This is an old revision of this page, as edited by T. Anthony (talk | contribs) at 02:04, 12 September 2006 (→Category:Hindu athletes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:04, 12 September 2006 by T. Anthony (talk | contribs) (→Category:Hindu athletes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)< September 9 | September 11 > |
---|
September 10
Category:Fictional shapeshifters
Category:Fictional shapeshifters into Category:Shapeshifting in fiction
- Merge, cover the same ground Lkjhgfdsa 23:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge to Category:Fictional shapeshifters, presumably leaving only objects and subcats in Category:Shapeshifting in fiction. And create the subcategory: category:Fictional shapeshifters in comics and merge appropriate entries from category:Fictional shapeshifters. - jc37 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reverse Marge per Jc37, make the category be named Category:Fictional shapeshifters. TJ Spyke 00:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:WWE Alumni
Category:WWE Alumni to Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni
- Rename, less ambiguous. McPhail 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, I also think Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni should be renamed WCW alumni. TJ Spyke 00:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)- Support, but someone(maybe a bot) will have to go through and make the changes in all the related articles. TJ Spyke 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:AWA alumni
Category:AWA alumni to Category:American Wrestling Association alumni
- Rename, less ambiguous. McPhail 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, I also think Category:World Championship Wrstling alumni should be renamed WCW alumni. TJ Spyke 00:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)- Support, but someone(maybe a bot) will have to go through and make the changes in all the related articles. TJ Spyke 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:ECW alumni
Category:ECW alumni to Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni
- Rename, less ambiguous. McPhail 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, I also think Category:World Championship Wrstling alumni should be renamed WCW alumni. TJ Spyke 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)- Support, but someone(maybe a bot) will have to go through and make the changes in all the related articles. TJ Spyke 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Miss Virginia Teen USA
Category:Miss Virginia Teen USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, per reasoning for CFD of Category:Miss Virginia USA. This cat is even smaller and has even less room fro growth - all delegates are included in Category:Miss Teen USA delegates. -- -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Miss Virginia USA
Category:Miss Virginia USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, Nominating this for deletion... category is for only a very small number of articles with little room for growth (only a small proportion of the winners will end up getting articles on WP). The role of this category is easily filled by the list of winners at Miss Virginia USA, and all are included in Category: Miss USA delegates which is the more suitable categorization. I've had a large role in editing these (and other related) articles and I do not believe this category is in any way necessary. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Misc. “Users” categories
- category:User Zodiac/Taurus to category:Taurus Wikipedians
- category:User Zodiac/Gemini to category:Gemini Wikipedians
- category:User Zodiac/Capricorn to category:Capricorn Wikipedians
- category:User Zodiac/Aquarius to category:Aquarius Wikipedians
- category:User coffee to category:Wikipedians who drink coffee
- category:User cocacola to category:Wikipedians who drink Coke
- category:User OS/Linux to category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux
- category:User Cat owner to category:Wikipedians who own cats
- category:User paranoid to category:Paranoid Wikipedians
- category:User split infinitive:Yes to category:Wikipedians who use split infinitives
- category:Users who play SimCity to category:Wikipedians who play SimCity
- category:Users who like the Boondocks to category:Wikipedians who like The Boondocks
- category:Users who know New Zealand is not part of Australia to category:Wikipedians interested in New Zealand
- category:User green energy to category:Wikipedians who support green energy
- category:User reference converter to category:Wikipedians who convert reference tags
- category:User please be nice to category:Wikipedians who encourage civility
- category:User mothering sunday to category:Wikipedians who celebrate Mothering Sunday
- category:User St Georges Day to category:Wikipedians who celebrate St Georges Day
- category:User undeletion to category:Misplaced Pages administrators who undelete
Preparing to tackle the language and musical instrument categories, I cleaned out about 100 empty categories beginning with User or Users that replicated new Wikipedian ones, but these remained. The ones at the top I’m pretty confident about (though obviously if the food and drink categories go away, the drink ones here will too), but as it goes along I had to make up a few new names. Suggest alternatives.--Mike Selinker 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Boondocks is also a cartoon now. So perhaps "like" is better than "read" in this case. - jc37 21:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom (Boondocks excepted temporarily) - jc37 21:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename all EXCEPT The Boondocks. It's a cartoon also(and a pretty popular one based on the ratings). TJ Spyke 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I even watch it. I amended that nomination.--Mike Selinker 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's better, I support renaming that one now as well. TJ Spyke 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I even watch it. I amended that nomination.--Mike Selinker 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Great job as usual Mike. What will you do with all the free time you'll have once you're finished with all the Wikipedian categories? (And don't tell me you're going to disneyland : ) - jc37 01:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't know. Probably create categories for every individual and band in category:Albums by artist. (Ducking.)--Mike Selinker 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename all, except I do have a couple of suggestions. Based on the userboxes, it looks like they should be spelled "St George's Day" instead of "St Georges Day" and "Mother's Day" instead of "Mothering Sunday". --Cswrye 05:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article Mothering Sunday is really confusing to me. Maybe someone from the UK can figure out what these users would want this category to be called.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete starsigns, drinks categories, St Georges Day, Mothering Sunday, split infinitives. Rename others. --kingboyk 09:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just so you know, the starsigns are a tip of the iceberg at category:Wikipedians by astrological sign.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "admins who undelete" is just plain silly, all admins can (and at times, do) that. I don't like "Users who encourage civility" either; someone who states "I encourage civility" sounds sanctimonious rather than civilized. >Radiant< 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would welcome another suggestion for category:User undeletion. I don't really understand what's being offered in that category.--Mike Selinker
- Admins who are willing to userfy deleted articles (myself included). I guess it works as I occasionally get userfication requests from folks I've never heard of. --kingboyk 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- "userfy"? This word exists?--Mike Selinker 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. But only in geek speek ;) An alternative might be "Misplaced Pages administrators who are willing to provide a copy of deleted articles". Or, given the recent controversy on WP:ANI, just delete it. I'm not too bothered. --kingboyk 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- "userfy"? This word exists?--Mike Selinker 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Admins who are willing to userfy deleted articles (myself included). I guess it works as I occasionally get userfication requests from folks I've never heard of. --kingboyk 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would welcome another suggestion for category:User undeletion. I don't really understand what's being offered in that category.--Mike Selinker
Category:Cruisers of Austria-Hungary and Category:Cruisers of the Austro-Hungarian Navy
Category:Cruisers of Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cruisers of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single ship in two identical categories. One of these categories should be removed. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since Austro-Hungarian Navy exists, retain Category:Cruisers of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (and redirect from other?). David Kernow 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep both unless someone from WP:MILITARY or WP:SHIPS weighs in otherwise; we have both Category:Naval ships by country and Category:Ships by navy.-choster 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- A-H had a single navy and A-H Navy was always operated by single country, the A-H. The differences between Austrian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire were of political character and had not influenced basic structure of military. The messy super-categories should be fixed, instead of spreading chaosu futher. Pavel Vozenilek 01:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Fictional ruins
Category:Fictional ruins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, 2-article category, both articles related to Pokémon, both articles slated to be merged, could become empty soon. Approved by WP:PCP. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The Nameless City is missing. More seriously, such "category" would bring absolutely unrelated articles together. Pavel Vozenilek 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry
Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry to Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Londonderry
- Rename, As per the Derry/Londonderry naming agreement, the county is Londonderry. See WP:IMOS. Stu 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Reggae by nationality
delete because there are only 2 entries, and likely this will not change.Spylab 17:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
- Keep There is potential for expansion, eg UK, Jamaica and I dare say many others. I would prefer Category:Reggae by country however. Choalbaton 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Jewish sportspeople
- Delete, see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_25#Category:Sportspeople_by_religion. -- ProveIt 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Darwinek 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is it based solely on religion or is it based on a wider culture, in which case the precedent may not hold. Ansell 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- We don't have a parent "Category:Sportspeople by wider culture" either. Punkmorten 09:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per similar decisions. Pavel Vozenilek 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Confederations Cup
Category:Confederations Cup to Category:FIFA Confederations Cup
- Rename,The official name is FIFA Confederations Cup. Matt86hk talk 12:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. - Darwinek 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians by diet
- Category:Wikipedians who do not drink soda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who do not eat cheese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink beer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink green tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink Islay malts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink kalimotxo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink mint tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink oolong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink rakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink root beer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink soy milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink vodka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat apples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat bananas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat brownies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat cake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat chocolate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat cucumbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat donuts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat gingerbread cookies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat muffins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat oranges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat pasta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat pasties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat peanut butter cookies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat pears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat pie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat popcorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat potato chips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat strawberries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat sushi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat waffles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who love hamburgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who prefer rare steak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians by beverage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians by diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Commercial
- Category:Wikipedians who eat at Bertucci's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat at Burger King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat at KFC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat at McDonald's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat at Subway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat at Taco Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink Coke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink Pepsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink R.C. Cola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who drink Slurpees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat Lay's Chips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat M&M's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who eat Swedish Fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not included, may need to be moved if the others are deleted, or nominated for deletion seperately:
- Category:Wikipedians interested in cooking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Fruitarian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedian chefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Pesco/pollo vegetarian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Strong Delete all. Quite simply, these categories are unencyclopedic, trivial and useless.
The longer rationale: Whilst I have no strong objection to people placing userboxes on their pages about these things (although I prefer the GUS), categorising users by whether or not they like strawberries or drink coffee adds nothing to the encyclopedia and makes us look amateurish. This is not MySpace folks, it's an enyclopedia.
In general, we don't categorise user pages. There are exceptions to this, such as WikiProject memberships, hobbies and recreational interests which might genuinely aid with bonding or the formation of WikiProjects, whether a user is an admin or not, and so on. Categorising a user based on whether they like their steak rare or burnt just isn't one of those exceptions.
This nomination covers the entire Category:Wikipedians by diet, with the exception of the vegetarian and cooking categories which I feel are not at the same level - cooking is a hobby/occupation, vegetanariasm is a serious lifestyle choice unlike Pepsi v Coke or McD vs Burger King. --kingboyk 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've struck the halal and kosher entries per comments below. --kingboyk 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom., but treat the Helal and Kosher ones in the same way as the Vegetarian ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, Silly, but "mostly harmless"; people are using them. -- ProveIt 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't consider these less important than one's political beliefs, musical preferences, or video game habits. It seems harmless and rather likable to me.--Mike Selinker 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the categories that are not excluded - I'm usually a big supporter of user categories, but I agree with kingboyk's reasoning on this. An editor's food preferences are not going to help with writing any articles. I do think it is good to keep the ones that were excluded since they refer to more general lifestyle choices that reflect knowledge about a variety of topics, and they don't tend to lend themselves to overcategorization like the individual food categories. However, I strongly agree with keeping Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal and Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher since those are also major lifestyle choices that can affect more articles than individual foods. I'm okay with keeping Category:Wikipedians by diet as the main category for the few categories that we are keeping (unless someone has a better suggestion for where to put them), but all of the individual food categories can go. You can see more of my reasoning behind this at WP:USERCAT. --Cswrye 14:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Sugarpine 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete The category namespace is for articles, not user trivia. Martin 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep qwm 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the commercial ones (Pepsi, McDonald's, etc), Delete the rest - While my first inclination is to "Keep" all, since these are similar to other interests/preferences that help wikipedians know preference/interest/bias which I feel can generally be helpful in developing the encyclopedia, I don't think mundane food preference in this case is notable enough. Whether I eat apples or not isn't likely to make as much difference in editing the article on apples. (And I would not oppose the deletion of the associated userboxes, for the same reasons.) Keep the commercial ones however, for exactly the reverse of the reasoning. (That they are useful and helpful.) - jc37 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, This is a vanity category and serves no encyclopedic purpose. OscarTheCat 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rama's arrow 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- At least move the maintenance of Wikipedian categories etc away from the maintenance of encyclopedic matter. Regards, David Kernow 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all (except the excluded ones). They're pretty harmless, but these characteristics are just too trivial to deserve categories. And there is no limit to the number. Users will continue to create them for every food that exists on this planet. They serve absolutely no use. --musicpvm 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Punkmorten 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, if this nomination passes and some of the big ones are kept (vegetarian, halal, kosher), I would recommend category:Wikipedians by diet become category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy, and then anything that makes sense as a lifestyle choice would make sense under that. If the coffee drinkers want to start a movement called "coffeeterians" or something, great. But otherwise, if it's not a philosophy, it wouldn't go in there.--Mike Selinker 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. --kingboyk 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep All They add personality to editors, it's easier to talk to users/admins/etc then under less ridged conditions for some users. Adds comfort level.Hackajar 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, if all these are not deleted, the first two "do not eat" categories should at least be deleted. It is ridiculously trivial for users to categorize themselves by what they do NOT eat. --musicpvm 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep All, and for what it's worth the nomination's categorization as important or unimportant is completely random and meaningless. To me, vegetarianism or keeping halal is trivial compared to, say, beer -- and there's quite a large Wikiproject associated with beer, so it should still fit into the relevant exceptions or whatever and stay. Silly nom, but anyway: keep all. --Daniel11 17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, no. If there's already a WikiProject Beer then the category you're looking for is Category:WikiProject Beer participants. That's helpful to the Misplaced Pages infrastructure. The categories I've nominated are not and the only silly thing round here is these categories, thank you very much. --kingboyk 17:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Clearly people with a common interest like homebrewing or beer consumption, which are pursued as seriously as homosexuality or any of the other things that are "legitimate," are conducive to users communicating and working together on Misplaced Pages topics -- in addition to the Beer Project, which is also useful as a concrete piece of infrastructure for organizing Misplaced Pages editing, but is not the only useful kind of infrastructure. IMHO. --Daniel11 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or, for instance, Category:Wikipedians who listen to The KLF ;) --Daniel11 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, good shot! Affinity to a band is rather more lifechanging than liking strawberries though isn't it?! :) Let me just state now, though, in case these categories do get deleted - my beverages of choice are coffee and real ale (but not at the same time). --kingboyk 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, at least you've got good taste in beverages. ;) I agree with your example, but I think to make a general rule of it won't work as it depends so strongly on particular cases. E.g., the Beatles probably had a deeper effect on many people than strawberries, but beer seems a lot more meaningful than the Cheeky Girls. Not that there's anything wrong with strawberries or Cheeky Girls. Anyway, got to run, but I think at least some of those categories above are useful, at the very least the beer one! --Daniel11 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to think that this will have a better chance of passing, if relisted with the the beverages, and commercial brands withdrawn (though they could be nominated later I presume). What do you think? - jc37 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, good shot! Affinity to a band is rather more lifechanging than liking strawberries though isn't it?! :) Let me just state now, though, in case these categories do get deleted - my beverages of choice are coffee and real ale (but not at the same time). --kingboyk 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, no. If there's already a WikiProject Beer then the category you're looking for is Category:WikiProject Beer participants. That's helpful to the Misplaced Pages infrastructure. The categories I've nominated are not and the only silly thing round here is these categories, thank you very much. --kingboyk 17:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep -- Although there is possibly limited potential for these categories, I feel that they at least create a better sense of community. Plus, I love my "This user drinks beer" Userbox. If developed properly the majority of the above categories could very well be instrumental or otherwise useful. Somnabot 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Hindu mathematicians
Category:Hindu mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete. Per the same logic as for Hindu athletes. Religious categorisation of professions is unwarrented and pernicious. Another user has also expressed concern over the category on its tak page. thunderboltz 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided. I would like editors to take a look at Lists of Jews and the extensive sublists of Jews by occupation. Please let me know if you think these lists are inappropriate. --BostonMA 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - There is Category:Muslim mathematicians, and Category:Jewish mathematicians, I don't see the need for discrimination. Furthermore the other editor had only three edits at the time of their discussion, and they also seemed to say Hinduism was not a religion.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per above.Hkelkar 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -Partly for the reasons mentioned above. Also because Hindus role in mathematics is important to the History of mathematics.--T. Anthony 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Category:Mathematicians by religion. Rama's arrow 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Why hasnt this Cfd been withdrawn by the eminent historians. Please delete this Category as soon as you delete the jewish mathematicians. Thanks.nids(♂) 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I think Hinduism as a way of thinking did play an important role in the evolution of mathematics -- Lost 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Category:Mathematicians by religion. It is inappropriate for us to debate which religions are "Worthy". -- ProveIt 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see why there are suddenly so many Hindu categories for deletion when the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim equivalents have been around for so long. BhaiSaab 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Even Brittanica mentions Aryabhatta as Hindu Mathematician, so no reason why this category should be removed.TerryJ-Ho 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. musicpvm 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Mathematics is one field in which religious beliefs mean nothing. What you believe about the Vedas or the Qur'an has nothing to do with your position on the Axiom of Choice or the use of diagrams in mathematics. If there are other categories for mathematicians by religion, they should be deleted too. BTW, I have noticed that careless writers often use the word "Hindu" to indicate someone who lived in the Indian sub-continent before the Mughals. Sometimes it's used for contemporary Indians in general, despite the fact that many Indians are NOT Hindus. The fact that a source describes someone as a "Hindu" does not necessarily indicate anything about his/her religious beliefs. Zora 05:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's fine for you to feel this way, but it doesn't reflect historical reality. The historical reality is that many people did link their math to religion. Read the article on Imiaslavie and Mathematics. Historical reality is that, for example, Islamic prohibitions on icons is believed to have encouraged an interest in geometry. Historical reality on Christians and math is dealt with at McTutor..--T. Anthony 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You havent made your case. Personal faith can have an impact on, for instance, philosophical thought, but not on mathematical thought. If it is the case that an interest in geometry is stimulated by the prohibition of idolatry, then that is relevant at the level of society and not the individual. Note that the same editor above gives another reason above. Hornplease 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The individual exists in a society, whether they are a mathematician or a street sweeper. The math is not created or proved by a religion, but the reason to look at certain areas of math in the first place can be motivated by religious preference or interest. That matters here as this is a category of mathematicians, not mathematics. Mathematicians are humans and therefore their areas of study can be influenced by non-mathematical aspects. Otherwise there would be no need for Category:Mathematicians by nationality or Category:Women mathematicians. A Category:Women math or Category:French math would be absurd, but Category:French mathematicians is not. Nationality grouping is so accepted there's even a Category:Basque mathematicians, which is over a year old, and it only has one person in it.--T. Anthony 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the by my reason did not change. I said above that Hindus were important to the history of mathematics. The statements here are simply an extension of that. It's more about the why these people being Hindu is also an important part of the history and their role in mathematics.--T. Anthony 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am no expert on Hinduism or mathematics but religion does seem to have had an influence on mathematics (various google hits - this for example). Plus there must be a good reason for the Hindu-Arabic numeral system to be named so? Mind you, its different from Indian numerals. -- Lost 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The individual exists in a society, whether they are a mathematician or a street sweeper. The math is not created or proved by a religion, but the reason to look at certain areas of math in the first place can be motivated by religious preference or interest. That matters here as this is a category of mathematicians, not mathematics. Mathematicians are humans and therefore their areas of study can be influenced by non-mathematical aspects. Otherwise there would be no need for Category:Mathematicians by nationality or Category:Women mathematicians. A Category:Women math or Category:French math would be absurd, but Category:French mathematicians is not. Nationality grouping is so accepted there's even a Category:Basque mathematicians, which is over a year old, and it only has one person in it.--T. Anthony 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You havent made your case. Personal faith can have an impact on, for instance, philosophical thought, but not on mathematical thought. If it is the case that an interest in geometry is stimulated by the prohibition of idolatry, then that is relevant at the level of society and not the individual. Note that the same editor above gives another reason above. Hornplease 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zora and the arguments rehearsed here and for other cats on this page. Also, someone please bring Jewish mathematicians and Muslim mathematicians to CfD. Hornplease 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is little logic in the above argument. Hornplease has voted delete on every cat with the word "Hindu" in it. Bakaman Bakatalk 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- NoteAlso Hindu mathematicians generally (not the modern ones) had a basis in Vedic Mathematics which of course is innately a part of Hinduism.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I also feel that there is an agenda at work here.Hkelkar 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:I am a physicist with a strong background in maths. Many mathematicians have been influenced by religion.Ramanujan a devout Hindu. Ramanujan has clearly indicated that his faith helped his insight into the lemmas. The same is true for any number of mathematicians and physicists (Hausdorff by Judaism, Abdus Salaam by Islam). Read Weinberg's interviews and you will learn about Salaam. Weinberg himself is a fairly observant Jew and a supporter of Zionism and he says that his beliefs about God have affected how he looks at elementary particle-interaction processes.Hkelkar 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I also feel that there is an agenda at work here.Hkelkar 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Hindu athletes
Category:Hindu athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete. As Zora pointed out below, Bakasuprman has created many categories that categorise people based on their religion, even when their profession has nothing to do with it. Such categories are unwarrented, and might be politically motivated too. thunderboltz 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided. I would like editors to take a look at Lists of Jews and the extensive sublists of Jews by occupation. Please let me know if you think these lists are inappropriate. --BostonMA 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think they are. So are the Muslim lists. They're boast lists, of no particular encyclopedic use. Zora 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't always work. I created List of Protestant authors, but even though I'm Christian I feel more sympatico to Taoism than to Protestantism. I created the list for research purposes and those who wanted to know more about Protestant literature. (All the names I put expressed their faith in their writing to some degree)--T. Anthony 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think they are. So are the Muslim lists. They're boast lists, of no particular encyclopedic use. Zora 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per precedent of July 25. -- ProveIt 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, This seems less of a notable intersection. Unless there are specific sports linked to Hinduism I'm unaware of. (Such a thing is possible, Sumo is linked to Shintoism I believe)--T. Anthony 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Category:Jewish sportspeople is a precedent.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note Most .content is at List of Hindu sportspeopleBakaman Bakatalk 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds fine. Remember though lists are generally held to a higher standard as they're deletion targets. You'll need to source the names and show that they meet the rules of Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists). The coverage of India/Hinduism topics is rather meagre at WP considering how important/numerous they are in the world, so you're heart might be in the right place here.--T. Anthony 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as there is no Category:Athletes by religion, which makes categorization by Hindus perhaps unnecessary. Rama's arrow 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- There was such a category, it was killed on July 25th. -- ProveIt 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I dont see religion influencing a person's achievements in sports -- Lost 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Listify for now. BhaiSaab 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete per this - Aksi_great (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per (Aksi) --Ragib 18:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. - Darwinek 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteSportspersons are identified by their countries - on a lighter point why not organise an Olympic event between religions..wonder who will be left to see the results TerryJ-Ho 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't Carlos Mencia do that already? :-) OscarTheCat 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per others. Punkmorten 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Hellenic languages and dialects
Category:Hellenic languages and dialects to Category:Varieties of Greek
- Rename, old title is awkward and has often led to miscategorizations in the past. "Hellenic" as a concept distinct from "Greek" is not standard terminology; and distinction between "languages" and "dialects" is not really a relevant issue in this group; "varieties" is suitably neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. --Telex 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: use word "historic" in the name otherwise it gets filled with link to today slang and local varietes. I feel Hellenic was used to give such a hint. Pavel Vozenilek 11:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: actually, as I understand it, it is in fact intended to cover modern as well as historical varieties, and articles for the historical stages of the language too. We don't have many articles on modern dialects yet (except Misthiotica, Griko, Tsakonian and a few others), but those and any yet to be written should go here. I don't think it'll ever get crowded enough that we'd have to subcategorize for ancient and modern varieties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I am not sure whether it is good to bring modern and ancient Greek (or other languages) so much close. Pavel Vozenilek 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's really necessary, but if anybody wants to do that, I'd have no objections to creating two subcategories: Category:Varieties of Ancient Greek and Category:Varieties of Modern Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Having both these categories is more straightforward--Michkalas 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I am not sure whether it is good to bring modern and ancient Greek (or other languages) so much close. Pavel Vozenilek 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Muslim actors
Category:Muslim actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, Per the same reasoning applied to Hindu actors. Acting doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. They're completely orthagonal. I would guess that many actors are basically irreligious. Insisting on categorizing someone as Hindu or Muslim based on name or descent is pernicious. Zora 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete due to ethnic/religion variant. Michael 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- thunderboltz 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I know some Muslims believe film is forbidden, but at the same time I believe there are Islamic themed films. Relevant in several ways.--T. Anthony 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Category:Actors by religion, and per Category:Christian actors. If christians have their own cat, then Muslims should get one.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for the moment. Either we categorize actors by religion, or we don't. It's unfair to target just one. -- ProveIt 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, in agreement with ProveIt. Until and unless we clear them all, we have precedent and it would be potentially POV (or perceived as such) to pick and choose. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Bakaman. BhaiSaab 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We should keep all or delete all, not just target this one. - Darwinek 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Weak KeepWeak Delete: Really saying I agree with Zora - it is difficult to identify the religion of actors.Is there a way we only include those who have affirmed that they belong to a particular faith or have this information from reliable sources.Dilip Kumar for example is a confirmed Muslim while Shatrughan Sinha is confirmed Hindu but not much can be said of the others who never flaunt their religion or are Multi faith.TerryJ-Ho 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC).
- Weak Delete is a better term TerryJ-Ho 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete this and all similar categories. This is a largely irrelevant intersection. Casper Claiborne 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the above and would support a move to delete every single "Actors by religion" category. My opinion is that categorizing people by religion is often more trouble than it's worth, except in cases where it can be shown to be relevent, such as for clergy, theologians, or politicians. However, I will continue to vote against any attempt to single out any particular religion for special treatment. -- ProveIt 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Hindu actors
Category:Hindu actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, One editor, Bakasuprman, has created two new categories, Hindu actors and Muslim actors, and is busily applying them to various Bollywood actors -- and their families! (Shahrukh Khan's wife Gauri Khan is not an actor.) If you know anything about Indian politics, you know that this categorization is mischievous and politically inflammatory. It might make sense to note an actor's religion if that were part of his/her public persona. Mel Gibson, noted Roman Catholic, sure. But to apply this sort of thinking to all actors, even ones that never speak about their religion in public, is just plain wrong. Zora 07:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- This speaks to application rather than whether it should exist or not. If the category is added inappropriately you remove. Category:Christian actors survives. My effort to rename Category:Mormon actors to Category:Actors associated with LDS cinema even failed, see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 22. Anyway that Hindus are not as well represented here should not cause an uneven standard.--T. Anthony 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can understand tagging someone with a Hindu category if that person has put him or herself forward as a proponent or teacher of Hinduism. Tagging anyone who might possibly describe him or herself as Hindu on a census form with the category is just pointless. Setting up sub-categories for Hindu mathematicians or actors, when the religion has NOTHING to do with their occupation and when they haven't made any sort of public fuss about their religion, is singularly pointless. Just how well do you guys think it would work to busily categorize all Hollywood actors by religion? Or anyone notable enough to rate a Misplaced Pages article?
- As for the political issues involved here -- just about all of the Indian editors' names I see here as clamoring to keep the categories are of editors who have been involved in disputes over Hindutva, an Indian communalist ideology that believes that India should be Hindu, and sees Muslims and Christians as representing dangerous outside forces. These editors certainly haven't been working on the Indian cinema articles. In fact, Bakasuprman, the editor who invented these categories, is on record as dismissing Bollywood as popular tripe unworthy of his attention (and me as showing low tastes by watching it). Trying to divide up Bollywood on a communal basis is particularly pernicious because cinema is one of the most integrated sectors of Indian society. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs (or people who might be deemed such, by virtue of descent, even if they show no interest in religion) work together and intermarry. "Hindu" actors play Muslims in films and vice-versa. While there are certainly Hindu religious films ("mythologicals"), they are not currently the mainstream of Indian cinema, and they are not necessarily made by Hindu evangelists. They're a commercial proposition.
- Bakasuprman seems to be concerned to sort out the sheep from the goats, the Hindus from the Muslims. I'm reminded of a story about a Northern Irish man who was asked if he were Catholic or Protestant. "Neither," he said, "I'm an atheist." Momentary silence and then the question, "But are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" In Northern Ireland, you can (or could) be killed for being the wrong religion in the wrong place. That is unfortunately still true in India. See 2002 Gujarat violence. Or watch Mr. and Mrs. Iyer.
- Frankly, all the tagging and listing of people on Misplaced Pages seems to me to be utterly pernicious. It's done by editors for self-serving reasons and it's not particularly useful for the encyclopedia users. It seems either to be boasting (I'm Arab and these cool people are Arabs and therefore I'm cool) or stigmatizing (watch out for those actors, they're Muslims, they're probably subsidizing terrorism). Hence the many utterly STUPID fights over what nationality gets to claim a famous historical personage for boasting rights. I know that this is a primate preoccupation (in the troupe or out? friend or enemy) and a natural human tendency, but dang it, I'd like WP to rise above that, not wallow in it. Zora 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Aha, a guideline, from the biographies of living persons policy:
- "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
- The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
- The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life
- "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
- I don't think that any of the people who were tagged with the categories deserved to be so tagged. Furthermore, I don't see any use for the categories "Muslim actor" or "Hindu actor" at all; a simple "Muslim" "Hindu" "Jain" "Parsee" tag ought to be enough for those people who are in fact notable for their religious views.
- Aha, a guideline, from the biographies of living persons policy:
- Frankly, all the tagging and listing of people on Misplaced Pages seems to me to be utterly pernicious. It's done by editors for self-serving reasons and it's not particularly useful for the encyclopedia users. It seems either to be boasting (I'm Arab and these cool people are Arabs and therefore I'm cool) or stigmatizing (watch out for those actors, they're Muslims, they're probably subsidizing terrorism). Hence the many utterly STUPID fights over what nationality gets to claim a famous historical personage for boasting rights. I know that this is a primate preoccupation (in the troupe or out? friend or enemy) and a natural human tendency, but dang it, I'd like WP to rise above that, not wallow in it. Zora 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect that the guidelines, if followed, would also remove most of the names from the lists of Jews and Muslims that already exist. Zora 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Again this speaks to application. If you want to know the truth I'd prefer Category:Christian actors be Category:Actors in Christian films, etc. However I put the Mormon version of that to a vote and it didn't fly. You seem to see tagging as pernicious, but I think that's just your perspective. I see the blatant ignoring of the religion of historical figures at Misplaced Pages, even when it was vital to them, as the negative. In any case what you said just indicates that actors only be here if they identify as Hindu and being Hindu is important to their public lives. I couldn't agree more with that. If actors are placed here who fail to fit those two standards remove them. Also most of us are not in Gujarat. I've worked very little or not at all on articles concerning Hindutva. In fact I think adding a few of those people to Category:Critics of Islam is about all I've done relating to that in the last 6 months. There's no need to "scare" us into trying to pretend peoples religions don't exist because you've been in some bad discussions.--T. Anthony 03:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added a disclaimer. Also I added Aishwarya Rai as her article states "she has described herself as having 'immense faith in its gods' and when at home she attends the Siddhivinayak Mandir, devoted to Lord Ganesh.." Is this closer to acceptable?--T. Anthony 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, because whatever she may do in her private life, Hinduism has nothing to do with her movie career. She's famous for her beauty, not her piety. Zora 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah well. As this is going to end up as no concensus, or just keep, I was hoping a compromise with you was possible. Instead you're just going to get a Category with no holds barred. At least I tried to put disclaimers and limitations. I was considering removing most existing names at some point and replacing them with actors who worked on Hindu religious epics, but there's probably no point in that now.--T. Anthony 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, because whatever she may do in her private life, Hinduism has nothing to do with her movie career. She's famous for her beauty, not her piety. Zora 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added a disclaimer. Also I added Aishwarya Rai as her article states "she has described herself as having 'immense faith in its gods' and when at home she attends the Siddhivinayak Mandir, devoted to Lord Ganesh.." Is this closer to acceptable?--T. Anthony 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Again this speaks to application. If you want to know the truth I'd prefer Category:Christian actors be Category:Actors in Christian films, etc. However I put the Mormon version of that to a vote and it didn't fly. You seem to see tagging as pernicious, but I think that's just your perspective. I see the blatant ignoring of the religion of historical figures at Misplaced Pages, even when it was vital to them, as the negative. In any case what you said just indicates that actors only be here if they identify as Hindu and being Hindu is important to their public lives. I couldn't agree more with that. If actors are placed here who fail to fit those two standards remove them. Also most of us are not in Gujarat. I've worked very little or not at all on articles concerning Hindutva. In fact I think adding a few of those people to Category:Critics of Islam is about all I've done relating to that in the last 6 months. There's no need to "scare" us into trying to pretend peoples religions don't exist because you've been in some bad discussions.--T. Anthony 03:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect that the guidelines, if followed, would also remove most of the names from the lists of Jews and Muslims that already exist. Zora 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- A factual response to Zora's hate attack on Bakasuprman. Wow what a sick mind. Its called fairness, and the reason I created Muslim actors along with Hindu actors was in the spirit of fairness, so that all religions would be brought down if one was brought down. Of course using Hindutva and Northern Ireland are merely tools used by to instigate some sort of emotional Blackmail.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dont use words like "hate attack" without remarks supporting its applicability. I note that the word 'factual' is up there as well, but without many facts disagreeing with Zora. Hornplease
- I will use whatever words I please. Zora tried to say I was "perpetrating massacre" and suggesting that I was turning WikiPedia into WikiGodhra or WikiNorthernIreland. Since you voted delete on anything with the word Hindu in it, I feel obliged to confront the discrimination and misrepresentation of my actions. I know myself better than Zora knows me, so me writing my actions is the fact in factual.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dont use words like "hate attack" without remarks supporting its applicability. I note that the word 'factual' is up there as well, but without many facts disagreeing with Zora. Hornplease
- Delete per above. Michael 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete per nom.-- thunderboltz 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided. I would like editors to take a look at Lists of Jews and the extensive sublists of Jews by occupation. Please let me know if you think these lists are inappropriate. --BostonMA 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are Hinduism themed movies and actors whose Hinduism is relevant. See Category:Christian actors which survived a cfd.--T. Anthony 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BostonMA and T. Anthony.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for the moment. Either we categorize actors by religion, or we don't. It's unfair to target just one. -- ProveIt 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, in agreement with ProveIt. Until and unless we clear them all, we have precedent and it would be potentially POV (or perceived as such) to pick and choose. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Category:Actors by religion. Rama's arrow 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Earlier I had commented like this: . However, I am amenable to change. I found a series of categories including Category:Jewish artists - Category:Jewish film directors -Category:Jewish historians - Category:Jewish musicians - Category:Jewish novelists - Category:Jewish poets - Category:Jewish politicians - Category:Jewish scientists - Category:Jewish songwriters - Category:Jewish sportspeople - Category:Jewish visual artists - Category:Jewish writers - Category:Muslim activists - Category:Muslim astrologers - Category:Muslim generals - Category:Muslim geographers - Category:Muslim historians - - Category:Muslim jurists - Category:Muslim musicians - Category:Muslim philosophers - Category:Muslim pirates - Category:Muslim politicians - - Category:Muslim preachers - Category:Muslim theologians - Category:Muslim travel writers - Category:Muslim writers - Category:Christian actors. Under the circumstancesa, I think that wikipedians as a group have endorsed creation of such categories. Accordingly, if we decide to delete the two categories under reference, we should seek a mandate of the wiki-community to delete all the above categories and many more such categories. Sorry Zora. --Bhadani 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree. It is inappropriate for us to debate which religions are "Worthy". -- ProveIt 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ProveIt. BhaiSaab 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete' per Zora. Bhadani hasnt made his case at all. A Cat:muslim activists or muslim philosphers can exist, in as much as all articles in that cat should be of Muslim philosphers whose religion has influenced their thinking. This does not extend to, Muslim pirates, which should also be brought to CfD. Hornplease 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- If actually the influence of religion is the basis for all categorization, there should be no such categorization. Such an influence will become a debatable issue requiring credible sources. Plus, as a credible precedent and a network of categories classifying people by religion exists, I think "Hindu actors" is only justified. Rama's arrow 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- In which case, per WP:BLP, you should be voting to delete this and most religion-based categories, or at lease realising that these cats will have to be heavily policed. Hornplease 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- If actually the influence of religion is the basis for all categorization, there should be no such categorization. Such an influence will become a debatable issue requiring credible sources. Plus, as a credible precedent and a network of categories classifying people by religion exists, I think "Hindu actors" is only justified. Rama's arrow 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ProveIt and Bhadani . Let us not have double standards on wikipedia. Shyamsunder 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Conditional KeepWeak Delete: Not all actors flaunt their religions.Dharmendra though Hindu for all practical purposes is a Muslim on paper to marry Hema Malini, similarly Kishore Kumar. In the jungle called Bollywood, it is better to tread cautiosly.TerryJ-Ho 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Believe the second phrase better expresses my pov in this regardTerryJ-Ho
- If you check Category:Christian actors and compare it to List of Christians in entertainment and media you'll find these categories have traditionally been "treaded cautiously." At the moment this is maybe not occurring, but I think with proper monitoring it can be limited to actors whose self-acknowledged Hindu status is important to their public life.--T. Anthony 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The fact that it may be relevant in a few cases doesn't justify categorisation across the board. Those cases can be discussed in the articles. Casper Claiborne 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why cant you see that there are categories on Jew Actors. Just try to do some research on the precedents and only then file a AfD.nids(♂) 12:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, precedents are never a sufficient argument. Secondly, I am certain that based on the arguments here, someone will bring those cats to CfD as well. Hornplease 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I stick by my keep vote, but Jewish people are an ethnicity as well as a religion. Therefore it's not the same. Category:Chinese American actors will likely be similarly safe as there's less discomfort here on ethnicity being relevant to projects or work an actor does.--T. Anthony 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think Listify is the best way, without exaggerating their religious aspects for all these categories, all Muslim and other categories should go tooTerryJ-Ho 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Who told you that hinduism is just a religion and not an ethnicity. Moreover, all i am saying is that delete all these categories, or keep all of them. Why are you singling out Hinduism.nids(♂) 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think Listify is the best way, without exaggerating their religious aspects for all these categories, all Muslim and other categories should go tooTerryJ-Ho 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I believe this is a largely irrelevant intersection, and would support a move to delete every single "Actors by religion" category. My opinion is that categorizing people by religion is often more trouble than it's worth, except in cases where it can be shown to be relevent, such as for clergy, theologians, or politicians. However, I will continue to vote against any attempt to single out any particular religion for special treatment. -- ProveIt 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Military operations of Israel
Category:Military operations of Israel contains only one subtopic and nothing links there. -- Kendrick7 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. This is part of the comprehensive new category scheme for military operations being implemented by the Military history WikiProject; see Category:Military operations by country. Kirill Lokshin 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. Michael 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep— consistent with uniform scheme of WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. Be parient, there are more military operations of Israel coming... Williamborg (Bill) 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- Merge with Arab Israel Conflict TerryJ-Ho 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Israel, I believe kidnapped a Nazi from argentina, and liberated its citizens from Uganda. (Countries/purposes may be wrong, but can be verified by more involved users). Therefore arab/Israeli merge would be misleading.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- That might not be a Military but Secret Service operation TerryJ-Ho 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Its under cat Category:Military operations of Israel. Bakaman Bakatalk 00:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, special forces operations are still military. Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Its under cat Category:Military operations of Israel. Bakaman Bakatalk 00:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- That might not be a Military but Secret Service operation TerryJ-Ho 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A standard category-type. Choalbaton 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:NCAA DI Men's Lacrosse Championship Venues
Category:NCAA DI Men's Lacrosse Championship Venues to Category:NCAA Men's Division I Lacrosse Championship venues
Rename. First, "DI" is not transparent to most people in the US who don't follow college sports, much less non-Americans. Second, the unofficial standard for most college championships, when split by sex and division, is "NCAA Sex Division Sport Championship" (this is followed by the basketball tournament articles). Finally, "Venues" should be in lower case. — Dale Arnett 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per above. Michael 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename heck I'm from the US and I didn't even know what DI stood for. Whispering 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Nabisco brands
Category:Nabisco brands into Category:Kraft brands
- Merge, Nabisco is now part of Kraft. Therefore, the former should either be merged into the latter, or made a subcategory (like "Post Cereals brands" was). RBBrittain 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per merge. Michael 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Question: Is the Nabisco brand still used? If it is, this category ought to be retained. You don't need to bring it to CFD if all you want to do is change which parent categories this one belongs to. --kingboyk 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Israel Defense Forces
Category:Israel Defense Forces to Category:Military of Israel
- Rename to match all the other sub-categories of Category:Military by country. Kirill Lokshin 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per above. Michael 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename and redirect (i.e. reverse existing redirect). I seem to recall the IDF usage has come up before, though I could only find the case of guided missiles in the archives. -choster 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Umbrella: Homosexual Wikipedians
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was Oppose/Keep. per WP:SNOW and I Know when to step down. DemosDemon 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Merge the listed categories into Category:Homosexual Wikipedians per Political Correctness and gender neutrality. DemosDemon 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, They are well named, and self-selected. As such, Political Correctness should not be an issue. -- ProveIt 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I have striked the political correctness from my original statement, but I would like to emphasise gender neutrality. Lesbian and Gay would be describing it as Female and Male homosexuals. DemosDemon 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, the problem may be that there is a cultural misunderstanding here. They actually don't mean the same thing, nor are they merely male and female variations of behaviors. They represent a political/philosophical viewpoints. It would be like trying to simplify things by changing all Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives and Greens to "Member's of American Political Parties". CyntWorkStuff 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Added Note: Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, and Category:Asexual Wikipedians allready exist, merging the proposed categories would help match a precedent. Also, there is not a need for three categories that mean the same thing. DemosDemon 07:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I still think they are well named and reasonable subcats of Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I have no objection if you want to create Category:Homosexual Wikipedians as an additional subcat, and let people self-select into it. Somehow I don't think it will be very popular. -- ProveIt 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I have striked the political correctness from my original statement, but I would like to emphasise gender neutrality. Lesbian and Gay would be describing it as Female and Male homosexuals. DemosDemon 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose offensive. Tim! 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Question, how is this offensive? DemosDemon 08:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- The word "homosexual" is considered offensive. LGBT is a possible umbrella term that could be used but not "homosexual". Tim! 09:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please read Homosexuality before diserning that the word 'Homosexual' is offensive. DemosDemon 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Try reading workplace diversity literature or similar. Tim! 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here is one found online: "Lesbian/Gay Men: Lesbians and gay men prefer these terms rather than 'homosexual'. Lesbians also prefer the term lesbian rather than 'gay woman' because it reflects their separate identities and experiences." Tim! 09:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. No way. Let people be whatever they want to be.--Mike Selinker 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unduly restrictive. There are many more possible constructions of sexuality, and, as per User:Mike Selinker, we should let people define themselves. Possibly we will see other categories spring up, such as Category:Wikipedians 5 on the Kinsey scale or who knows what. Haiduc 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think you have good intentions, but these identities are all essentially different. (Which is not the case for the example at gender neutrality). At the very least, please remember that 'Queer' does NOT just mean 'homosexual', but a wide variety of things. CaveatLector 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sure no harm was meant but agree that people should define themselves. Besides where were you proposing to put Bisexual Wikipedians (small joke people do not become overly alarmed). CyntWorkStuff 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for multiple reasons. While the overlap of some of these names may be bit awkward to an outsider, that's why we have Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I also don't like the idea of messing with people's self-identification, since they are subtly (and not-so-subtly) distinct. And, as stated above, even putting that aside, certainly I oppose this rather POV name. (Though, as always, assuming good faith.) --John Kenneth Fisher 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for reasons already stated. I think this has come up in a previous CfD. We should make it easier for people to check past discussions. Talk pages of failed nominations should be linked to the discussion and categorized. That way people can read old comments before deciding to post a category again. -- Samuel Wantman 19:13, 10 September 2006 (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 page.
Political scandals subcategories
Following this individual renaming, a consensus over renaming all the " political scandals" categories would be good:
- ( A ) {Country demonym} political scandals → Political scandals of {Country}
- ( B ) {Country demonym} political scandals → Political scandals in {Country}
- Rename all per A. I believe "of" is more conventional in this context...? David Kernow 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
PS I guess the "{Country demonym} political scandals" articles will also need renaming following the end of this debate; I volunteer to set this up. - Comment I would rather B, as the scandals are happening in their own right "inside" the country, they are not the country having a scandal, the parties to the scandals are all inside the country. However, I am not sure whether that is a common thought. Either way is okay I guess. Ansell 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Both options are acceptable,
but based on convention for political parties I'll go with B.-- ProveIt 02:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC) - Rename all per nom. Michael 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Which of the options above do you prefer, Michael; (A) or (B) – or perhaps something else...? Regards, David Kernow 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - One potential problem of B is that scandals are not always contained to one country. While the XYZ Affair would clearly be "of" the US for instance, it would be awkward to state it was "In" the US, since it went down in Paris. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's an excellent point. Changing my vote to A. -- ProveIt 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename all per A— consistent with general category naming pratice—which was created to avoid the problem pointed out by John Kenneth Fisher above. Williamborg (Bill) 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename and go with option A, location isn't as important as association with the political entity they're associated with. Bryan 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose all The current names are more natural English and both of the proposals raise definition problems without conferring any advantages whatsoever. It is completely inappropriate to follow the so called precedent, which only required amendment because of the ambiguities of the word Irish. That renaming was in line with the typical situation where there are a handful of categories in a large group that take the adjectival form because there is no suitable adjective. This is just another such case and should not be altered further. Casper Claiborne 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose A non-improvement designed to address a non-problem (the South African category needs to be renamed to Category:South African political scandals. Twittenham 14:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Casper Claiborne Choalbaton 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Codename: Kids Next Door
Category:Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, An enormous group of detailed lists (read: listcruft) of an unremarkable cartoon show (read: fancruft). I should say the whole thing should be reduced to a modest article; if anyone wants to keep the whole thing, I would recommend transwiki to another appropriate wiki, if one exists.Djcartwright 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what to say. The subject is notable. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't propose to debate the worth of the TV show (by "unremarkable", I mean that it's no great innovation or a pioneer into some great new genre, anything like that). The point is, Misplaced Pages is Not a listing of random information, which is essentially what these articles are. I suggest they should be moved to a more appropriate wiki: there must be one about TV, or cartoons, or something; if one doesn't exist, one could be started. Djcartwright 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Reasons: It's in it's 6th season, it's on the cartoon network, it has it's own IMDB article, it is not cancled yet, it has a movie based on the cartoon's story line, it has notable voice actors. The Category links the numerous articles describing each character, episode, and actor. DemosDemon 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I can't see how a show that has lasted for 6 seasons on a well known network can does not deserve a catagory on Wikipeida. Unremarkability in this case a very weak argument. --My old username 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Michael 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This category has forty-five articles feeding into it. I can't imagine deleting it.--Mike Selinker 09:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per norm.Hmrox 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be a misunderstanding about the purpose of CFD here. Deleting the category wouldn't delete the articles, it would just leave them homeless. If there's crud in the category send it to AFD. --kingboyk 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - As per the comments above in reply to original post. Dugwiki 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Music; museums
- Merge into Category:Music museums. -- ProveIt 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Michael 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy merge C2.1. -choster 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Spanish basketball leagues
- Category:ACB to Category:ACB League
- Category:ACB managers to Category:ACB League managers
- Category:ACB players to Category:ACB League players
- Category:LEB to Category:LEB League
- The standard for Misplaced Pages is to spell out all initialisms in category names. However, I believe that these should remain as exceptions because these are Spanish abbreviations which would be less understandable for most English speakers if they were spelled out. That having been said, I believe that all of these categories should have "League" appended to them, if for no other reason to make it a little more clear that the categories deal with sports leagues. I wouldn't object if the consensus determines that "ACB basketball league" is a better destination. — Dale Arnett 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Michael 06:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rename as nominated. --Mike Selinker 09:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I understand the logic behind keeping the initialisms, but why capitalize league? It's not part of the official name. - EurekaLott 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - As the nominator, I won't object if "league" is in lower case. — Dale Arnett 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)