Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:50, 12 January 2007

January 11

Category:Wet chemistry

Category:Wet chemistry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Redundant category with very informal name, basically an incomplete duplicate Category:Laboratory glassware. Itub 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Itub's arguments. --Bduke 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Active aircraft carriers of the People's Republic of China

Delete: Empty. China has no active aircraft carriers. Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag is under study and may be activated in the future, but is not currently. Josh 16:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I agree with your decision to remove Varyag from the cat, and I agree that the empty cat should be deleted. I'm not sure why I put Varyag in there in the first place, because as you say, it may happen in the future but it's definitely not active now. TomTheHand 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete useless. Arjun 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Empty categories are useless --- Safemariner 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as empty and given the support above. Vegaswikian 07:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Internet TV Channel

Rename to Category:Internet television channels, Category:Internet television networks, or Delete. -- Prove It 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Internet television channels. Xiner (talk, email) 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Alumni of Eastern New Mexico University

Rename to Category:Eastern New Mexico University alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- Prove It 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename I created this category. I'm fine with renaming it per style. TheQuandry 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actors and cast

Category:Shameless actors, Category:South Park actors, Category:SpongeBob SquarePants actors, Category:Three's Company actors, Category:Ugly Betty actors, Category:What's Happening!! actors, Category:Wings actors, Category:Yes, Dear actors, Category:You Can't Do That on Television actors and Category:Zoey 101 actors.

These categories contain regular cast members, rather than guest actors, and should be renamed to reflect that. Precedent here and here indicates a consensus for categorizing cast rather than guest actors. >Radiant< 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I created the Three's Company and Wings categories, and they both contain both regular cast members AND guest stars--this is the precedent I've seen set with other similar categories, including Category:Desperate Housewives actors. In fact, the description for the DH category states: "This category contains actors and actresses who have appeared on the American television dramedy Desperate Housewives as main, recurring characters or guest characters." Is that the way these categories are supposed to be, or not? --CrazyLegsKC 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the current consensus seems to be that if these categories exist they should be restricted to regular cast only. See some of the related discussions over at Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization. There is also debate over whether or not these actor categories are needed at all (since the main article almost always has the cast list in it). Dugwiki 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename and restrict to regular cast (or delete) In fact, I'd also favor deletion of these categories as they are redundant with the cast lists in the main article. But assuming they're kept, the rename and restriction to regular cast is appropriate. Dugwiki 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and restrict per Dug. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Arjun 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Close United States presidential elections

Category:Close United States presidential elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Poorly defined. How close is close? A difference of 10 percentage points or less? Electoral votes maybe? Delete or find an standard for inclusion other than the POV of random editors. — CharlotteWebb 12:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Subjective inclusion criterion. Attempting to find a standard, e.g. difference of 10% or less, becomes Arbitrary inclusion criterion. CiaranG 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A 1 to 2 point race is a close 3 is pretty close 4 is a win 5 a easy win 6 or above is a blowout--St.daniel 12:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no apparent criteria, and not useful. Lists in order of closeness and by type of closeness are much to be preferred and I'm sure, even without looking, that they must already exist. --lquilter 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete At best it seems to use an arbitrary inclusion criteria. Dugwiki 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete yeah no criteria, per nom. Arjun 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unfortunately, as it could be an interesting category; as of yet, it's still too subjective, as per St. daniel. Anyway someone can think of to unsubjectify it? -Patstuart 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although it sounds subjective, it really is not. There are more than ample reliable NPOV sources on this topic --- Safemariner 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Broadway actors

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

Delete This two member category was recently renamed, but I believe the debate should have been kept open for another seven days as the trend of the discussion was moving towards deletion, indeed at closure there were more people in favour of deletion than of renaming. Hopefully by putting it up for straightforward deletion, without the tempation to vote for a rename (which was required in itself if the category was to be kept) we can kill this off. Actors' articles suffer from some of the worst category clutter on Misplaced Pages, and this category would (if it was actually in use to any significant degree) overlap excessively with Category:American stage actors, especially in relation to the more prominent individuals. Please note that the companion category Category:Broadway musicals stars is to be deleted for similar reasons, so keeping this one is inconsistent. Chicheley 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Early American movie moguls

Category:Early American movie moguls into Category:Movie moguls

• Merge - The term "early" is vague; it is unclear as to what qualifies as being early and what does not. If "early" was defined, it would be an arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of overcategorization. The category should be merged into Category:Movie moguls (although "movie mogul" itself needs to be clearly defined). Dr. Submillimeter 11:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Subjective inclusion criterion. Although as the preceding comment says, moguls is not well defined either. CiaranG 11:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and define chronlogically or delete both. The former category is potential useful, but the target category is the real problem. Chicheley 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment – after reading the three posts above, I've attached Category:Movie moguls to this discussion. There was no consensus to rename or delete it when it was discussed in September 2005. ×Meegs 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There could be an "American movie mogul" category, although the term is very vague. Xiner (talk, email) 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - To avoid confusion, can we focus on the proposed merge for now and discuss Category:Movie moguls later? Dr. Submillimeter 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:American movie moguls. It makes no sense to merge into Category:Movie moguls and then discuss creating Category:American movie moguls. Vegaswikian 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gay mathematicians

Category:Gay mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think it's going to be useful in dealing with any overcrowding in Category:LGBT people. In addition half of these names are already in Category:LGBT scientists, which is not overcrowded. "Gay mathematician" does get some Google hits Outside Misplaced Pages, but I'm skeptical it's an established phenomenon or culture of its own.--T. Anthony 10:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as trivial intersection. CiaranG 11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial intersection. Pinoakcourt 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it's an unnecessary triple intersection -- gender, sexuality, profession -- and current subcat is not overcrowded. --lquilter 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per CiaranG. However it would be fine as a list or an article. -- Prove It 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As above, there's no obvious connection to how being gay affects someone's mathematical work. Random intersection. Dugwiki 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless we can find more than two people to populate the category, this is just more gay-cruft (don't worry, there are other kinds of cruft, this isn't an anti-gay statement). -Patstuart 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a Richard Montague who could be added, but that's it. (John Nash may have been bisexual, based on what I read in A Beautiful Mind, but he disputes that. He is not "gay", as in mostly attracted to men, and no one has suggested he was so far as I know) Anyone I didn't mean this as anti-gay either. If there was a society of gay mathematicians, or something, I might have even left it be.--T. Anthony 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Atheist scientists

Propose renaming Category:Atheist scientists to Category:Irreligious scientists. I'm aware they don't mean the same thing, but at present it's in Category:Scientists by religion and the rename would make it more pertinent to that.--T. Anthony 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer certain what to rename it to, but something more related to their position on any Relationship between religion and science. Maybe Category:Conflict thesis scientists, per article Conflict thesis, or something--T. Anthony 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (preference) or keep original name - Classifying scientists by religious beliefs is not useful. Moreover, the term "atheist" could be misapplied to people (for example, people who do not believe the literal interpretation of Genesis but who are undeclared in terms of their other religious beliefs). The category should be deleted. If not deleted, then the category should use the standard term "atheist". Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think atheist is being used, anywhere, to mean "anyone who isn't a creationist." I think that would be such a strange/POV usage it'd be reverted fast.--T. Anthony 11:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my example more carefully. It's more subtle than that. Dr. Submillimeter 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm just saying that it would take a very lazy person to think that "people who reject creationism and aren't of a religion" are atheists. I know people who pray and believe in God, but outright reject both creationism and organized religion.--T. Anthony 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as trivial intersection. CiaranG 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It's no more trivial than any of the religionXoccupation intersections. Atheist is an accepted term. I don't think it's unusual to have the antithesis of something in its category, since the category is a relational grouping, not just a goruping of members. However, the way the category is currently phrased ("x by religion") is more specific than that, suggesting the members are members of the group for which the category is named, and not just members of the category. "X by religious belief" would be better and then could plausibly include the variety of beliefs / practices around religion that exist. Of course it would run into the "no cats by belief" argument. Well, I have irresolution as well as irreligion on this cat. --lquilter 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  I should add that I oppose renaming to "irreligious" because it's inaccurate & not often used & much, much vaguer than atheist. My main caveat is with the supercat Category:Scientists by religion. --lquilter 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, we should remove All scientists by religion or None of them. -- Prove It 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am willing to nominate all "science by religion" categories for deletion if desired. Dr. Submillimeter 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I would support such a nomination, however, judging by Mathematicians by religion it would probably result in a no consensus result. -- Prove It 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or delete all scientists by religion categories. Oppose renaming as inaccurate. Xiner (talk, email) 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone can provide an example of someone whose religious beliefs significantly affected their mathematical work, delete this and all other mathematician-by-religion categories. Note that there might be scientists who work in fields tied to religion, so there might be a need to keep some of the scientist-by-religion categories. (For example, a religious archaeologist who focuses on uncovering information related to his faith could reasonably fall under that type of category.) Dugwiki 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• One could argue that Galileo Galilei's religious beliefs significantly affected his work...not that I think that justifies a category. Otto4711 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is a large difference between being atheist and being irreligious Bluap 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strenuously oppose changing "atheist" to "irreligious." If other scientist by religion categories are kept, then keep this one; if they're deleted, delete this one. Atheism should be treated with the same level encyclopedic respect as any other mainstream religious opinion. It's not that difficult to figure out who's an atheist and who isn't, as long as it's based on the person's statement. "I don't believe in any form of God" = "atheist." "I don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis" != "atheist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is atheist is not a religion in itself. It's a position related to religions, but not a religion. Essentially I was really meaning replace "Atheist scientists", which I created, with "Irreligious scientists" as that would fit Category:Scientists by religion more clearly. Still I made the proposal late at night and realize now I should've chosen a better rename. I'd considered "Secularist" or "Materialist", but wasn't sure those would work. The main thing is to change it to something that more clearly relates to religious views.--T. Anthony 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, "atheist" isn't a religion but it is a religious belief. For categorization "shorthand" I see no problem with putting it under scientists by religion. Otto4711 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was worrying having this in Category:Scientists by religion was irritating atheists and causing confusion. I'm thinking of withdrawing this nomination.--T. Anthony 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I get the sense it's too late to alter the proposal, I might just withdraw depending on how things are by Saturday.--T. Anthony 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or keep original name. "Atheist" and "irreligious" are not synonymous. "Atheist" is a more concrete term that can be determined more concretely/objectively. Doczilla 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with rename as per Doczilla and inclined to support the deletion of all categories that catagorize scientists by their religion, but that needs to come here as a specific proposal. --Bduke 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rename that would work and am I allowed to change my rename request?--T. Anthony 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can change your vote, I've done it many times. Just strike out the old one. -- Prove It 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - relative section that is well enough populated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just to make things interesting, there is no God in some major religions of the world. An example would be God in Jainism, Confucianism, Nontheistic#Nontheism in Buddhism --- Safemariner 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I originally went for a rename to "irreligious" as "nontheist" (my initial thought) could include Unitarian Universalist, Jain, and Buddhist scientists.--T. Anthony 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non standard categorization, we do not categorise regions by ethnicity or race. Also Kurdistan (Kurdish inhabited region) with an estimated are ranging between 74,000 sq mi (191,660 km²)-392,000 km² does not by nature have well defined borders. There are many maps conflicting the one given in the category page in question. Cat out 10:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and repopulate User:Cool Cat depopulated this himself in advance of the discussion, which was a bad faith attempt to manipulate the outcome in my book. Chicheley 11:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — I have repopulated the category (as the deletion template requests) and warned user of inappropriate presumption. While I agree that there are problems in defining the scope of this category, I understand that its deletion would leave majority Kurdish areas without means of common identification by category. The name of this category has been haggled over, and that is why it is as vague as it is. Keep, at least in some form. — Gareth Hughes 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  Why? We do not categories Washington DC as a black inhabited region do we? --Cat out 12:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  Should state of Pennsylvanian also be a part of this category? Many Kurds live there too. Many Kurds also live in Paris. --Cat out 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, and User:Cool Cat needs to cool it. IZAK 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am cool... and stay on topic. --Cat out 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. Like what, let's agree to bump off the Kurds from Misplaced Pages? Sorry that is not my agenda. IZAK 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am sorry, but ethnic and racial based cats don't make sense since they are undefined. Should we also include Berlin in this cat because there are many Kurds living there? However, feel free to use the Iraqi Kurdistan cat, since that is a defined entity. Baristarim 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, why not, if there are large population/ethnic/religious groups living in a city or area they get to be included, see for example Category:Chinatowns; Category:Ethnic enclaves; Category:Neighbourhoods by type and many others like this. So why is that so bad when it's applied to the Kurds? Do you have something against them? I'm beginning to get alarmed by your anti-Kurd POV-pushing. IZAK 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Really? I fail to see the connection. "A Chinatown is an urban region containing a large population of Chinese people within a non-Chinese society." Entire States or Cities are not tagged under a chinatown category. The categorization currently assumes every part of entire provinces is kurdish inhabited with your analogy. --Cat out 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Picky, picky, picky. I see that nothing I say will satisfy you today. IZAK 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Focus on content, not people. Thank you. Baristarim 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The map says it all. It is assuming nobody lives in these areas but Kurds. When in reality Kurds are a small minority north and west of Mosul. It doesnt take into consideration that the majority are Assyrians, Turkmans, and Sabeans. Chaldean 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is no such assumption as referred to above. Pinoakcourt 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to "Regions with significant Kurdish presence". Xiner (talk, email) 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How would we determine where they are of significant majority? And even if we did have an indisputable source for such info (sadly we don't), why categorise based on that? We would have so many categories for every ethnicity, race, religion, favorite colour, and etc. --Cat out 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or rename per Xiner. This is a relevant and informative category. In this case, subjective qualities simply don't apply well enough IMHO: too informtive, and not really too badly subjective (I don't hear much Kurdish being spoken in Pennsylvania, but there's a lot in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc.) -Patstuart 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- has been kept three times before -- see Category talk:Kurdish inhabited regions. --Diyarbakir 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan

Category:Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Jews and Judaism by country format is entirely inaproporate. Category is too specific and underpopulated. Cat out 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Kurdistan is a place and there is no reason to restrict such categories to places that happen to be independent countries, eg Category:Jews and Judaism in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also exists. Chicheley 12:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  New York city is a city with defined borders, New York state has defined borders. Kurdistan is not a place with defined borders. --Cat out 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this category was created by me and within 23 minutes it is nominated for deletion by User talk:Cool Cat without even a word of warning, as the courtesy should be! Who ever heard of a category being "too specific"? Which is a joke when it is about Jewish population groups and Judaism because there are only about 14 million Jews in the world, so according to that kind of misguided thinking there would never be any categories for Jews and Judaism. In any case, categories need to be given time to grow. If User:Cool Cat was genuine about his worries, he could have reached out to the many editors at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism who could have helped him out here. IZAK 13:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not report to any wikiproject. --Cat out 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's exactly the problem, you imagine that you have to "report" or that other's function that way. All I was saying is that you should have asked a question, who said anything about "reporting" -- that is really twisting my meanings. IZAK 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not quite. It is an undefined geographical region. There is already a Kurdistan cat, and Religion country cats can cover the issue satisfactorily. The problem is with the fact that it is a controversial undefined geographical region which can lead to WP:V issues. However, feel free to create a Cat:Religion in Iraqi Kurdistan since that is a defined entity. Baristarim 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, so it's not a country, but it is no different to many other well defined (geographic/ethnic/cultural/religious) regions or areas with famous names and people living in them, such as Category:Crimea; Category:Caucasus; Category:Scandinavia, and many others like this. So your argument is very flimsy. The fact of the matter is that the Kurdish people and their culture is very distinct and similarly Kurdish Jews are very distinct. Why let anti-Kurdish POV rhetoric interfere with this? IZAK 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See the CIA's map at Image:Kurdish areas 2002 CIA.jpeg (The "Kurdish map" extends to Armenia -- another group that was abused by it's "nice" neighbors, see Armenian Genocide.) IZAK 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This article has nothing to do with Armenians, stay on topic. I challenge your map with this one: http://www.kurdishinfo.com/userimages/kurdistan-map.jpg which strictly excludes Armenia. --Cat out 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not "my" map, I was just presenting the one that's used on Misplaced Pages. Take it up with the CIA, maybe you think you are smarter than Uncle Sam's spooks, I don't. IZAK 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per IZAK Pinoakcourt 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Religion in Kurdistan

Category:Religion in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is too specific and underpopulated. Cat out 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It isn't too specific, and for all I know Cat may have depopulated this one himself as well (it's harder to check and I have limited time). Chicheley 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Its new (I created it a few hours ago) and it's getting populated very quickly. What's the rush, every region and country gets to be in Category:Religion by country. IZAK 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Kurdistan is NOT a country nor is it a region with defined borders. Religion in Kurdistan can be a nice article but is entirely inaproporate as a category. --Cat out 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So it gets to be a sub-category of Category:Religion in Armenia; Category:Religion in Iraq; Category:Religion in Iran; Category:Religion in Syria, and Category:Religion in Turkey to be more precise, but it does not get wiped out. IZAK 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not believe parts of Kurdistan even touches Armenia according to some definitions of Kurdistan. It doesn't have defined borders. --Cat out 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • See the Kurdish Jews article: "...the region today known as Kurdistan, roughly covering parts of Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Syria..." IZAK 13:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
          • According to many of the maps exclude armenia. The fluctuations between the maps is the problem. WP:V issues here. --Cat out 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not quite. It is an undefined geographical region. There is already a Kurdistan cat, and Religion country cats can cover the issue satisfactorily. The problem is with the fact that it is a controversial undefined geographical region which can lead to WP:V issues. However, feel free to create a Cat:Religion in Iraqi Kurdistan since that is a defined entity. Baristarim 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Baristarm: Since you reposted your comments, I will repost mine from above: Ok, so it's not a country, but it is no different to many other well defined (geographic/ethnic/cultural/religious) regions or areas with famous names and people living in them, such as Category:Crimea; Category:Caucasus; Category:Scandinavia, and many others like this. So your argument is very flimsy. The fact of the matter is that the Kurdish people and their culture is very distinct and similarly Kurdish Jews are very distinct. Why let anti-Kurdish POV rhetoric interfere with this? IZAK 13:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Do not assume. There is no anti-Kurd rhetoric - this is not a high school debate club. Scandinavia is a very well defined region - Kurdistan is not. There is no disagreement as to what constitutes Crimea, Scandinavia or Caucasus - but with Kurdistan there is, and much of it coming from other indigenous peoples like the Assyrians and Armenians, as well as Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Baristarim 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per IZAK Pinoakcourt 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No categorization value. Xiner (talk, email) 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Series of children's books

Propose merging Category:Series of children's books into Category:Children's books by series. The two categories cover the same articles and sub-categories. The Category:Series of children's books is older and has more entries, but the naming of Category:Children's books by series is more appropriate. Note that the following also exist... Category:Children's literature, Category:Children's books, Category:Children's poetry etc. APB-CMX 10:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the other way, into Category:Series of children's books. The problem with the proposed direction is that individual articles do not fit naturally into Category:Children's books by series; consider that A to Z Mysteries is a "series of children's books", but is not a "Children's books by series". The by series construction, like by nationality, is usually used only for categories reserved to hold other categories. Upmerging Category:Children's books by series to Category:Series of children's books, on the other hand, would be fine for both articles and subcategories. ×Meegs 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - "Series of children's books" sounds a bit more elegant and clear to me, and fits with the convention of "Series of books" that already exists. (Film and TV series are done the other way, I note.) --lquilter 14:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)`
• Reverse merge per Meegs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cavity wall

Category:Cavity wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Contains one article, to which it used to redirect. John Reaves 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's possible that the creator of Tie (cavity wall) (which is in this category) was trying to simulate a Wikilink from Tie (cavity wall) to Cavity wall, or something, by creating this. At any rate this cat should go. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gaming companies

Propose renaming Category:Gaming companies to Category:Gambling companies

• Rename, The gambling article admits "gaming" is a euphemism to offset public prejudice. While the companies may wish to be called "gaming" companies, wikipedia is in place to describe what things are, not what they'd prefer to be known as. Additionally, "gaming company" confuses gambling with board- and video-game companies, which can be avoided. I call for a category rename. Alvis 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. CiaranG 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename – worth it to avoid the ambiguity alone. ×Meegs 13:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's also take care of Category:Defunct gaming companies to Category:Defunct gambling companies. ×Meegs 15:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also obviously inappropriate as none of those are gambling companies. Let's not try and reinvent the language. 2005 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was, in fact, the gambing companies themselves who attempted, and to some degree succeeded in reinventing the language. zadignose 05:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename per Meegs. Xiner (talk, email) 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename - The change is needed to avoid the confusion between gambling and other activities that are called "gaming". Dr. Submillimeter 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename - gaming != gambling although there is a relationship. --lquilter 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is precicely why the rename is inappropriate. These are gaming companies. They are not gambling companies, and it obviously would be ludicrous to say they were. 2005 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename Gaming is too ambiguous with board-gaming and RPGs, etc. Gambling is more accurate. Dugwiki 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the gambling article says that casinos often use "gaming" as a euphemism. This is perhaps somewhat US-centric; in the UK the term "gaming" is a legal definition in this context, see for example this British Act of Parliament. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Since it is correct and I believe the first use of the term. All of the later uses have other names that work as better descriptions. In addition to the link pointed out by Tonywalton, we also have the Nevada Gaming Commission and the Nevada Gaming Control Act. From Webster we have 1 : the practice of gambling. Then you have the free dictionary's definition. Then there is the PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD and what they call a licensed gaming entity. All of these support gaming as a proper term for this activity. Maybe we need to revisit the gambling article and see if it is correctly titled. Vegaswikian 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides these regulatory agencies, all US states regulate "gaming" and most have specific "charitable gaming" laws. Oversight, legal and standard usage are all "gaming". 2005 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my issue is that this notion of "gaming" is pushed by casinos and their lobbyists. That's why these agencies are named as such. Wiki should be resistant to this kind of spin and describe what things ARE. Alvis 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the contents of your own link. The dictionary definitions provided make it explicit that gaming is gambling, while also showing that the secondary definintion relating to video gaming can cause some ambiguity or confusion. zadignose 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Bizarre nomination. These are gaming companies. That is what they are called. Gaming companies provide gambling games to customers. They are not "gambling companies". That is both an absurd idea, and obviously non-standard usage. Additionally no rationale is presented to not use the standard naming of a thing. An alternative like "Gaming companies offering gambling" is silly too, it's clearly better than the directly wrong "gambling companies" idea. NONE of these companies are in the business of gambling. 2005 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename. The suggestion may be controversial, but it is neither bizarre, nor absurd. Those who reject the use of the term "gambling," to describe a casino that offers blackjack or slot machines, are strongly opposed to calling a thing what it is. The term gaming in this case is very definitely a euphemism, designed to make the practice of gambling as a business more socially and legally acceptable in the face of anti-gambling prejudice and anti-gambling laws. The fact that the term "gaming" has achieved legal status in many places, and has been applied to businesses that stake their money against the customer, simply reflects the success of the gambling companies to carve out a niche for their business.

I personally have many years of experience gambling, and I have met a fair number of poker players who refuse to call what they do "gambling." I consider this a form of self deception. Gambling is the act of staking money on a game of an uncertain outcome. If this doesn't apply to roulette, poker, sports bets, etc., then the word "gambling" becomes meaningless... and yet all native speakers of English know what gambling is, and this is clearly gambling. Now, gambling with an overlay may be a very sensible, reasonable, and profitable practice. If you're going to gamble, then that's the way to do it. But if it's "gambling" for the loser, then it's "gambling" for the winner too. Casinos that stake their money directly against their customers in games of chance are just practicing the art of "gambling with an overlay" on a big scale, and making a fortune at it. They are, in fact, gambling companies.

Perhaps a distinction could be made for paramutual wagering, lotteries, bingo, raked games like poker, or tournaments funded by an entry fee, where the company has no direct stake in the outcome of the game. In these cases, the companies are offering gambling services, and their customers are indeed gambling (yes, even the poker players!), but the company technically isn't. But "gambling business" is not such an inappropriate description for companies that make a profit by offering gambling services. And this distinction is the back door through which gambling businesses entered and set up shop in states and countries with established anti-gambling laws. By the way, I say "hooray for gambling companies," I'm all for 'em. But I'm also for calling them what they are. "Gaming" is jargon that's more meaningful to legal professionals, and people attached to the gambling business, than it is for the vast majority of English speakers. zadignose 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the enabling legislation and official bodies are using an euphemism? If these are the laws adopted by many states and at least one other country, that position seems rather odd. Vegaswikian 07:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. After casinos, who has more to gain from avoiding the prejudices associated with the word "gambling" than the states getting their cut? Alvis 08:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mix-up Nationality

Category:Fictional British people

Category:Fictional English people

Category:Fictional Welsh people

Category:Fictional Northern Irish people

Category:Fictional Scots

• Merge: I recently find the category Fictional English people in almost all of characters' articles of HP series and I nominate to CfD. This category is excrescent and plays no role in depicting the characteristics. Also, it seems that the category is overabundant with a long list and 6 subcategories (it should be mentioned that this category lies in one of the subcats of "Fictional British people"). In addition, a lot of other subcats enter into each small cat, making the category system goes into a matrix. I suggest we should merge all into a grand cat "Category:Fictional English people" and delete some redundant ones._AbelinCAusesobad 06:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:List of music videos made in the 1990s

• DELETE - I made a mistake with it and meant for it to be a list versus a category. Thought that this would be the easiest way to deal with it. no discussion necessary. Sorry --dputig07 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as its fiction they could be English or whichever and not British, or from historical fiction from before the days of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Tim! 07:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: OK, I'm sorry for the typing mistake, I literally mean that we should merge it into "Fictional English people"._AbelinCAusesobad 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people are definitely not English (and may or not like to be referred to as British)! Tim! 08:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

According to my Scottish friend, they are all British by merit of being citizens of the British Isles but are not all English. I suggest no change because change in either direction seems worse than what we have now. Doczilla 09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are separate categories for the UK and its consistent countries in all major fields and they are all essential. Chicheley 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Seem like it does, but I still find no one in the "Category:Fictional Northern Irish people" so it beats me what the point of creating such categories which only make it a huddle. These cats are being overused and totally unnecessary because they make no sense in describing the characters. I still do approve of merging them into one, perhaps name it "Fictional United Kingdom-originated people"._AbelinCAusesobad 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Anyone who is confused by the terms should read British Isles (terminology). Pinoakcourt 14:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Really? Each time anyone wants to find something and they must stick to that article?58.187.151.23 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• No change is at all necessary. Keep as is per Tim! and Chicheley.~Zythe 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rangoon -2

Category:Rangoon into Category:Yangon

• Merge, present name for the city. Chris 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, it's already empty. -- Prove It 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect I suspect that more people will recognise Rangoon. Pinoakcourt 14:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Duplicate CFD: something has gone wrong here. A CFD was started yesterday at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10#Category:Rangoon, but the link on Category:Rangoon points here (it was added after the Jan10 CFD was started). --BrownHairedGirl 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Streetcars in New York City

Category:Streetcars in Brooklyn

Category:Streetcars in the Bronx

Category:Streetcars in Queens

Category:Streetcars in Staten Island

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in Brooklyn to Category:Streetcar lines in Brooklyn

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in the Bronx to Category:Streetcar lines in the Bronx

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in Queens to Category:Streetcar lines in Queens

Propose renaming Category:Streetcars in Staten Island to Category:Streetcar lines in Staten Island

• Rename as per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4#Category:Streetcars in Manhattan. NE2 02:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom and previous discussion. Vegaswikian 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Rename all. Xiner (talk, email) 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Musical instrument manufacturers

Category:Musical instrument manufacturers into Category:Musical instrument makers

• Merge, these categories are either identical or confusing. Suggest they are merged. Alternatively the manufacturers category could be restricted to companies, and the makers category to individual makers. Bishop pam 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Opposite Merge, in other words, merge the makers one to manufacturers. Sound more encyclopedic. Although I like your alterative too. --Wizardman 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge though the new category could as easily be named Musical instrument crafters. I don't understand the linguistic flavorings between manufacturers, crafters, and makers. Kail Ceannai 07:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The former is for companies and the latter is for people (though there may be some that are misplaced because it is true that the names are confusing). So rename Category:Musical instrument manufacturers to category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies. Chicheley 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge either way, distinction is unclear. >Radiant< 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The distinction is that a company like Adams Musical Instruments would be categorized as a manufacturer and Stradivarius would be categorized under makers. Otto4711 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The distinction is perfectly clear. Rename Category:Musical instrument manufacturers to category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies per Chicheley. Pinoakcourt 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename using company nomenclature as appropriate As above, the categories should not be merged because one handles individuals and the other handles companies. Rename the categories to make the distinction clearer. Dugwiki 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merger, rename per Chicheley. And somebody please annotate these categories! --BrownHairedGirl 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)