Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 10

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional shapeshifters into Category:Shapeshifting in fiction

• Merge, cover the same ground Lkjhgfdsa 23:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Reverse Marge per Jc37, make the category be named Category:Fictional shapeshifters. TJ Spyke 00:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps Category:Shapeshifting in fiction or the like more appropriate as many members of the category don't appear to be individuals or groups of characters...?  Regards, David Kernow 03:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seperate, but clean up Shapeshifting in Fiction if necessary to make a clear distinction between the two. --
  tjstrf 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_12#Category:Fictional_legendary_creatures, there's a distinction between the entities and the concept. -- nae'blis 02:11, 16 September 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 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WWE Alumni to Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni

• Rename, less ambiguous.
  McPhail 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, I also think
  WCW alumni. TJ Spyke 00:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It will be a bot. Brammen 11:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Brammen 11:58, 12 September 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 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AWA alumni to Category:American Wrestling Association alumni

• Rename, less ambiguous.
  McPhail 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, I also think
  WCW alumni. TJ Spyke 00:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[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 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ECW alumni to Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni

• Rename, less ambiguous.
  McPhail 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, I also think
  WCW alumni. TJ Spyke 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[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 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 delete --Kbdank71 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miss Virginia Teen USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, per reasoning for CFD of
  talk | contribs | esperanza 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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
  talk | contribs | esperanza 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Keep both unless someone from
  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)[reply
  ]

A-H had a single navy and A-H Navy was always operated by single country, the A-H. The differences between

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)[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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional ruins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, 2-article category, both articles related to
  myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The Nameless City is missing. More seriously, such "category" would bring absolutely unrelated articles together. Pavel Vozenilek 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Tracker. --
  Brandon Dilbeck 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{’Bout ye!} 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Object In GAA terms there is no Londonderry, the GAA use the Irish county name of Derry Dodge 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object The GAA don't refer to Londonderry, and this category (although it needs filled yet) refers to clubs in the titled "Derry" section of the GAA. Pauric 18:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To provide sources the GAAs name is "Derry GAA", check Derry GAA and http://derry.gaa.ie/ Pauric 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes I realise that's what the GAA call it, but this isn't the GAA. We're referring to a geographical location, which by agreement on Wikipedia, we refer to as Londonderry. See Talk:Derry. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object I've supported the Derry/Londonderry distinction on Wikipedia, but I feel this renaming proposal is going too far. I don't see why this should become an issue. As the other objectors point out, the GAA county team plays as Derry and I think it's cheap political point scoring to force the team into a "Londonderry" category. Nobody refers to the GAA in Londonderry, everyone refers to the GAA in Derry. Check Google for example:

"GAA in Londonderry" - 0 hits

"GAA in Derry" - 250 plus hits

GAA and County Londonderry produces much the same. --Damac 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damac, please

assume good faith. I'm not making a "cheap political point". I accept the Derry GAA call themselves Derry, but this category is referring to a geographical area. Also, "GAA in Derry" only produces about a dozen unique google hits. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per Stu. Firstly this isn't an article about Derry GAA, so that's a big red herring added by Damac. Secondly CFD isn't the place to rewrite longstanding conventions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per Dodge and Pauric and Darmac. -- Evertype·✆ 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I have to stress that leaving the category as it is will completely go against what has been previously agreed on

WP:IMOS. This comprimise has (generally) worked well, and to ignore it would have serious consequences. I would ask the closing admin to note this. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 19:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom and Angus McLellan. The rename is just a category name - not the name of the clubs themselves, which I think is a different matter. Categorisation of many Northern Irish articles are sorted by county and the county name has been agreed in
  WP:IMOS. There also exist categories relating to Derry city, which are also name in accordance with WP:IMOS. --Mal 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Object per Damac. Palmiro | Talk 00:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per Dodge and Pauric and Darmac. (Derry Boi 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• OBject per Dodge , Pauric , Darmac and Derry Boi (Gnevin 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename (or Delete entire category) to Londonderry as this is clearly a category for the county and is a generic category at that - their are good arguements on both sides, viz for Derry or Londonderry. The fact that the GAA is nationalist does not mean that Derry must or should be used as this is a generic category (i.e. not a category of a specific person, place or organisation) for a series of clubs in the county, which incidentally are in the GAA. Having said that with just one article in this category it is guestionable even if the category should exist. A vote for deletion may be more appropriate. Djegan 19:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it's my intention to add a lot more articles to the category in the very near future Djegan. (Derry Boi 21:08, 19 September 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 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete because there are only 2 entries, and likely this will not change.Spylab 17:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

• 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)[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 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_25#Category:Sportspeople_by_religion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Darwinek 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)
  • • Keep per comment about the coverage of categories for the Jewish race of people and the precedents for other ethnicities. Ansell 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't have a parent "Category:Sportspeople by wider culture" either. Punkmorten 09:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have Category:Sportspeople by nationality. I'm not entirely convinced "Jewish" is a nationality in that way, but it is an ethnicity. Hence I changed my vote from delete to weak keep. I don't feel that strongly about it though. The combination of Category:Jewish American sportspeople and Category:Israeli sportspeople probably covers enough of the same ground to make much of this unnecessary.(And I checked to make sure of that before posting that statement)--T. Anthony 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All Jewish categories cover ethnicity.--20.138.246.89 15:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per similar decisions. Pavel Vozenilek 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and many other categories. Bellbird 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I'd admit things like the Philadelphia Sphas make it marginally plausible. Still it it could likely be better dealt with by reviving whatever list covered it before it was deleted.--T. Anthony 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'd forgotten that we apparently do categorize athletes by ethnicity here. Examples include Category:Jewish American sportspeople, Category:Asian American sportspeople, Category:Mexican American sportspeople, Category:Indigenous Australian sports people, Category:Basque sportspeople, etc.--T. Anthony 19:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, Good category, no reason to delete. Can be relevant and useful. --Shamir1 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is one of the most interesting cats that I know of.--Newport 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good category. Deletionists gone wild: Episode 34,452,915! --Daniel11 21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no discernible NPOV reason to delete.--Brownlee 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per similar discussions. Sportspersons are known by their country, not religion.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 08:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 09:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per IZAK's comments. Guliolopez 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed that it is an interesting category and certainly more interesting than a lot of other "Jewish X" categories Mad Jack 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jack O'Lantern.--Holdenhurst 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepall these CfD's are a waste of time.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Jasper23 02:42, 20 September 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 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 rename. Andrew c 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Confederations Cup to Category:FIFA Confederations Cup[reply]

• Rename,The official name is FIFA Confederations Cup. Matt86hk talk 12:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Darwinek 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. But shouldn't the article
  Confederations Cup be renamed also? Chanheigeorge 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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^(Deepu) 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided keep. 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) Changed vote to keep. I have not been convinced by pro-delete arguments. --BostonMA 10:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of the issues that has been raised is the usefulness of categories such as Hindu mathemeticians. Opponents of this category have argued that such categories have no valid use, and are perhaps only useful for nefarious political aims. Encyclopedia articles should be useful, in particular, they should help to dispell ignorance. There are many types of ignorance. I can be ignorant of the dates of lunar eclipses, and an encyclopedia article may help me with that information. There is another type of ignorance. That is the ignorance that might believe that people of a particular group are, well to put it bluntly, stupid. That is, someone may believe that people who wear dhotis or who perform puja etc. are ignorant, incapable of logical or scientific thinking etc. An encyclopedia may help to dispel such ignorance, by pointing to individuals within that group who have excelled in various fields. Further, a list of individuals from that group who have excelled may be very useful for someone who wishes to show the ignorant that the group in question is not so stupid after all. It is true that organizing lists by, say religion, can also work the other way. For example, a list might be used to malign a group of people. For example a list of Italian murderers might be used to malign Italians. However, I fail to see such being the case with Hindu mathematicians. --BostonMA 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Keep - per above.Hkelkar 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep per Category:Mathematicians by religion. Rama's arrow 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why hasnt this Cfd been withdrawn by the eminent historians. Please delete this Category as soon as you delete the jewish mathematicians. Thanks.
  (♂) 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I think Hinduism as a way of thinking did play an important role in the evolution of mathematics --
  ^(talk) 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Category:Mathematicians by religion. It is inappropriate for us to debate which religions are "Worthy". -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 ^talk 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Even Brittanica mentions Aryabhatta as Hindu Mathematician[1], so no reason why this category should be removed.TerryJ-Ho 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep: I have downgraded this to conditional keep only if it is guranteed that this includes the mathematicians who explicitly call themselves Hindus or verifiable sources mention that the person was Hindu explicitly.But in doing so, I believe the entries will be significantly reduced - making the categorisation irrelevant.Best way is to create a list TerryJ-Ho 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC).Also to be noted that many occidental scholars in previous centuries who referred to India as "Hindoostan" may have implied "Indian" when they wrote about the Indian Mathematicians.By the way I even have some French and North African friends who by reflex call Indians as "Hindous" due to linguistic reasons ("H" is almost silent in French language).TerryJ-Ho 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)If one can read the very first lines in this French document - it asks reader not to confuse Indians with Hindus TerryJ-Ho 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above comments. musicpvm 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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.[2].--T. Anthony 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

^(talk) 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• NoteAlso Hindu mathematicians generally (not the modern ones) had a basis in Vedic Mathematics which of course is innately a part of Hinduism[3].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also feel that there is an agenda at work here.Hkelkar 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

*Delete as well as all others like this. ...And Beyond! 03:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I still don't understand why only the Hindu category was sent here while the other haven't. It is important to note that Hindu mathematics was influenced by Hinduism. The
  Hindu scriptures said. This is probably significant in the history of mathematics. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong deleteThere will be controversy regarding Hindu , Buddhist and Jain mathematician which cannot be verified either.Other similar categories too are up for deletion.Sulba sutra was application of mathematics into religion (for the purpose of yajna ,sacrifice etc.) and not vice versa. Ikon |no-blast 14:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no cat for jain or Buddhist mathematicians because articles have not been made to fill those cats. Its Hindu mathematicians not tics. SAryabhata and Brahmagupta were definitely Hindus.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete The Jewish categories should also go. If a mathematician's religion is relevant to his work, it can be mentioned in the article. As for ancient Hindu mathematicians - that really belongs in the history of mathematics as affected by religion (cf. Japanese temple mathematics; also, the article on Islamic mathematics - or the article on Vedic Mathematics, which in principle can stand, of course).

Also, by the way, there are n reasons why specific people should not be included in the category. If the category exists at all, their non-inclusion is taken by some as a statement of exclusion, which we may not have the right to make either. Oh, and, by the way, the only reason why I haven't proposed Category:French mathematicians for deletion is that there is something very vaguely defined but slightly real that could go under the name of French mathematics - it is made real simply by propinquity and institutions. Bellbird 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas there is no such thing as religious institutions for teaching or organizing mathematicians or scientists. (Christians in Science, Pontifical Academy of Sciences,The International Society for Science and Religion, Society of Ordained Scientists, etc.--T. Anthony 16:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Hindu Mathematics but Mathematicians. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is comping from someone with deletionist tendencies . -- Avi 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As far as I know, the development of
  List of Christians, some of these people were not famous because of their religion, but simply practised their religion. If this category is deleted, those lists should be limited to only people who were directly influenced by their religion (eg. missionaries, popes, sages etc.) Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As I have said several times, if religion can plausibly influence what they are notable for, then WP policy says a religion based cat is permissible. Hindu mathematics was not 'different' in that it was influenced by Hinduism. That point is not made. The development of Indian logic was not based on hindu philosophy - though lazy categorisation sometimes places it as a subset thereof, erroneously. Given that, WP policy says this, and Muslim mathematicians, and Jewish mathematicians, are all cats that must be deleted. If you dont like that, go and start a fight on the policy page. Hornplease 06:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All scholarly disciplines ultimately derive from religion, if you go back a few thousand years, so that's not much of an argument. As for "their math was different and it must have been because they were Hindu" -- so, everything distinctive about the Indian subcontinent can be reduced to religion? Why not diet? Perhaps we should classify them as curry-eating mathematicians, or fenugreek-eating mathematicians. Maybe it was clothing. Dhoti-wearing mathematicians? Or language? Sanskrit-speaking mathematicians? BTW, my history of mathematics textbook describes the medieval mathematicians as Indian, not Hindu. Indian is problematic too (I prefer South Asian, as including the areas now Pakistan and Bangladesh) but it isn't a religious term. Zora 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"dhoti-wearing" "South asian" "perpetrating massacre". Use of racist terms has somehow clouded any actual substance there was in the above comment. Diet? Hindus dont eat cows. Clothing? ever heard of purdah? South Asian is meaningless, citing your hatred of Indian merely brings to light a very possible bias.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's racist about mentioning dhotis? Did I say anything about cows or massacres? IMHO, South Asian is a better term than Indian, because pre-Partition South Asian civilization extended across areas now split into three countries, only one of which is called India. But, that's another argument. It's sufficient to say here that claiming a whole culture area, in which there were many religious and philosophical currents and sects, as "Hindu" is a very dubious proposition. Zora 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to refer to baburnama and other ancient texts. They defined anyone living in Ancient India to be a Hindu.

(♂) 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Babur was a Central Asian Muslim who wrote in Chaghatai -- why should he be considered an authority on the sociology of South Asia/the Indian sub-continent? Englishmen of the Colonel Blimp variety were also known to say things like "It's all wogs past Calais." Does that mean that we should accept a partition of the world into Englishmen and wogs? Zora 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to quote an scholar of before 19th century who has a different view than babur.

(♂) 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Just look at the Religion in India article here: pre-Babur, the sub-continent contained Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Christians, and Muslims. Zora 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in any scholar who defined Buddhists,Jains and Hindus as separate religions, before 19th century. Thanks.

(♂) 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Every Non-Abrahmic person living in India was called a Hindu under almost all definitions. I would be thankful to you if you can cite a source which differentiated these as different religions. Only condition is that he should be someone from before 19th century.

(♂) 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Just what does pre-19th century "scholarship" have to do with it? And by whom? You want to talk about Tower of Babel theories? Surely modern scholarship would be more informative here. In any case, I'm a Buddhist, I've read a fair bit of the history of Buddhism, and I assure you, we don't consider ourselves Hindus. Zora 02:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get what you mean by this reply. There are many eminent historians who say that Shaivism is different from Hinduism. You will also find many people who would say just like you

Will you then say that all the Shaivites are not Hindus.

(♂) 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, really?? And who appointed you as the spokesperson of all Buddhism?? It would be more accurate for you to say that you are a Western convert to Buddhism, and specifically Zen Buddhism (which is Japanese). Unless you are a scholar of Buddhism, you cannot proclaim yourself to be an authority as you are doing here. And Nids is absolutely correct - prior to the era of British colonialism there was no separation between Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, etc. There were no "sects." All these groups were considered "Hindu". One of the reasons people in India still have animosity towards the British is because it was they who made these distinctions and created all this religious chaos in India. Dharmic power 05:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Above user's first edit-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 05:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

IT was called "India" not "South Asia" (by your own comment above). Just making sure you gave up that failed point.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the Western authors who write in English be cited as authorities? Babar at least knew where India was, instead of getting lost in "south Asia".Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was called India pre-partition, its called South Asia only now by some fringe leftists. Find any historical source {

WP:V and that is the real matter.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, very useful and interesting. --Shamir1 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes - What say the deletionists to the verification by reputable sources? [5][6][7]

[8][9][10][11]Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POinting us to pages that talk abt mathematics in India doesnt answer the point that none of these mathematicians did work that was specifically Hindu, which is the only way in which this cat can be kept as per policy. Nobody in this debate has answered that point. Unless someone does, this cat must be deleted. Hornplease 06:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 09:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Things were getting too dang indented. I'm starting a new section. This is to reply to the claim made that any inhabitant of the Indian subcontinent before the 19th century who wasn't Jewish/Christian/Muslim (Abrahamic) was a Hindu. Nids seems to feel that this statement is so obvious that it is true unless disproven, the disproof to be in the form of a pre-19th "scholar" who sees a more complex picture. (Exactly who is to be defined as a scholar is a difficult issue, and why a dead scholar should be the definitive authority on history is not clear.) I think that the onus is not on me to disprove the statement, but on Nids to PROVE it. It's not at all clear to me that there is such a thing as a unitary "Hinduism," or that contemporary conceptions of what "Hinduism" is (of which I gather that there are many competing formulations) can be applied to a past in which various actors and groups may have used entirely different concepts to categorize people. It's entirely possible that people defined themselves as Shaivite versus Vishnavite versus Parsi versus Buddhist versus Jain versus Muslim -- that there was no category of "Hinduism" at all -- but speculating about that would require research that I haven't done. I don't think Nids has done it either. He seems to be relying on a contemporary, politically-motivated reconstruction of the sub-continental past, which is regarded with suspicion or disdain by most academics. I don't think WP should build controversial assumptions into category definitions.—The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Zora (talk • contribs
  ) .

If you are saying that all categories (including muslim and jewish) should be deleted, i support you. But if you say that Only hindu ones be deleted, i simply oppose you.

(♂) 09:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I don't think ANY mathematicians should be classified by religion (well, maybe Pythagoreans, because they were a quasi-religious society, but that was a small group for a limited time). Jettison any Jewish/Muslim/Christian categories. There's a good article on Indian mathematics, and I'll accept that regional classification as useful. There WAS a real regional tradition of astronomical/mathematical scholarship. According to my history of math textbook (Katz), the unifying factor was language -- before the Mughals, all the sub-continental mathematicians communicated and recorded their teachings in Sanskrit. Zora 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not clear, just trying to confuse the issues. Do you support categorisation of Mathematicians by religion??? Say yes or no. You will have plenty of Hindu mathematicians who were deeply religious, say, Yajnavalkya.

(♂) 10:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not trying to confuse the issue, I just have an academic horror of making sweeping generalizations. OK, I'll say NO, no religious classification of mathematicians. Regional traditions yes, religion no. Zora 10:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will be interested here. Please dont come back till that category and all subcatagories are deleted. Thanks.

(♂) 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You are right that there was no such term as Hinduism before. When it was introduced, it was meant to include all non-abrahmics of the sub-continent. This is as basic as it can get.

(♂) 09:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, used by a foreign conqueror, equivalent to "wog" or "kaffir." Not a useful category, IMHO. Zora 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. I am proud to say that i am a Non-Muslim, i.e. Kaffir. Its true that he introduced this term to malign or even insult non-muslims, its just that now people are proud to call themselves Hindu.

(♂)

• Delete Insufficiently relevant in modern times. If a category for early mathematicians can be justified it should have a more specific name. Osomec 13:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Category can survive and be renamed. I'd be fine with renaming the Category:Christian mathematicians to something like Category:Christians in the history of math. I just don't like to get wordy unless I have to.--T. Anthony 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The relationship between Hinduism and mathematics is well-documented and interesting.--Holdenhurst 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point us in that direction, perhaps? As I said above, it should be the case that religion has influenced what these people are notable for; in other words, if a mathematician in this cat came out and said (1) I am Hindu and (2) Without Hinduism, I would have been non-notable, then we can keep this cat. Otherwise, per policy, we cant. Hornplease 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the following will suffice, but here's some sites that mention Hinduism in mathematics history.[12][13][14] There's also a book History of Hindu mathematics by B Datta and AN Singh. Also this standard "without 'blank' I would have been non-notable" is stricter than what the guidelines actually states. The guideline states "the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." That's relevant, not "totally the cause of." If Oscar Wilde had been heterosexual he'd still have been notable as a writer and playwright as his renown mostly came from before the incident. Alan Turing also would be notable regardless of orientation. On religion Herbert Hoover or John F. Kennedy would have been notable for being US Presidents regardless of their faiths. All these men have categories denoting their religion or orientation. Kennedy is even in Category:Roman Catholic politicians and Turing is in Category:LGBT history of the United Kingdom --T. Anthony 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per precedents like Jewish scientists and Jewish mathematicians --Ageo020 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As extensively discussed below, precedent is an insufficient argument. We need to delete those too. Hornplease 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are conceptual links between the two. Comment: why does it seem to be cool around here increasingly to be anti-religion. Ansell 02:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean there was a time when being anti-religion was uncool at Wikipedia? The founder of Wikipedia is philosophically influenced by Ayn Rand and she had a very negative view of religion. (I heard her once described as "Nietzsche for dummies" or possibly "Nietzsche for Sci-Fi geeks")--T. Anthony 02:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this is a valid category for the backgrouds of mathematicians. ^Babub→Talk 14:24, 15 September 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 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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^(Deepu) 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided Keep. 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). I have changed my vote to Keep. --BostonMA 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zora, have you proposed Lists of Jews and Category:Jewish sportspeople for deletion? And the other occupations by religion? --BostonMA 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of Protestant writers is of writers who write of Protestanism, no? Not just writers who happen to be Protestant. ...And Beyond! 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per precedent of July 25. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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,
  Shintoism I believe)--T. Anthony 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Category:Jewish sportspeople is a precedent.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_10#Category:Jewish_sportspeople -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_5#Category:Roman_Catholic_sportspeople -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Most .content is at List of Hindu sportspeopleBakaman _Bakatalk 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia: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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]
  • There was such a category, it was killed on July 25th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I dont see religion influencing a person's achievements in sports --
  ^(talk) 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Listify for now. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete per this - Aksi_great (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per (Aksi) --Ragib 18:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Darwinek 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Didn't Carlos Mencia do that already? :-) OscarTheCat 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. Punkmorten 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. ...And Beyond! 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per many others. Ikon |no-blast 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my argument regarding mathematicians. -- Avi 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 09:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficiently relevant. Osomec 13:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of those categories that provides food for thought.--Holdenhurst 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hinduism is an identity and creating a category which identifies that identity is fine. Again there are precedents like Jewish Scientists, where non practising Jews or half jews are also included. eg:Neils Bohr. Hence this category is encyclopedic to me.--Ageo020 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hinduism doesn't define sporting achievement in any meaningful way. Wimstead 18:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid reference for backgrounds of sportspersons. ^Babub→Talk 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete religion doesn't make one a better sportsman in any definite way. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per bakaman
  Doctor BrunoTalk 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Telex 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Having both these categories is more straightforward--Michkalas 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After discussion with Michkalas and Dbachmann, I've created the two subcategories and moved most articles from the main category into either of the two. The renaming of the main category should still go ahead and will be even less work this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename--Michkalas 13:15, 10 September 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 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• Delete due to ethnic/religion variant. Michael 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep, at least for the moment. Either we categorize actors by religion, or we don't. It's unfair to target just one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Hindu actors is also up for CfD. I am sure that equivalent cats for other religions (Scientologist actors?) will be up in due course. Note that a vote claiming precedent is not a vote on the merits of the case. Hornplease 14:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bakaman. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We should keep all or delete all, not just target this one. - Darwinek 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Weak 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).[reply]

• Weak Delete is a better term TerryJ-Ho 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this and all similar categories. This is a largely irrelevant intersection. Casper Claiborne 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ^(talk) 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to Proveit below, in the next, and similar cat up for deletion. Hornplease

*Delete Nothing special to note. ...And Beyond! 03:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 17:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to preserve neutrality. --BostonMA 11:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Christian actors probably contains less than 1% of the relevant articles and should be deleted in any case. Brammen 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 09:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this is that this is already not like a real encyclopedia and it's unlikely to become like one, partly by design. Print encyclopedias don't categorize people at all. It's a different system that's usually just alphabetical. Wikipedia however already categorizes actors or entertainers by sexuality(Category:LGBT actors), gender(Category:Female comedians), race(Category:Black British actors and Category:African-American actors), age plus nationality (Category:English child actors), and their other line of work(Category:Actor-politicians).--T. Anthony 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. Anthony: Nevertheless what we are dealing with here is raw

WP:CfD etc. So let's keep perspective and rest assured that with time the garbage will be eliminated and that which is truly encyclopedic will remain. IZAK 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I don't agree it is garbage, it just needs definition. If the subject identifies as Muslim and that identification is important to their public life a category seems valid. I might agree it should be named a bit differently, but that's a matter of renaming not deletion. If categorizing actors on personal aspects is just disquieting, for whatever reason, then we could go "truly encyclopedic" and only categorize by alphabetical arrangement. Like Category:Actors Aa-Ab, etc.--T. Anthony 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficiently relevant. Osomec 13:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all "Actors by religion" as irrelevant. Prolog 10:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nearly always irrelevant. Wimstead 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful category. ^Babub→Talk 14:31, 15 September 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 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, One editor,
  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)[reply
  ]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

I added a disclaimer. Also I added

Aishwarya Rai as her article states "she has described herself as having 'immense faith in its gods'[15] and when at home she attends the Siddhivinayak Mandir, devoted to Lord Ganesh.[16][17][18]." Is this closer to acceptable?--T. Anthony 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zora has made a good argument concisely and well. The Jewish categories are quite controversial, and should not be taken as a model. Rather, it would be a good thing if people involved in this discussion also got involved in the other discussion; see the topics now in the Village pump (policy section) and in the talk page of the Jewish Mathematicians category. Several categories will becoming up for deletion soon. If we do not have a general discussion, each page will be defended effectively by the two or three agenda-pushers that created it. Bellbird 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A factual response to Zora's hate attack on Bakasuprman[19]. 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)[reply]

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"[20] 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)[reply]

I have to say I think "hate attack" is a bit intemperate. If you have a personal history with Zora this might not be the best place to deal with it. I voted keep here, but I'd rather statements by "our side" not get overheated as it might hurt credibility.--T. Anthony 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am determined to keep my temper here. She specifically said - in a discussion elsewhere - that dividing people into communal categories is the sort of thing that leads to massacres. That is a fairly objective - indeed, undeniable - statement. The crucial point, and I make this again since previous interaction with this user suggests he needs points to be made to him repeatedly, is that Zora's post above is not hate speech, which has a certain definition. And your interpretation of your actions is not the same as factual. I just urge you, for the 1134th time, to choose your words more carefully, and to be less confrontational. Hornplease 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Michael 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided Keep. 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) Changed vote to Keep. Not convinced by the Delete POV. --BostonMA 11:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep per BostonMA and T. Anthony.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for the moment. Either we categorize actors by religion, or we don't. It's unfair to target just one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

I would like to point out that either you are convinced by the arguments or are not. If you are convinced, then you should vote to delete this cat, and bring the others to CfD, or wait for someone else to do it and vote to delete them as well. We arent a legalistic community here, precedent is merely a source of argument and not binding. Please reconsider your vote in this light, or I suggest that the closing admin disregards them. Hornplease 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Category:Actors by religion. Rama's arrow 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Earlier I had commented like this: [21]. 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)[reply]
  • I completely agree. It is inappropriate for us to debate which religions are "Worthy". -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zora. Bhadani: shouldn't this be a reason why you should vote for the deletion of the Jewish and Muslim categories, rather than for the non-deletion of other categories? Bellbird 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ProveIt. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply
      ]
• Keep per ProveIt and Bhadani . Let us not have double standards on wikipedia. Shyamsunder 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep Weak Delete: Not all actors flaunt their religions.
  Bollywood, it is better to tread cautiosly.TerryJ-Ho 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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.
  (♂) 12:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

(♂) 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That is something debatable Nids [23]TerryJ-Ho 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cant point to one off incidence and claim it to be debatable. What, in your view, is ethnic jew.

(♂) 12:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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 ^(talk) 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note above. What you are saying is that this and all other similar cats should be deleted. The closing admin should note that. Hornplease 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Brammen 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 09:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficiently relevant. Osomec 13:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bhadani --Ageo020 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBhadani said keep! Do you mean that all cats should go. If thats what you meant then it would have been clearer if you specifically said all relgion cats should go. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all "Actors by religion" as irrelevant. Prolog 10:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nearly always irrelevant. Wimstead 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Either delete all religious categories or religion articles themselves or just leave the Hindu categories alone. This putting everything Hindu up for deletion is very irksome. ^Babub→Talk 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more honest if you voted delete on all the categories, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Christian, that you believed violated guidelines and are up on CfD right now, instead of saying that Hinduism articles have been singled out, which is manifestly not the case.

• Keep per Rama's Arrow. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AS I said above in response to Nirav, does this keep vote therefore mean you are voting to delete all dubious religion-based cats? Hornplease 14:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other online encyclopedias I'm feeling some doubt as they do have "topics", which is a bit similar to categories, but not topics like this. However Wikipedia is very different than other online encyclopedias. I don't think any of them would "topic/categorize" actors by sexual orientation, US state, or ethnicity either and yet Wikipedia does. (Category:Bisexual actors, Category:Nebraska actors, Category:Irish-American actors) I'm not sure Wikipedia's ability to be more specific is necessarily bad, but I'll concede now that it is odd. I still don't see the problem with this if the names meet the specification, namely that they're Hindu and that being so is significant to their public life.--T. Anthony 14:36, 16 September 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 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 keep. Andrew c 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Military operations of Israel contains only one subtopic and nothing links there. -- Kendrick7 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. Michael 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• Delete- Merge with Arab Israel Conflict TerryJ-Ho 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

That might not be a Military but Secret Service operation TerryJ-Ho 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its under cat Category:Military operations of Israel. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, special forces operations are still military. Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A standard category-type. Choalbaton 22:54, 11 September 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 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 rename. Andrew c 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Category:NCAA DI Men's Lacrosse Championship Venues to Category:NCAA Men's Division I Lacrosse Championship venues[reply]

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)[reply]

• Rename per above. Michael 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename heck I'm from the US and I didn't even know what DI stood for. Whispering^(talk/c) 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:25, 13 September 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 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• Merge per merge. Michael 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• The Nabisco name is clearly still in use, so keep and recategorize if desired. - EurekaLott 14:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have updated the parent cats for this. Vegaswikian 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since the brand still exists (independent of who owns it) I think it still deserves its own page. --Frescard 03:06, 20 September 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 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 withrawn --Kbdank71 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israel Defense Forces to Category:Military of Israel (nominated by User:Kirill Lokshin)

• Rename to match all the other sub-categories of Category:Military by country. Kirill Lokshin 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Kirill: what is the reason for this uniformity? (i.e. just cosmetic or maybe some scripts require this?) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's really difficult to guess what the appropriate category name is when you're categorizing articles if sub-categories are inconsistent like this? (Not to mention that consistency is, in general, a good thing. That's why we have naming conventions in the first place). Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Michael 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Note: This proposal shows lack of research and it is also misguided because the Israel Defense Forces is only one component of the Category:Israeli Security Forces, others include Category:Defense companies of Israel and Category:Israeli nuclear development. Therefore Category:Military of Israel would have to become yet another layer on top of Category:Israeli Security Forces. IZAK 12:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename In these sort of subjects, it is always best to have a general catagory.Guy Montag 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per IZAK. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely do not rename. The unified IDF cat is totally valid. If anything, try to reorganize everything under Category:Israeli Security Forces or at least simply demote the security force cat underneath the 'military of israel' cat. Otherwise, the move will create a humongous and confusing mess. A standardized cat system is always the best, though we know that Israel is not standard country and the unified and small Israeli army is not standard at all. I think that this needs more thought and talk than the suddeness of a CFD. If you need to delete a cat, suggest this instead: Category:Israeli Defence Force --Shuki 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shuki: Category:Israel Defense Forces and I do not know where "Category:Israeli Defence Force" came from - in fact the latter is and incorrect dupkicate and should be deleted. IZAK 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Security Forces is, in reality, the overarching category. It includes: the Ministry of Defense (incl. the military industries & development bodies), the IDF, Mossad, Shabak, the police, the border police, the Ministry of Internal Security, the civil guard, and the prison service. El_C 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided for now, so this is just a placeholder for my possible future vote. Please provide more info pro/con. What would be hurt if we rename? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that the military of Israel is somewhat broader in scope than the formal body known as the IDF; in particular, we need a place to categorize pre-IDF topics like Plan Dalet. I have no objection to changing things around to make this a sub-category of Category:Military of Israel instead (like Category:United States Army and Category:Military of the United States), but having IDF as the country's top-level military category isn't really correct. Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided I share Humus' position at the moment. Tewfik^Talk 00:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain Category:Israel Defense Forces (to reflect the reality of the IDF's structure) and also make it a sub-category of Category:Military of Israel (to fit in with the other Wikipedia military categories) as I noted above. I hope this is clear. IZAK 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The solution: please see the set-up now at
  Israeli Security Forces and the Israel Defense Forces should be placed in Category:Israeli Security Forces and Category:Israel Defense Forces." which should solve our problems. I move that this vote now be cancelled. IZAK 11:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I've added a note to the description about using Category:Military operations of Israel for military actions; with the inclusion of that point, this arrangement seems acceptable to me. Kirill Lokshin 14:19, 15 September 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 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 keep (on a side note, the people who said "support", or "rename per nom", you do know this was a multiple choice test, right? Just checking) --Kbdank71 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political scandals

Following this individual renaming, a consensus over renaming all the "[country] political scandals" categories would be good:

( A ) {Country demonym} political scandals → Political scandals of {Country}

( B ) {Country demonym} political scandals → Political scandals in {Country}

( C ) {Country demonym} political scandals to be retained (added by Brammen 12:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

• Rename all per A. I believe "of" is more conventional in this context...?   David Kernow 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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 ^(talk) 02:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename all per nom. Michael 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • That's an excellent point. Changing my vote to A. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose per Casper Claiborne Choalbaton 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The categories were created by many different uses, which supports the idea that the current form is the natural choice. It also matches the articles where they exist. Brammen 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added option C as I believe that presenting people with two options to chose from may have skewed the vote as it was easier to vote for one or the other of the given options than to present a third option, until Casper Claiborne broke the ice. Brammen 12:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if this is how the proposal reads; I took "Keep" or "Oppose" as tantamount to your option C. Regards, David Kernow 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support jengod 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nomination is based on a fallacy: there is no need to make the majority consistent with an exception. Osomec 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case there is any confusion, this was not my rationale for making this proposal; please see my "vote" above. Regards, David Kernow 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In the absence of any rationale for change. Wimstead 18:37, 14 September 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 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 keep. Andrew c 22:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• I don't know what to say. The subject is notable.
  myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • Comment If you are wanting to delete a category for listing things... might as well delete every category on the wiki... that's all categories are for, to list similar articles. DemosDemon 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep per above. Michael 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category has forty-five articles feeding into it. I can't imagine deleting it.--Mike Selinker 09:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per norm.Hmrox 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
  • Off Topic Reply, heh, you should look at today's AfD list, he's allready done that too ;) DemosDemon 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per the comments above in reply to original post. Dugwiki 19:29, 11 September 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 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 merge. Andrew c 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Music museums. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Michael 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge
  C2.1. -choster 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was rename. Andrew c 21:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia 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) Update: Changed nomination per EurekaLott's comments. — Dale Arnett 12:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Michael 06:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated. --Mike Selinker 09:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Comment - As the nominator, I won't object if "league" is in lower case. — Dale Arnett 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as presently shown. Osomec 13:24, 13 September 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.