Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (Categories in the form Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s etc; a list is under Category:Entertainers.) As the talk page for one of these categories put it, "Yet another completely useless category". I can hardly put it better, but to be specific the age of an entertainer when he died is completely unrelated to his entertaining, which is the reason he has an article. Someone who died in his 80s may have been retired for 30 years. It's also an ugly pig of a category name which makes our article look amateurish. Mark¹ 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Silly category. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: pre-20s, 20s, 30s and 40s - and maybe 50s. I know lots of people that find them interesting and add to them often. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ...and I don't agree with "completely unrelated to his entertaining". Plenty of people on these lists are only interesting because they're on that list, i.e. because they died young, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. The list is better. Radiant_>|< 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I recognize that a lot of work went into these categories. However any categorization which is restricted to "entertainers" or "celebrities" is inherently inappropriate. Why not "oceanographers who died in their 90s?" If it doesn't make sense for oceanographers, it shouldn't be used for entertainers. To an encyclopedia, acting and singing are just occupations, and we should avoid celebrity-worship. -Will Beback 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Honest answer? Because I don't care about oceanographers. If you created similar categories about oceanographers and it was reasonably well-populated, I'd be all for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for all of the reasons already given. Postdlf 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There already was a very recent proposed deletion for these categories, and the result was no consensus. I believe that it is a significant piece of trivia about a person if that person died when they were young, middle-aged, or if they lived very very long. Words like "young", "middle-aged" and "very old" are subjective terms, since there is no fine line separating young from middle aged. However, dividing categories into decades is an objective way to do it. Although it is possible to get the age a person was at death by their year of birth and death, it is not possible to browse through a category of people who died at a certain age with birth/death information. It does seem strange to have a category of entertainers who died at a certain decade but not a general category of people who died at that age. If "People who died in their x0s" was added, then I might support deleting the entertainers categories. At the very least, I think categories of entertainers who died before 20 or 30, or who lived to be 90 or 100 should remain, since it is unusual to die that young or to live very old.
  Q0 00:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all. It might be significant trivia but it's not significant enough to group people by. Can you truly see a reader going "Oh, X died when he was in his 50s, I wonder which other entertainers died in their 50s"?
  James James 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Well — yes. Maybe I'm not well though. Personally, the only reason I'd probably ever look up Dana Plato is because she died young. Then, I see at the bottom that there's an entire category listing such people? "What?! Michael Hutchence from INXS is dead?! When did that happen?!", I would say. Makes for fascinating conversation at my work but maybe my co-workers are also not well. The "amateur" angle for deletion seems a little weak to me, esp. if you do what I suggested and keep only the premature ones. Then it would make perfect sense to me to look up who else may have died young and doesn't look amateurish at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is also Category:Entertainers who committed suicide, which also has subcategories divided by age (Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 30s, etc...). I think these would be included in this CFD by necessary implication, but they're not tagged. Postdlf 01:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are not included. Suicide is notable, dying is not. Mark¹ 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The deletions have re-grouped and advanced, but these categories already survived a Vfd just a couple of weeks ago. Captain Jackson 01:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Survived" is about as strongly as you can word the result; the bulk of the categories had a 12 to 7 majority in favor of deletion. If "keep" had received a strong consensus rather than a bare default for failure to meet a deletion supermajority of 2/3, I'd agree that relisting this soon would be inappropriate, but not in this circumstance. Postdlf 02:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The categories are populated, currently being added on to as we speak, and are useful to people who want to research entertainers. Carly 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • or rename to People who died in their x0s, to apply to anyone, not just entertainrs. Carly 15:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: BTW, someone just created an article for Joe Pichler who starred in two Beethoven movies as a child. Why is he suddenly interesting enough to warrant an article? Because someone just heard news that he left an empty car with a suicide note and is thought to be dead. Everyone still sure that age-of-death is unrelated to an entertainer's notoriety?  ;-) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suicide cats are not included in this CfD. Mark¹ 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that's not quite my point. And why aren't the suicide ones included? Those are the ones that I might even agree are too long to include. Don't those meet the criteria that you mentioned in your cfd in the first place - but to an even greater degree? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial - Smerus 10:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at least most of these. Funny, what
  Q0 says is the very least is for me the very most. Is it really interesting to categorize someone as having died in their 70s? I'd be inclined to delete these as trivia except maybe the deaths before 30. -- Jmabel | Talk 13:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete trivial - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, including the suiciders. Such "information" makes articles only worse. Pavel Vozenilek 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Slightly loath to vote as this was recently discussed, but I really don't see the point of these. If the issue is that it may be interesting that a person died young, then s/he probably died for a notable reason (e.g. suicide, plane crash, drugs overdose) and there are ample subcats in Category:Death to cover these reasons (or more can be created where the way a person died is a notable fact of their life). So Buddy Holly can be usefully categorised in Category:American rock singers and Category:Plane crash victims, there's no need for him to be in Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s, which is simultaneously overcategorisation and less specific than the other two cats (i.e. What sort of entertainer was he? How did he die?). Similarly for people who live unusually long lives we already have Category:Centenarians etc. Valiantis 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see any definition of Entertainers, does it include film directors, cinematographers, anyone whos been on TV??? Arniep 11:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

change my vote to Keep as long as we can work on some definition for entertainer, categories are quite interesting to browse. Arniep 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, perhaps consider keeping as another category? I think there would be a genuine use for a category encompassing those who achieved fame (or notoriety) in their field of endeavour, but died before they could achieve their expected potential (or arguably before they could slip into obscurity or middle-aged mediocrity). —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by 62.49.6.17 (talk • contribs
  ) .
• Keep, as the untimely age at which many entertainers die is part of their legend. Gilliamjf 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and the longevity of others that is part of their legend; what would we think of George Burns if had died before his movie days in his older age? or of Bob Hope had he died a failed boxer in his 20s or 30s, rather than each of these guys lasting the full century. Carlossuarez46 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This category is relevant, useful and certainly worth keeping. I guarantee plenty of users click on this out of curiousity when they see it at the bottom of a page and go on to read other articles they wouldn't have seen otherwise. Don't tell me that isn't a reason to keep. --Deiz 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this category very helpful. --BrenDJ 02:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-trivial.--Gillespee 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this in accordance with WikiProject Florida we are asking that this category be deleted. All of the articles have already been moved into other categories, generally Category:History of Florida or Category:Florida culture. My vote is Neutral. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary. Original category description was that it was for articles about Florida culture. Postdlf 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insania. Um, I mean per nom, of course. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too imprecise. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the person who started the discussion at WP:FLA, I can't figure out the intend for this category, and it seems the easiest way to deal with it is to delete it. --Tetraminoe 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 18:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redudant with Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of California, Irvine and more align with the norm. Similar nominations are here -- Delete-- čĥàñľōŕď 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant cat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 18:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redudant with Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Vellore Institute of Technology and more align with the norm. Similar nominations are here -- Delete-- čĥàñľōŕď 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Category has only one entry, appears to violate

]

• Rename to Category:Alleged governmental treason. If that doesn't fly then change my vote to Delete ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, oxymoron. Radiant_>|< 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't make sense. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too vague. -- Ze miguel 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 18:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. Having established my pov before anyone accuses me of pov pushing or other nonsense as it is not my intention.

Here is my rationale which has nothing to do with my POV.

1. Who determines the boundries
   • Kurdistan does not have any officialy established borders nor any international recognition as such. Kurdistan supposed to be a geo-cutural region where kurds happen to live with no political value according to the wikipedia article.
   • Category has lots of contraversial regions supposively in kurdistan. Turkey for example does not see Kirkuk as a Kurdish city. Until the recent war in iraq Kirkuk was drawn outside the borders of Kurdistan.
     1. If it is simply where Kurds happen to live then German cities as well as American cities will also have to be tagged as a part of Kurdistan.
     2. If its a redundent "historic kurdistan" category most of europe needs to be tagged as a part of roman epier etc.
     3. If we are going to treat Kurdistan as a country that will not only be a breach of NPOV but also will certainly hurt the factual acuracy of wikipedia severely.
2. Category is an attack magnet
   • All nations oppose the establishment of it whom dont like giving away territory for perhaps obvious reasons.
   • Organisations such as the
     Kurdistan Workers Party
     (being listed as terrorist on various countries lists which I do not care to list here as the "terrorist" status doesnt matter) has polarised a large populution against such an establishment. While thats my pov and should be taken in to account no more than a "grain of salt" wile casting your vote, it does have a certain level of truth.
3. Category is too broad and is not encyclopedic.
   • Certainly we do not tag United Kingdom under Category:Anglo saxonistan or something like that. Nor do we mark Saudi Arabia under Category:Arabistan.
   • Kurdistan itslef is a usefull article. Pan-Iranism has nothing to do with kurdistan it may loosly relate to kurdish people but that means it would be a "see also" whenever approporate. Similar articles also appear on this category.
   • There is no end to caregories as this one if we are going to mark every region based on peoples ethnicities. We do not have a "Category" for everything that relates to anglo saxons in a category

Hence delete --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't particularly think that being an attack magnet is a reason for deletion. However I certainly believe it is not well defined and it is used as a political weapon. Apart from the boundary issues, I saw a couple of "keep" remarks based on historical or cultural reasons.
  • First of all, the category "Kurdistan" does represent more than "Kurdish People" or "Kurdish Culture". If it is a cultural thing, it should be renamed accordingly. In any case, I would like to see an objective reference making those taggins.
  • Second, the fact that it was called "Kurdistan" at some point in history doesn't make it necessary or even useful, as it is as pointless as tagging everywhere from Vienna or Bosnia to Egypt as "Ottoman".
  • Third, Kurdistan in general gives the wrongful idea that those Turkish cities are in a country named Kurdistan. This can also be solved by appropriate renaming.
  • Fourth, this is an issue which should be resolved by Turkish and Kurdish people living in Turkey, nobody else.

alphan 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While not an official country of the UN or such, Kurdistan is still a very relevant and appropriate entity both historically and in the context of current affairs. While certainly some may oppose its existance, it is a nation per the WP parameters. In particular, I would address the proposal's points as follows:
  • Who determines the boundries: Most nations (and countries for that matter) have some boundary disputes. This doesn't negate them from being valid categories for articles having to do with the nation in question.
  • Category is an attack magnet: No more than any other national category for a nation embroiled in heated disputes (Israel, Ireland, China, anyone?). If vandalism occurs, then it should be handled directly.
  • Category is too broad and is not encyclopedic: Again, no more so than any other national category. If there are too many articles for one category, then sub-categorize appropriately. If there are articles which do no belong, categorize them correctly. The article Kurdistan does a fine job of providing the context for this category, thus it is not too broad. It is also perfectly encyclopedic to maintain for the study of this subject, especially in light of its relevance to today's events and studies.
  • Josh 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is this is NOT a diplomatic dispute. There is no official claim by anyone for the territories. Certainly if Al-quaida claims Michigan is a part of the now porposed "great" "islamic" (of course) nation of ossamaistan. We cannot simply create a category for every nations claim. That is just impratical. How about the claim for world domination in more extreme nationalistic views? Key thing is who determines if Germany is a pary of Kurdistan and isn't. Kurdistan is NOT a country according to the wikipedia article. Hence I suggest we treat this category as a "geo-cultural region". Kurds neither have political or millitary control over a "Kurdistan". There is a Kurdish Autonomous region in northern iraq but thats NOT kurdistan. They are officialy a part of Iraq (according to them) and they claim they are not seeking greater autonomy. Speaking strictly the "diplomatic" chatter.
    1. Yes but this is a proposed country out of the blue. No real boundries, and the boundires are subject to change depends on who is drawing them arbitrarily. I claim New Zeland is a part of Kurdistan, can I go tag New Zeland as a part of Kurdistan? What are the boundries based on? Ethnicity? Random lines of a bored individual?
    2. No thats not it. Attack magnet as people declaring random provinces, countries, territories, continents as a part of this. You cannot cite sources for territorial claims as there is no body regulating such claims. This is not a matter of hotness, are we going to establish the borders of Kurdistan based on stanfords version? Or how about Texas A&Ms version? How about how a random person on the net who feels a province of choice is indeed in Kurdistan. Vandalism is the least of the worry.
    3. Thats just it, a national category has established borders, Kurdistan can include the enteir planet. Anyone studying Kurdistan knows Germany is not in kurdistan, or is germany in kurdistan? What is this knowlege based on?
    • I have given germany example on several occasions as a significant community of Kurds have been claimed to reside Germany.
    • --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would tend to agree that there are no explicit borders, this is a problem, but not necessarily as large a one as you might suggest. I think you could tell, and I think we could agree that, say Mosul would be in Kurdistan, but Istanbul wouldn't. There have been many different states with Kurdistan in the name, with different borders, I think that the category could apply to any of them, although you could always create single categories for each of these, with Category:Kurdistan as a catch all.
2. This is a case for vandal fighting, not a case for deletion.
3. The United Kingdom is home to many diverse ethnic groups, not least the Celts, in fact the number of constituent "Celtic" nations outnumber the number of "Anglo-Saxon" nations. There has never been a country called anything like Anglo-saxonistan so this analogy is flawed.

I haven't decided how I will vote, I think I'll be Neutral unless anyone can make a significantly better case either way. If the category is to be kept it would be good to have more guidelines as to how it should be legitimately applied to prevent or fix malicious categorisation. -

FrancisTyers 21:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A different perspective:

I just dont like the random tagging of provinces of Turkey, Iran, Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iraq with the category Kurdistan. Also certain articles on the Kurdistan kategory such as Pan-Iranism does not quite relate to the category. Articles such as Kingdom of Kurdistan can go under Kurdish people category as it concerns kurdish ethnicity

Kurdistan provicne of iran, and other "kurdistans" belong to a diambiguation page. Category is inaporoporate for that too. think about Enterprise. There are tens of real ships named "Enterprise" spawning through out history as well as fictional ones we know from Star Trek etc but we dont have a category for them as its not practical.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  • The term Kurdistan is officially used in Iraq (
    Kurdistan
    Province.
  • Many of the historical articles like
    Marwanid
    ruled parts of Turkey and Syria. Also it isnot quite accurate to categorize them under "Kurds" category since they were not just a group of people, they were states ruling an area. So that's where the geography come in, and in my opinion there should be such a geographic category for those historical states.
  • Also the category clearly refers to those regions in which Kurds have been resided historically (at least a few hundred years) and have constituted a majority, so one cannot categorize German city or Istanbul under that name.
  • In response to the deletion justifications:
    • Boundaries, ----> simply majority Kurdish speaking areas of Middle East, as stated in the article Kurdistan.
    • Attack Magnet, ----> most of other politically sensitive articles (like
      Nagorno Karabakh) are magnet of attacks too. We can not decide the political sensitivity of a category/topic/article by removing it. Kurdistan
      article itself is an attack magnet. By that argument, we should remove Kurdistan page too.
    • Broad, not Encyclopaedic, ----> Many broad topics have been included in Encyclopaedias, like
      Indo-European, Aryan, Turkic, Germanic
      .

]

• • • Multiple entries to something requires disambiguation pages. See Skuld. We do not create a Category:Skuld. This is extreme poor use of categories.
    • That doesnt explain why you get to tag lets say random Turkish cities as a part of the "great Kurdish empier" aka kurdistan. Iraq has not made any requests of territory from Turkey. Turkey threaten to invade northern Iraq if such a thing was even suggested. The Iraqi constitution talks about the KAR. Not about the great Kurdish empier some Kurds are campaigning for.
    1. Boundaries, Who says which regions are majority Kurdish and which ones are not. How do you define "majority", define who is kurdish and who isnt. How do you define someones ethnicity? Who are you to say Diyarbakir is predominantly kurdish. I say its predominantly irish </sarcasm>.
    2. Attack Magnet, We are not discussing an article here. We have lots of articles that are potential attack magnets. We have a Kurdistan artcile. The attack magnet is more about a bunch of kurdish nationalists tagging lots of random provinces as a part of Kurdistan. This has already happened. Isnt IStanbul predominantly Kurdish since the 'evil turkish army' moved all the kurds to there? There are no defined borders. Where we have such borders on plaestine, israel and even in Nagro-karabagh (although with disputes). KAR != Kurdistan. KAR is just a member of the Iraqi federation.
    3. Broad, not Encyclopaedic. Yes the category does not provide any usefull info. It just promotes one sided pov of the wikipedia editor marking a place of his choice a part of the "great kurdistan". The place to declare nations is the general assembly of the UN not wikipedia. Again parts of germany is predominantly Kurdish. Are those places a part of Kurdistan?
    • --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also restore the article

isnot used anymore in Iraq. It should be Kurdistan Region or Iraqi Kurdistan. It is mentioned as Kurdistan Region in the Iraqi Constitution, not Kurdish Autonomous Region. The latter was only used during the Ba'ath regime in the 70's and 80's. Such a term is not used in Iraq anymore. Here is the reference to the name of the region in the new constitution of Iraq:

CHAPTER ONE: REGIONS

Article 113:

First: This Constitution shall approbate the region of Kurdistan and its existing regional and federal authorities, at the time this constitution comes into force.

Article 137:

Legislation enacted in the region of Kurdistan since 1992 shall remain in force, and decisions issued by the government of the region of Kurdistan - including court decisions and agreements - shall be considered valid unless it is amended or annulled pursuant to the laws of the region of Kurdistan by the competent entity in the region, provided that they do not contradict with the constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

]

This is a vote on the category Kurdistan, please dont smudge it with other matters. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate category.

Bhumiya 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: But I don't have a huge write-up like everyone else. Sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reasons given for nomination have no validity, but it is too vague as a subcategory of Category:Kurds and would be better replaced with subcategories of that category for geography, history etc. Choalbaton 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I am suggesting the untaging of random provinces. People are randomly tagging places. Also its too broad. We do not tag Chicago under Category:North American cities. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, reason for deletion is NPOV violation. Further you can have Korea, which would include both North and South, New England, which is not a country, New France, which doesn't even exist anymore, Scandinavia, which is a region ... - 132.205.44.134 01:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No not a npov violation, Kurdistan is an idea of a country. which is POV pushing. Lets not go there. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Would we have had a category for Poland in the 19th century? I think so. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we have a category for the roman empier. Lets mark Rome Pisa and all italian cities towns provinces and other such geographic articles with Category:Roman Empier. Like I said its inpracticle as there is no end. We would have to mark most of the middle east with an Ottoman Empier category as well. How about other empiers that rose and have fallen. We will end up with page s of categories. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Category:Roman Empire. See also Category:Basque for a contemporary parallel in a more tolerant part of the world. Choalbaton 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did see it, I do not see paris and rome tagged with roman empier. This isnt about tolerance its about usefullness. You do not have a Category:Roman Empire on Rome, Paris, Berlin, London. Same goes for Category:Basque. People are using wikipedia to establish the borders of Kurdistan based on how they feel that day. See Category:Kurdistan its a list of provinces which are inside kurdistans "borders" which are determined by the artistic tallent of whoever is drawing them and depends from person to person.
      • Roman empire and "Catalania" unlike "Kurdistan" have (or had) established borders. Both had some level of recognition. Kurdistan in Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Gemany, Greece, Cyprus, Iran, United States, type nation here on the other hand has no recognition and is NOT informative. Borders of Kurdistan differs from pov to pov and source to source. Officialy/diplomaticaly nothing exists. I am willing to tag Berlin as a part of Kurdistan given the definition here on this vote. According to wikipedia there are half a million kurds in Germany hence why not place it as a part of Kurdistan? Thats a serious majority of kurds. (.5/28)*100 = 1.78% of all kurds (asuming wikipedia data is acurate which categories such as this one rises serious concenrs to that end). Do not get me wrong, I am a long term wikipedian. I want factual acuracy on wikipedia. Wikipedia is certainly not a tool where people can propose how large their "dream nation" will be. Firstly, there will have to be a definition of kurdistan. If I cannot tag PKK as a terrorist organisation, no one can tag Kurdistan as an independent/dependent nation. Secondly, there will have to be citation for all province placing them in kurdistan. Regardless of the outcome of this vote I will untag most of the articles on Kurdistan category as they were added by randomly and hence will be removed as randomly.
      • We are treating Kurdistan as a country on this vote... what the heck it is not a country this is like tagging canada as a US state just because there is such a claim among some people...
      • --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep legitimate category. Arniep 11:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of uncited info is legitimate? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan is a legitimate geographical and cultural region not a modern nationalist invention. I have seen it shown on many old maps (as well as new). Arniep 11:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and its borders have changed signficantly in the past 2 years because some kurds felt like redrawing the borders because they were bored. That aside, you propose we mark entier europe with a roman empier category? There are nutcases who seek the revival of the great roman empier you know. Or how about marking entier planet under the United Federation of Planets banner? I am telling you the category is inpracticle uninformative and unencyclopedic. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Although it isn't named as well as it could be, it's a valid "umbrella" for what many people believe to be Kurdish territory. That said, Category:Kurdistan needs to be part of Category:Disputed territories. -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 13:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still needs citation. We dont have that, we can have that as no one has established such borders. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for someones
    Superpower 2 fantasy. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep -as per That Guy, From That Show! - Smerus 14:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This category is used beyond encylopedical purposes. Kurdistan is mentionaa as cultural region. Such a region cannot have exact borders. But using this category, some users add the provinces into this category. As we know provinces have exact borders drawen by the countries and they are human made. So by using this category those provinces are used as jigsaw pieces to build a exactly drawen bordered picture/region. I think current use of this category is not trying to give a collection information. This category and so Wikipedia is beeing used for proposing/exposing something. And I think it is undercovered by that "culturel region" expression. --Dbl2010 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used the phrase cultural area to denote the fact that it is a geographic area where Kurdish culture is predominant, it is no conspiracy. Arniep 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Biased nomination. Golfcam 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased vote. Bias has nothing to do with this category (aside from the category itself being biased). See
    WP:CITE. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as I wrote under this category's discussion page on Jan. 13 --Cretanforever 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to see specific administrative divisions of Turkey (20 provinces, I counted) removed from under the category of Kurdistan. I was going to do it myself, but do not want enter into a tug of war. (1.) The categorization has militant (not to say chimerical) content, no official value. It is not confirmed by the votes obtained by militantly Kurdish political entities in Turkey. The more so because not all citizens of Kurdish stock in Turkey vote for them. People living there have a say as much as ... (2.) 'Geographical areas that are traditionally Kurdish' as a basis is very open to discussion. Try replacing 'Kurdish' with any other ethnic denomination in the same context and you have explosive material. (3.) The article that treats 'historical existence of Kurdistan as a political division of the Ottoman Empire' is a stub. I learned that Bedirhan Bey had revolted for the Kurdish cause back in 1847 and a Kurdistan province had been constituted and then a few years later, new administrative arrangements had been brought into effect because of that. Well, and then what? The article on the 'administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire' seem desperately short of maps (they are asking for them!) relating to different periods and names. I am mischievously tempted to bring out other regional names in history as 'Rum' and 'Turkestan' and 'Padania' but I will avoid the temptation. I think categorizing any article on a location in Turkey under the category 'Kurdistan' should be avoided. It would be unavoidably political. There is a Turkish saying that goes like, 'It takes one fool to throw a stone into a well, and it takes forty intelligent men to pull it out.' --Cretanforever 08:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My fingers are itching for opening a Padania category. And how about Confederate States? Wasn't a part of the US named as such for a few years back in the 19th century? There is the category. And you might have guessed, Alabama is not there, neither is Georgia etc. Just some specific info on the historical entity called as such. If the K word category is to remain, it should focus on the regional structures present in parts of Northern Iraq and Iran, and to the extent they are present in these geographies. Personally, I am even doubtful as to the historical existence of an Ottoman province named K, even for a few years. Some people will hold on anything. Should check that out. Please remove 20 provinces of my country from under that heading. A category on Kurdish culture can hold a lot of info...--Cretanforever 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is some controversy over the use of this category. However, the article on Kurdistan clearly states what the name means, and this category is applied to those geographical areas that are traditionally Kurdish, and does not imply a political stance. This approach is also based on the historical existence of Kurdistan as a political division of the Ottoman Empire Muhamed 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I strongly oppose the existence of this catogry. --Alperen 08:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The term Kurdistan is used by people who are willing a free Kurdish country. And the use of this category is abused by them, by adding many cities to it. The article Kurdistan states it is a geographical/cultural region, but neither the article Kurdistan nor the category Kurdistan has info/article on the culture or geography of the region.

It's not that name of your ethnicity is given to a region after you live there for few hundred years. If it was so we could address the very same region by other ethnic names. And parts of Germany could be called Kurdistan after enough time passed. levent 12:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From dictionary.com: An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia.. and from the
  FrancisTyers 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Neutral I could easily be persuaded either way by either a clear description of the area that
  FrancisTyers 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete You can never find such a place in Turkey. This's just a name that was created by kurds and their supporters in the west. There's no such naming in Turkish cities. ?????????? (UTC)
• Delete cultural regions cannot have exact borders. So one can say i live in a small village in X country most of the peoples are of Kurdish origin in my town, so i can add my town to this category.--Ugur Basak 20:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether the category is being correctly used is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted. The lack of defined borders is irrelevant to whether it's a categorisable region- see Category:Himalaya, or Category:Rocky Mountains. Mark¹ 21:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If that is Kurdistan all the Central Asia is Türkistan Ruzgar 22:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I strongly oppose the existence of this category.--Incelemeelemani 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply, she was not represented under UN charter, currently carries a self-proclaimed status- not being formally recognized by ANY sovereign country, and lack of economic independence from the rest of Iraq, due to the very recent history of semi-independent status. This should not undermine representation under other categories like culture or history though.

-- Delete Cause A country named kurdistan definitely does NOT exist. and never HAS. So there is no use of such a category named so

• Keep And note that the keep votes represent a cross-section of wikipedians including several regular voters on this page, while the delete votes are heavily skewed in a predictable direction, three are unsigned and another couple are by very new users. Does it ever occur to Turks that there attitudes to Armenians and Kurds damages their country rather than helps it? What chance the coverage of Kurdish issues on the Turkish wikipedia is neutral? Is there anything the wikipedia foundation can do to address risks like that? CalJW 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Established usage. And I'm sensing a lot of political axe-grinding in the delete voters' comments. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename to Category:Court cases litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union --Kbdank71 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise and overbroad. It currently covers any case in which the ACLU was involved "to some degree." These are legion, as it's pretty cheap to sign on to an amicus brief (or even to write one, relatively). To be truly useful, this should be expressly limited to cases in which the ACLU has actually provided the legal representation, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant. The cases that the ACLU actively takes on are much more illustrative and interesting than the ones in which it merely expresses its opinion about what outcome it would like to see. I'm flexible as to the final wording, as long as it reflects this limitation. Postdlf 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't we spell out the abbrev? Radiant_>|< 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't understand the jihad against abbreviations in category names, but whatever. As long as the new name acts to limit the content, I won't sqwawk. Postdlf 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian artists --Kbdank71 18:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. Second is the more standard form, as far as I can tell. - TexasAndroid 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it instead be Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian artists? The standard is "Fooian artists." Postdlf 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just trying to merge, not rename, but I would not be opposed to renaming the target category to the more standard name. - TexasAndroid 14:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina an exception applies as there is no universal (and universally agreed) adjective - see
    Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How to name a nationality. Category:Artists from Bosnia and Herzegovina is correctly formatted and matches the other subcats of Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Valiantis 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• COMMENT, er, Bosniaks and Herzegovinans are different people, so is this a Bosnian category, or a Bosniak category? 132.205.44.134 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should match Category:Sports in the United States and category:Sports in the United States by city. Rename Choalbaton 17:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename new version is better. Golfcam 17:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or, preferably, Alternate Rename to Category:Sports of the United States by state. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ...which more closely matches its sibling categories. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ???? No it doesn't that I can see. It also implies a restriction to sports which are indigenous to the United States which is not applicable. Choalbaton 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm confused. I see the of's:
        1. Companies of the United States by state
        2. Geography of the United States by state
        3. History of the United States by state
        4. Landmarks of the United States by state
        5. Politics of the United States by state
        6. Transportation of the United States by state
      • and the in's:
        1. Buildings and structures in the United States by state
        2. Festivals in the United States by state
        3. Gardens in the United States by state
      • I have a feeling we're talking about different things. Personally, I think the whole
        Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Sport says it should be "Sport in the United States" so I'll make that my vote. Alternate rename to Category:Sport in the United States by state. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Rename as originally proposed. ReeseM 06:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Traditionalism is already more popular, redundant with the other and just seems like better english, note that above i've proposed a speedy rename for

]

• support good idea! Dominick ^(TALK) 16:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW pending discussion on

Samuel J. Howard 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Traditionalist Catholics and Category:Catholic Traditionalism are not the same thing. See

]

See

Samuel J. Howard 11:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That's one of the main problems with wiki, non topic-competent editors move things or delete things without adequate discussion, because attention is not widely brought to their proposed changes/deletions. Sometimes we have persons voting here who aren't even educated on the topics. Such votes are essentially meaningless and skew results. Proposed name changes or article deletions, should always first be discussed on the corresponding wiki discussion pages (probably for at least a month, to allow most interested persons to find the proposals). I'm a newby, so I don't know how to propose such a policy change, but I can surely see that such a policy of pre-discussion is badly needed. pat8722 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation should be removed. The main article is

]

• Oppose. I don't know what the guidelines say, but my personal take is that category names should be as short as possible to preserve space. Gamaliel 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the guidelines say to avoid abbreviations. Radiant_>|< 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Radiant Choalbaton 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support expand all abbreviations. Some foreign folks might not know this one. Golfcam 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategories do not all relate to states. The hostility referred to is often aimed at the whole nationality, whether or not the people of that nationality all live in the same nation state (and they never do of course). Often it has little to do with the actions of the state as an entity. CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename for reasons above. Sumahoy 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "People convicted in the Nuremberg Trials". Radiant_>|< 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Nazi war criminals. The movement they were part of is more important than the location of the tribunal which convicted them (and there were many, both at Nuremberg and other locations). Mark¹ 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mark. To be of any use this new category should contain only the most important figures, not every minor criminal. Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. - Smerus 10:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but make it a sub-category of Category:Nazi war criminals, which already has a subcat of 'Nuremberg Executions' - lose the latter in the renamed subcat - Smerus 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match other such categories. Choalbaton 14:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match other such categories. Choalbaton 14:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or, preferably, Alternate rename to "Defunct sports facilities in Philadelphia" "Defunct sports venues in Philadelphia" or something closer to its sibling categories. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard term is "sports venues". Any categories which use sports facilities instead should be renamed. Choalbaton 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. I changed my alternate proposal. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Defunct sports venues in Philadelphia since defunct seems to be the common article name for stuff that is close. Vegaswikian 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word order should be adjusted to the usual style for categories of buildings, as in Category:Convention centers in the United States. Choalbaton 13:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Convention '''centres''' in Las Vegas. Just kidding. Support as per nom ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to clarify what the categories actually do - "images on Wikimedia Commons" and "images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons" as near as I can tell. Radiant_>|< 13:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 merge HCI cats --Kbdank71 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three to Category:Human-computer interaction researchers. See old cfr for Category:Human-computer interaction notables here. The result was said to be rename to its current Category:Human-computer interaction notables, though it was an even 2/2 vote for rename to its current name vs. rename to my proposal. These three categories are almost exactly the same, with "notables" and "practitioners" being somewhat subjective and ill-defined. Also, avoid acronyms in titles. Semiconscious · talk 09:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Radiant_>|< 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notables because there is a significant difference between luminaries and the general population (which may have done quality work, but not up to a level of great and continuing impact). The inventor of the computer mouse. The man credited with articulating the limitations of short term memory (which is a key foundation for all contemporary GUI work). The list goes on. If the person with the issue has people he/she feels should make the cut, well that's why it's wikipedia. Thanks. -- Dx 07:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see where you're going with this, but "notables" seems like such a... subjective...? term. Is there another, less fuzzy way of expressing this? Semiconscious · talk 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I used "pioneers" for VR, but something didn't seem quite right about applying the term to HCI. Because VR has such strong ties to hardware, it's much easier to point to one invention/technique for attribution. For someone like a Doug Englebart it's a no brainer, but for a Shneiderman it's much more prestige built over time as opposed to a singular work. Pioneer might work--but people like Shneiderman, Nielsen, and Norman probably drop off at that point and I wanted to be more inclusive. As long as there's some way of expressing distinctions, the cutoff point may not be critical. IMO, HCI as a disipline is so muddled it would be great if Wikipedia could offer some direction on "where to start" for novices and that's what led to the idea of splitting the bio listings in HCI (and VR as well). Thanks. -- Dx 02:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: All very good points. I've been thinking this one over and I simply can't come up with any other term. I'm not happy about it, but "human-computer interaction notables" works, and I won't argue against it. The "HCI" categorys should be merged and renamed to avoid acronyms however. Semiconscious · talk 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge* Practicioner and Researcher if there is that much interest. To me and others familiar with the field, there's a distinction between a trained professional who leverages/applies other peoples work by the numbers and someone who has a core focus on research and creating new techniques/approaches. Hence, practicioner versus researcher. MS could go either way. But again, I was only trying to make sense of a mess of a category that was heading toward 200 entries. I'm satisfied with two subcats for HCI personnel. As a knit, HCI is a generally acepted term for the area and is a lot shorter for a cat name. If there's some hard and fast rule against acronyms in cat names, maybe it should be expanded. Live and learn. Thanks. -- Dx 07:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 15:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe someone out there thinks this is useful, but it's rather useless IMHO. This is a category that according to IMDB will have 3000+ titles as more and more films are released on DVD. Some films have more than one aspect ratio and I'm sure this will continously change as time goes on. (example: Austin Powers has a few different ones.) Just a bad idea. K1Bond007

Delete. Useless. ~~ N (t/c) 04:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Nearly all films are released in 2.35 to 1, it isn't anything unique enough to warrant a category. Categories for films with rare (theatrical) aspect ratios like Eyes Wide Shut may work, but not 2.35:1--Fallout boy 05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK but can anyone suggest an alternative way to systematically designate the original aspect ratio, which is a non-trivial property of a film that influences the viewing experience -- Infobox field? Take it elsewhere/not wanted on Wikipedia? By the way, there are less 2.35 films than 1.85 ones. The original theatrical aspect ratio doesn't really change over time either. Shawnc 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia. Make a list if you really must. Radiant_>|< 11:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you think about having it in

  Template:Infobox Film as an optional field? The information could be useful for those with the equipment to display these films in full. They could read about articles of this group of films to decide which one to watch. Granted, the number of such readers is probably small for a general encyclopedia. Shawnc 16:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • I think this would be a useful addition to that template. This would be better than categorisation. I'm not sure many people would search for aspect ratio via the categories system. Valiantis 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Fallout boy Bhoeble 14:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, by the way, as per its creator/only editor, no real need to vote here, heh. Please instead comment on whether you would permit possible alternatives or if you dislike the concept and don't want to see it anywhere on Wikipedia, which is understandable. Shawnc 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bad idea for many reasons.

]

• Delete per nom, also who the heck would find this cat useful? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. See strawpoll at

]

• Keep until template deleted — Ted jumped the gun here, as
  WP:TFD Closing #5 already provides for deletion of the category, and I'd already listed this category in the TfD for Template:5LA. --William Allen Simpson 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not sure what you're playing at William Allen Simpson, but none of the articles in the cat are 5 letter acronyms. They's all 2 characters.
    Tedernst | talk 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Or at this moment, 3 (I16, M28), and 4 (A350). I'm sure that in time they will all be cleaned out as the template references refresh. That's why you don't delete categories before templates! --William Allen Simpson 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or today, much to my amusement, "Rock Bottom" just appeared. You never can tell what templates folks accidentally used, let alone properly used! That's why you don't delete categories before templates! --William Allen Simpson 18:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WDTAM --
    Samuel Wantman 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Greater" as in Greater London is not used for London categories from Category:London down, which is appropriate because it is a recent term, isn't that much used, and London is primarily a city rather than a region. However it was included in some recently created schools categories:

• Category:Comprehensive schools in Greater London rename Category:Comprehensive schools in London
• Category:Grammar schools in Greater London rename Category:Grammar schools in London
• Category:Preparatory schools in Greater London rename Category:Preparatory schools in London
• Category:Primary schools in Greater London rename Category:Primary schools in London
• Category:Public schools in Greater London rename Category:Public schools in London

Rename all Honbicot 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Disagree - there exists a
  London boroughs. In the interests of avoiding ambiguity, the category should be maintained. Moreover any 'London' categories which refer to the 'Greater London' area should be renamed as 'Greater London' with perhaps a redirection from the old 'London' name. - Smerus 13:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename as proposed. Greater London does not run schools and it never has. They are run at borough level. Choalbaton 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename It isn't ambiguous to use "London" for Greater London. Wikipedia tries to use everyday English where possible. People don't say, "I'm going to visit Greater London next month. ". Bhoeble 14:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I created these categories - the reason being that schools such as St. Olaves are historically in Kent but nowadays within Greater London. For this purpose, the grammar school category must read Greater London, otherwise St. Olaves cannot be categorised. Orpington is not in London (city) by any stretch of the imagination, but it is in Greater London. On top of this, Greater London is a definite area - there are clear boundaries as to where it is or is not. "London" is ambiguous. If you ask me, the higher-level categories should be renamed, not these. Deano (Talk) 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Orpington is certainly in London now, not withstanding the fondness of anti-urbanites in the suburbs for pretending that they live in a rural county rather than a big city. Piccadilly 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all We've got along fine with categories called London up until now and previous attempts to rename one or two of them to include "Greater" have failed. We should be consistent, and using "London" is the way to obtain consistency. CalJW 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no point in being consistently inaccurate, especially in an encyclopaedia. Be consistent and accurate. - Smerus 10:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is accurate. "London" is the primary term in official usage, as in Mayor of London and Office for London. In unofficial usage it is so overwhelmingly dominant that there is no comparison. "Greater London" is very much a secondary term, used occasionally by bureaucrats and few others. CalJW 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. London is London and standardisation is important. Greater London, and before that County of London, are terms of relatively little importance. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. London is Greater London and vice versa. Valiantis 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 15:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization wrong, and duplication of existing category Category:Internet memes. No useful content, since all five pages in this cat are already in the existing cat as well. Quuxplusone 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  Aaron 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category used to request out-of-process actions which at least arguably violate the

]

• Delete per nom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. This is a category that–while well intentioned–is just going to lead to wheel wars. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, non-speedy delete anti-wiki, wheel-war-provoking crap. If the expert is right, s/he will be able to provide sources to that effect. If the expert comes too late, that's why we have
  WP:DRV. ~~ N (t/c) 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Guettarda 03:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Because I said so" has never been and should not be the standard here, even if it's "Because I, who call myself an expert, said so". If one is, in fact, an expert, one's expertise has sources -- and those sources, not any
  appeal to authority, are what count. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. AfD is "broken"? {{
  brenneman^(t)(c) 04:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  This policy should not be negotiable. Grace Note 04:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Violation of deletion process and policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, serves no purpose other than to disparage community consensus. Radiant_>|< 11:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Calton. android79 14:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Calton.
• Defer to TFD vote. Standard procedure for categories linked to templates is to let the template vote decide the fate of both, not to hold a separate CFD vote and potentially get split results between the two votes. - TexasAndroid
• Delete as disparaging consensus. Stifle 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gamaliel 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Postdlf 01:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Completely unacceptable attempt to go against the consensus policy that Wikipedia is founded upon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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