Sorbian-Americans, Category:Sicilian-Americans, Category:Scots-Irish Americans and other similar categories on the other. Either they should all be kept, or they should all be deleted. --Ponnampalam 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamils are not a minority group in India, nor do they constitute a nation like the Basque. The Hmong are a persecuted ethnic minority in Laos, I actually dont see the point for Sicily, and scots-Irish refers to Irish Protestants from the "country" of Northern Ireland. Btw, people are not notable for being Tamil, they are notable for being actors, politicians, sportspeople, etc. Bengali Hindus have the same cultural institutions as Bangaldeshi Bengali Hindus, Assamese Hindus, MAnipuri's, Tripuris. Tamil's are like the Bengalis, Sindhis, Punjabi's, and Azerbaijanis, none of which have their own separate cat.Baka man 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, don't you think characterizing 'Humans' into subcategories in itself undermines 'Humans'? These categories convey nothing; they are there for easy navigation I guess. Please let me know if there are other reasons. Praveen 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If people are not notable for being Tamil, they are also not notable for being Indian. By your reasoning, there is also no reason to have an "Indian American" category. -- Ponnampalam 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Except we have figures noted in mainstream papers like Rachel Paulose, Dalip Singh Saund, Satveer Chaudhary, Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris, etc who are notable for being Indian Americans high up in their field.Baka man 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How does that answer my question? -- Ponnampalam 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So. Should we award them gold medals? Wiki Raja 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Wiki raja seems to have descended into incoherent babble, I will answer poonampalam's comment. Did you look at the bios? Here I'll give you one.

“

She is the first Indian American woman... to hold this post.

”

from Rachel Paulose. ITs people like that that make the cat notable. Note the ref right after Indian American? That's why. I'm not opposed to Tamil British, Tamil Canadians, Tamil Sri Lankans,etc, because in those countries all South Asians are categorized together as South Asians, but the American cat is structured differently.Baka man 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the explanation, I understand now what you were saying. But by that argument, the "Indian Americans" category should only have people who are notable for being the first Indian American to do something, or where their Indianness is a major factor in their notableness. People who simply are successful Americans without their Indianness playing a role in their notableness should not be categorised in that category. I don't think that is the correct test to use. -- Ponnampalam 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in an ideal categorization system that would be what happens, but Category:Indian Americans, Category:Indonesian Americans, Category:Pakistani Americans Category:Chinese Americans, etc. were created far before this one. Most people in the cat have been written in Indian American newspapers. If I had access to archives of India West (which I get at my library) I would probably find all those people at some point or another.Baka man 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Merge. Per Nom.Gnanapiti 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wiki Raja 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: There is no reason to delete and merge Tamil Americans with Indian Americans, other than to feed nationalistic POV. So, what about Sri Lankan Tamils? Indian Tamils? Malaysian Tamils? I am Tamil myself, and to tell you the truth, this is a biased, one sided request. So now, we are going to differentiate between Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils? Wiki Raja 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. I am Tamil myself as well. I dont know how it is biased or one sided though coming from Mr. Gold Medal, I'm sure it makes sense in the realm of ethnocruft and babble.Baka man 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please mind your language. Wiki Raja 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Category:Indian Americans is good enough, no need for extra categorization. Sfacets 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment - User:Wikiraja has been canvassing for votes. (Contributions)
weak keep -- I'm not thrilled with infinite subcategorization, but in the light of Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, and lots of categories of "Americans" based on ethnicity, and Tamils being undisputedly an ethnicity (while "Indian" is not an ethnicity, but either a nationality, or a rough geographical super-group like Category:African Americans ("African" is not an ethnic group either)), I see no way to delete this unless we delete lots of other categories too. Subcategories do not "undermine" their supercat. dab (𒁳) 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and delete any similar subcategories. CalJW 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Similar subcategories" will include Category:Hmong Americans, Category:Sorbian-Americans, Category:Sicilian-Americans, Category:Scots-Irish Americans, and probably also Category:Scottish-Americans, Category:English Americans, Category:Welsh-Americans. The situation with these (particularly the first three) is exactly the same as with Tamil Americans. -- Ponnampalam 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Tamil is a ethnic group spanning several countries (India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Reunion) Are you going to put Tamil from i.e. Malaysia, just as malaysians? Then in the vein we shouldn't have Indian-American, just American, we use these categories to define unique groups and peoples, I suspect the reasoning behind these so called merges. This particular targeting of South asian groups is biased, if it is done all the ethnic groups in different countries need to be merged (i.e. Scots-Irish Americans, Basque-Americans, etc. need to merge just to Scottish Americans and Spanish/French Americans). It is a ridiculous that this merge is even being promoted or considered.--Kathanar 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Very strong keep Nearly all Tamil associations (Tamil Sangams) in the United States have a mix of Sri Lankan and Indian Tamil members. The Tamil community in the US is a single community, regardless of which country the Tamils originally came from. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect reality. Splitting the category up is really completely ridiculous and does not reflect reality. If the worry is that the "Indian American" category is being neglected there is no problem to put people in both "Indian American" and "Tamil American" categories. "Tamil American" can also be an independent category, if you are worrying about that. It does not need to be a subcategory of "Indian American," since many of the people who will be mentioned there will ultimately not be Indian. -- Ponnampalam 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Added later: See also my Comment below. -- Ponnampalam 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. They may not possess Indian passport anymore, but they still talk in Tamil. Praveen 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman started a category called Mauritian Hindus. see here. So you would rather affix one's religious faith than language/ethinicity in categorization. Praveen 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Everytime i see a Tamil person on wiki I put them under Category:Tamil people. Everytime I see a Bengali, they get put under Category:Bengali people by occupation. Category:Bengali-Americans was deleted, and all relevant entries were moved to Category:Indian Americans and Category:Bangladeshi Americans, so there is a precedent.Baka man 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't answer any one of my previous posts. Praveen 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talking in Tamil? I talk in Hindi, does that make me a Hindi-American (though I am Tamil American)? most Indians are polyglots, are you therefore(if you're in the US) a English-American? Your rationale is ludicrous.Baka man 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamil is not only a language, but also an ethnicity. Japanese is considered a language and an ethnicity. Take for example, if a couple from Japan had a child born in the U.S., would that child still be of Japanese ethnicity. Indian on the other hand is neither a language or an ethnicity but a nationality. Here is another example. If my parents were born in America, and I so happened to be born in India, would that make me an Indo-American? Your rationale is ludicrous. Wiki Raja 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So are Bengali, Azeri, Punjabi, and numerous other groups without an "-American" cat.Baka man 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what is your point? Are you advocating restriction of freedom of Categories on Misplaced Pages? Wiki Raja 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Tamil is also on four currencies such as the Mauritian rupee, Sri Lankan rupee, Singapore Dollar, and the Indian rupee. Dravidian Warrior 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)This is user's 5th contribution

Speedy Merge and Delete per Nom. - KNM 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep The 'Tamils' are linguistically and more ethnically not confined to India. The term 'Americans' are regarding the nationality. And apart, there are also a pretty decent number of articles under the category. So it's fit and unavoidable to keep a seperate category for mentioning the combination of the both. ==> _Д=|Ω|=_Д _Paul 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Hey KNM, stop deleting my vote! Jhnnyrj 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Keep: What the heck!? My vote got deleted too. Bakasuprman be carefull who you call a sockpuppet. Just because this may be a new account, does not mean that you can delete my vote. Tamilguy07 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Keep. Tamils are an international population with a very strong and distinct ethnic identity and, with their ongoing oppression and, in some sectors, armed struggle in India and the subcontinent, a very strong political identity as well. Lumping Tamils together with, say Hindu Indians in the U.S. makes about as much sense as shoehorning, say, White South Africans and the Zulus, or the San, all groups living in the U.S. as expatriates, into a group called "South African-Americans" and treating them as a single people. deeceevoice 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI< most Tamils are Hindu, and not all Indian's are Hindu. Tamil's are no more special than Azeri people, who dont have their own "-Americans" cat, no more special than Bengali's, and no more special than any other ethnic group in the Indian subcontinent.Baka man 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And no less special than any other ethnic group anywhere else in the world. If you think there shouldn't be any categorisation of Americans by ethnic origin, start a discussion about that. It makes no sense to treat an ethnic group differently just because some of its members happen to be of Indian origin. -- Ponnampalam 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamils are multi-religious, and have been seen the dawn of history. Since early times prior to the introduction of Hinduism was Animism. The Hinduism we see amongst Tamils is a mixture of Hinduism and indigenous Tamil Animism with their own Tamil deities such as Murugan, Mariamman, and Koneshwaran amongst many others. There was a time in history when Buddhism and Jainism was practiced amongst Tamils in the Chola and Chera kingdoms which produced poets like Thiruvalluvar (Jain backgound) and Ilango Adigal (Buddhist). Christianity and Judaism was first introduced in Kerala and Tamil Nadu during the 1st century C.E. During the 16th century Catholicism was introduced by the Portuguese and Islam by Moghul influence. When the British came, Protestanism and its other denominations were introduced. So what if Hinduism is the most practiced religion, and Christianity is the second most practiced. During the late 1800s and early 1900s Atheism started taking its course amongst some parts of the Tamil areas and other parts of the Indian sub-continent. It is no wonder why the southern part of the sub-continent is more tollerant of other faiths as compared in Northern India where mosques, temples, and churches are frequently burnt. Lastly, no one ethnic group can be identified by religion. Wiki Raja 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from being in immensely bad taste (implying North Indians are intolerant), you fail to note that periyar and legacy furthered by a band of rascals have undermined all this "tolerance". If your definition of tolerance is letting terrorists like Madani run scot free out of jail, then perhaps its "tolerance". The Cham Bolomon are an exclusively Hindu ethnic group, nearly all Balinese are Hindu, all Acehnese are Muslim, etc etc.Baka man 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - their own people group, should have their own designation. Useful. Merging into existing nationalities shows an ignorance of cultural heritage; we don't delete Jewish and say they should instead be German, Polish, etc. The Tamil have their own language and ethnicity. Part Deux 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. if you think someone is a sock, please don't delete their !vote. Just tag it with {{spa}}. Part Deux 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Tamil's do not constitute a nation, unlike the Jews.Baka man 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. If you look at the article about Basque people you will see that their status as a "nation" is not different from ours, contrary to what you are claiming. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The head category is called "American people by ethnic or national origin". Are you now going to say that "Tamil" is not an ethnicity either? -- Ponnampalam 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are internal and external nations. Each state in India constitutes an inernal nation. That is why in the Indian constitution states about a federal system with a central government. A nation does not only denote to countries, but can be referred to a group of people within a federated country who have been in existence for thousands of years. In the United States, the Native Americans (or "Red Indians" as some peculiar folks in India like to call them) constitute of many nations within America. For example, we have the Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Crow Nation, etc. Wiki Raja 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jews constitute a nation? I'm sorry, no they don't. They have Israel, but only since 1948 (should we not allow any people in the Jewish category that died before 1948?). And at that, being Jewish doesn't mean being Israeli. By your argument, then we should merge Category:Jewish people with Category:Israelis. Part Deux 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are 22 official ethnicities with "their own" languages in India and thousands of unofficial ethnicities with "their own" languages. Tamils are no different than Kannadigas or Telugus or Bengalis in that regard. Now, it will be extremely illogical and utterly impractical to create categories for each and every ethnicity in India if we keep on doing that. Gnanapiti 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamils are different from Kannadigas and Telugus, because "Tamil" is not only an "Indian" ethnicity (unlike "Kannadiga" and "Telugu" ethnicities). There are also Sri Lankan Tamils, Malaysian Tamils, Singaporean Tamils, and others who identify with very strongly with the same Tamil ethnicity but are not "Indian." In the US, which is what we are talking about, a very significant percentage of the Tamils are not of Indian origin. This is why the ethnicity needs a category. The analogy with Jews which Part Deux gave is very appropriate. -- Ponnampalam 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe what Gnana is saying. Now, its post is truly not making any sense. As argued in the past, these 22 officially unrecognized ethnicities fall into three families of ethnicities namely the Dravidians, Indo-Aryans, and the Mon-khmer. What gives one person the right to deprive others of their ethnic recognition? What gives a paranoid society the right to revise history? I get it now, some people out there are afraid that if all these ethnicities get recognized by the public, our precious little India will fall apart. Is that what all this paranoia is about? Get real. Wiki Raja 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Deprive? I have been a strong proponent of categorization by ethnicity. Tamils are no more special than other groups like Bengalis, Punjabis, Azeris, Uygurs, all of which do not have categories. Multiethnic countries like India, Indonesia, Iran and others are much better off not having their diaspora or PIO cats split up into an infinite number of useless subcats.Baka man 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it is up to them to come up with their own categories too. By whose laws does it say that Multiethnic countries are much better off not having their diaspora? Yours? Why would aditional categories be useless? I only have one thing to say about your baseless posts, POV. Wiki Raja 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A large clutter isnt going to help anyone. And what would you call pushing fringe lunatic theories of a Lemurian space-age Tamil race and trying to pull together various unrelated ethnicities into some sort of Dravidistan? Its obvious that you dislike me because I'm an Iyer.Baka man 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about multiethnic countries, but only about multi-country ethnicities. I think they deserve special treatment, whatever be the principles we apply to multiethnic countries (I am not commenting about that because it isn't relevant to this discussion). -- Ponnampalam 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Merge with Category:Indian Americans. -- Naveen 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Tamil Americans who have no ancestral connection with India? A very significant percentage of Tamil Americans are not of "Indian" origin. -- Ponnampalam 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the nomination .Category:Indian Americans is one such category. This category needs to be up merged to the relevant categories such as Category:Indian Americansand Category:Sri Lankan Americans. -- Naveen 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I did not make my question clear, sorry for that. My question is why the Tamil ethnicity should be "split" across different categories when the fact is that most Tamil Americans identify strongly with the Tamil ethnicity. Basque Americans are in a very similar position, and they are categorised in a separate category, not as Spanish Americans and French Americans. Why should it be different for Tamils? -- Ponnampalam 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would consider Tamils born in the U.S. Tamil Americans. Also, depending on whether their parents are from, "Indian" and "Sri Lankan" would be considered as their origins. Therefore apart from Tamil being a language, we have the following categories:

Ethnicity = Tamil
Nationality = American, Canadian, etc.
Origins = India, Sri Lanka

If they are tamils of Canadian nationality, you can use "Cat:Canadian Americans" and "Cat:Tamil people" for the article. For tamils of Fijian nationality, use "Cat:Fiji-Americans" and "Cat:Tamil people" in tandem... and so on and so forth. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
What? So if a Tamil is of Canadian nationality that would make him or her Canadian Americans? And if a Tamils is of Fijian nationality that would make him or her Fiji-Americans? Is that possible? So, basically what you are saying is that half of a Tamils body would have been born in Fiji, while the other half of the body would be born in America? How is that possible? Aren't those two countries kind of far from each other? I can understand if a baby was probably born right on the line of the Mexican and American border. Your statement, as with others, is not making any sense. It is like trying to tell somebody that 2 + 3 = 9. Come on. Wiki Raja 01:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please see Category:Tamils by country to understand the broader context of this category and the reasons why it exists. It is not a one-off creation. Instead, it is part of an attempt to classify notable members of the Tamil diaspora by the country in which they are located. Also see Category:Tamil diaspora. (I have already voted above, I am adding this separately as a comment) -- Ponnampalam 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Azeris come from either Azerbaijan or Iran, they have migrated to many countries, so have Bengalis (India, and Bangladesh) so have Balochis (Iran, and Pakistan) so have Punjabis (India and Pakistan), so have Pashtun (Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India), etc,etc. India, Pakistan, Iran, and Indonesia are somewhat quirky and special regions of the world. None of these countries have defined ethnic majority groups (Persians are barely a majority in Iran, but Azeris, Baloch, Arabs and Kurds are huge segments of the population). None of these groups has their own "-Americans" cat, and the Bengali one was deleted anyways.Baka man 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the articles in Category:Baloch people and there is not a single Balochi American written about on Misplaced Pages, so obviously there isn't any category. For Bengalis, I couldn't find any common main category of which Bengalis in different countries were subcategories. Category:Bangladeshi people is not a subcategory of Category:Bengali people and the two are not linked in any way. This and your answer to my question about Bengali cultural institutions seem to say that West Bengalis and Bangladeshis in the diaspora aren't the same community. However, Indian Tamils, Sri Lankan Tamils, Malaysian Tamils and all other Tamils in the diaspora are the same community. So your analogy is completely wrong. The same also applies to the analogy with Azeris. There is no category here including Azeris from different countries. Maybe that is fine for how the Azeris see their identity, but that is not how most Tamils see our identity. -- Ponnampalam 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain this more clearly. Let us go back to the analogy with Jews. Now assume that the early Jewish immigrants in the United States did not see themselves as one common Jewish community, but as Germans or Russians or Austrians or whatever. In that case, it would have been correct to categorise them under the respective country categories. But because they were in actual fact a Jewish community, categorising them as Jewish Americans is the correct approach. The same applies to Tamils. Because the Tamils in the US from different countries are a definite US Tamil community, categorising them as Tamil Americans is appropriate. If this common community did not exist, that is, if the Tamils were divided on national lines, then on the other hand categorising them only as Indian Americans or Sri Lankan Americans would have been appropriate. -- Ponnampalam 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is surprising that 3 tamil users try to define how 70 million supposedly see our identity. Bengali cultural institutions are the same among both West Bengal and Bangladeshis. They both revere Tagore, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Ishwar Chandra Gupta, etc. They both speak Bengali. The bengali Hindus regardless of national origin congregate together, the Muslims go to a different place. The Category:Bangladeshi politicians is a subcat of Category:Bengali politicians. Tamil Muslims and Christians dont worship at a local "Tamil Abrahamic Religion center", neither do Tamil Hindus and Muslims ,etc worship at the same "Thamizh Dharma Sangha". There are two communitied of tamils in Sri Lanka, those who were there for hundreds of years, and the British Tea Planters. There are also many communities of tamils in Malaysia. Indian Chettiar immigrants, Chitty, and Tamil immigrants and refugees from Sri Lanka. The way we see our identity is irrelevant. Btw, the Jewish people are both an ethnic, national, and a religious group, so analogies to Jewish groups are irrelevant, as Wiki Raja has gleefully pointed out not all Tamils are Hindu.Baka man 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to "define" anybody's identity. I am talking about verifiable facts, namely, that Tamils in the United States have formed many common associations, which include Tamils from all countries. This is different from a feeling of revering the same authors or worshipping the same gods. Those are abstract things. This, however, is a concrete fact showing that they are one diaspora community and should be categorised accordingly. -- Ponnampalam 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Again what makes them any different from Bengalis, Azeris, Persians, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Balinese, Javanese, or a myriad of other ethnic groups which are part of multiethnic nations that are also "one community"? Bengalis have formed many associations, and the Tamils that are part of Sangams, etc. are almost exclusively Hindu.Baka man 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Another user, dab, has said above pretty much everything I would say. This is a well defined ethnic group, who do not necessarily identify as Indian (because not all of them are) or Hindu (because not all of them are) or anything else except Tamil. There's a lot of very strong debate that goes on around the Tamil and especially Sri Lankan Tamil topics on Misplaced Pages. No disrespect to Bakaman, but I don't see getting rid of this category as being any kind of measure to help matters. And simply as a matter of encyclopedic accuracy, we need to make the differentiation. — coel acan — 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many other well defined ethnic groups that for good reason lack a category. The PErsian ethnic group in Iran lacks an "-American" cat, and there are persian associations, Bengali associations, etc in the US. Multiethnic nations (especially those with no majority) do not need every ethnic group in their dominion getting their own cat. If onew looks at WP:OCAT you can see that the Tamil cat overlaps totally with either Indian Americans or Sri Lankan Americans. Bengali overlaps with Indian and Bangladeshi, Punjabi with Pakistani and Indian, Azeri with Azerbaijani and Iranian.Baka man 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan - "...do not necessarily identify as Indian... or Hindu ... or anything else except Tamil." - if they arent Indians, then dont worry about the Cat:Indian American cat. If they arent Indian, they must be something. May be Malaysian, Canadian, Chinese, Pakistani or Srilankan. In such cases, simply feel free to use an appropriate category from what already exists for those countries in tandem with Cat:Tamil people. Simple. Sarvagnya 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge or Delete - Merge with existing Cat:Indian American or delete it. There is no shortage of ethnicities in India and the world in general. We dont want thousands of ethnic "cats" running around.Dineshkannambadi 02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what is meant by "We dont want thousands of ethnic "cats" running around"? Who exactly is we supposed to be? Also, are these ethnic "cats" supposed to be in a cage then? Wiki Raja 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No we send them to Lemuria.Baka man 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"...are these ethnic "cats" supposed to be in a cage then?..." - Yes the Dravidian kittens in Srilanka atleast need to be put in cages and put to sleep. Sarvagnya 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment was somewhat in bad taste. Tamils in Sri Lanka have suffered, in fact I know people who fled from Black July.Baka man 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment was specifically about LTTE, not innocent Tamils(who surely exist and suffer). These kittens are terrorists(nothing more, nothing less) and deserve to be culled like the rest(of the terrorists). LTTE has caused as much suffering to Tamils as Islamic terrorists have caused innocent Muslims. They are an embarassment for Indian tamils except the Lemurian kind. Not to mention, their alleged extortions from Tamils in UK and Canada. Comment is certainly not in bad taste. Sarvagnya 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What does that political, racially motivated statement have to do with this discussion? Please explain. Just because the Indian army lost 1000 of its soldiers in Sri Lanka after raping Tamil women and shooting up a hospital in Jaffna during the late 1980s, doesn't give anyone the right to hate Tamils and speak of murdering them. Wiki Raja 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 1k Tamils died, and after the Indian government put pressure on the Sinhalese, the fighting magically stopped. Your allegations of Indian army members raping Tamil women and blowing up hospitals is totally unfounded and smack of Indophobia.Baka man 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I came up with this category not as a political statement about Tamils as an seperate ethnic group outside of an Indian identity but as a clerical category to be able to group diverse Tamil diaspora people of different Tamil ethnic origins to be categorized by different countries. I hope we can avoid the perenial arguments and unfound fears about the alleged Tamil seperateness from the general Indian identity away from these discussions as it is simply a clerical category. Even Tamils from Sri Lanka are originally from India. That cannot be denied but they have their own identity now so do Tamils from Malaysia. For example if Miss.XYZ is an Indian Tamil writer from the USA. Why cant we have her categorized as Tamil American, Indian American, Tamil writer etc ? what's wrong with that ? ThanksRaveenS 03:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Indian American" shows that she's from India and that she is in America. "Tamil writer" and/or "Tamil people" is more than sufficient to establish her 'Tamil'ness. Then, what on earth is "Tamil American" for? Sarvagnya 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Delete. Sarvagnya 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

comment My comment on ethnic "cats" was not meant to be derogatory. There is enough turbulence in the world already, most of it caused by "political exclusivity" and subregionalism. The lesser we have it the better. The cat:Tamil American makes Tamils exclusive with a linguistic identity in an otherwise English speaking country. I dont think this is right.Dineshkannambadi 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Tamil is not only a language, but an ethnicity as well. The United States is home to hundreds of ethnicities from all over the world. Just because there is turbulence all over the world doesn't mean that we must try to stop ethnic groups from being known. That is how wars get started in the first place. I hope I am making sense. Wiki Raja 04:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does not. Tamil is a language, not an etnicity. It is construed to be an ethnicity based on language.Dineshkannambadi 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I am beginning to sense Anti-Tamil hatred in this discussion. First, we have Sarvangya's message making a joke about killing Sri Lankan Tamils. And next, you are saying that we are not an ethnic group. So, if Tamils are not an ethnic group, I suppose that Kannadigas are and ethnic group as stated on this page? Wiki Raja 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To Bakasuprman: Since you didn't give me a chance to finish, but instead reported me for a personal attack, I will finish what I was going to further say. I do not appreciate being accused of disliking anyone because of their social or so called caste status. If that was the case, I would not have contributed a Tamil Brahmin external site to this page. However, it was removed by Sarvagnya here. Also, what is wrong with this picture? We have categories for Bengali Brahmins, Telugu Brahmins, and Malayalee Brahmins. What happened to the category or page for Tamil Brahmins? I do not see you raising any issues about this. In regards to the Kannadiga group, I have personally created some Kannadiga ethnicity templates here. I have done the same for other groups out of repsect and to promote their ethnicities. But, sadly, we have a few bad apples. Wiki Raja 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A Message to Everyone: Both user accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have been confirmed as the same person here. Both accounts have also been used to take part in a vote to remove a user here. What is going on here? Wiki Raja 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)