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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for CFD some time ago, but can't find an entry and apparently no resolution. Needs a parent category if it's kept, but I'm not sure what that should be. No vote. -- SCZenz 23:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep user self-categorization schemes, they are totally harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless and vague. Carina22 15:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who cares about wikipedians? Not me. Golfcam 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Christopher Parham. (I don't write that often; savor it. ;) Also I readded to Category:Wikipedians by generation. It was removed from there "per CFD" but I can't find any evidence of that decision in the histories. Anyway, if this CFD keeps it, that's the category it should be in. -- SCZenz 00:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category was deleted by CFD, but the discussion remained open to discuss some other cats in the nomination, and during that time the feeling shifted toward keeping the article. It was later undeleted at VFU pending a CFD that didn't have the problem (e.g. articles nominated but untagged) of the original nomination, but the categories weren't nominated again, until now at least. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooohkay. I would've just deleted the old CFD nomination if I had known all that. Definitely the right thing to do with this category is just keep it and leave it back in Category:Wikipedians by generation. -- SCZenz 01:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Golfcam's argument is an argument to delete all cats applicable to User pages. No-one is proposing that here. On that basis, users should be able to categorise themselves as they see fit (subject to avoidance of idiocy and offensiveness which would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis). Valiantis 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What Valiantis said. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... vague? excuse me? what's vage about Baby boomer or wikipedian. --Vizcarra 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (redirect) --Kbdank71 15:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CfD template added on 27 November, but apparently not finished. The category is empty and orphaned, and I believe a duplicate of some other category, but I haven't looked enough so I'm Neutral for now. -- SCZenz 21:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Empty duplicate of Category:American physicians Soltak | Talk 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, duplicate. So forth. Postdlf 01:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "American physicians" is a much better name; "Doctor" is a title, not a profession. --Trovatore 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 1#Doctors by nationality to Physicians by nationality. Possibly I should have used "Medical doctors" instead of "Physicians"; there's a claim afoot that this is a US/UK distinction. --Trovatore 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. -- SCZenz 04:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a sub-cat of Category:World War II military equipment, category should have military included for consistency as others do. Joshbaumgartner 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country" (official policy), military equipment is to follow the "... of country" convention. Most under Category:World War II military equipment comply, but the following are out of order and should be changed. According to the cited policy, these may qualify for speedy, but I thought best to still put here for now at least:

1. Category:World War II Bulgarian equipment to Category:World War II military equipment of Bulgaria
2. Category:World War II French equipment to Category:World War II military equipment of France
3. Category:World War II Polish equipment to Category:World War II military equipment of Poland
4. Category:World War II Romanian equipment to Category:World War II military equipment of Romania

Joshbaumgartner 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• RenameRhollenton 17:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country" (official policy), military equipment is to follow the "... of country" convention. Most under Category:Military equipment by country comply, but the following are out of order and should be changed. According to the cited policy, these may qualify for speedy, but I thought best to still put here for now at least:

1. Category:Belgian military equipment to Category:Military equipment of Belgium
2. Category:British military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the United Kingdom
3. Category:French military equipment to Category:Military equipment of France
4. Category:Israeli military equipment to Category:Military equipment of Israel

Joshbaumgartner 23:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty as articles and sub-cats have been put in Category:Military equipment of Russia and Category:Military equipment of the Soviet Union as appropriate. Joshbaumgartner 22:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Empty category, decade based convention not used for vehicles. Joshbaumgartner 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No articles. Only sub-cat is Category:Soviet military vehicles 1930-1939 which is also empty, and is CfD above.

• Delete Joshbaumgartner 22:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was inconsistency here. The list was list of cities in Cyprus, but it covers cities, towns and villages. I have moved to list to list of cities, towns and villages in Cyprus. I carelessly created category:Villages in Cyprus before I looked at the overall situation. There may be an official distinction between the three types of settlement in Cyprus, but we don't seem to have any information about it. Due to the size of Cyprus there is no risk of a single category becoming excessively large. Therefore merge Category:Towns in Cyprus and Category:Towns in Cyprus into a new Category:Cities, towns and villages in Cyprus. If there are official definitions it could be subdivided later, but at present we don't have reliable information to do this. CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Towns in Cyprus, Create Category:Cities in Cyprus, Do not create Category:Cities, towns and villages in Cyprus, . --Vizcarra 22:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee thanks. Do you know anything about Cyprus? You have addressed neither local issues nor wikipedia policy. This appears to be merely an ill-informed off the cuff suggestion. As this is Cyprus naturally we have not be overwhelmed with views from local experts. Your suggestion to create a category is not one that will get implemented. You have just buggered things up so there will be a no consensus outcome. CalJW 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated. --Kbdank71 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unused category. No articles, but could be useful, so I don't know if it should be deleted or not. If not deleted, it should be moved to Category:American Civil War prison camps. Oh, to add to the complication it has a paragraph in it that maybe belongs in an article somewhere. -- SCZenz 21:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if it stays empty, otherwise just correct the capitalisation. Carina22 15:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, added a couple articles and suspect more are lurking. Fix the capitalization, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extra paragraph has also been modified into a new article on the Florence Stockade. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Christopher Parham. -- SCZenz 20:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned category for communities in the district of Aigle in the Swiss canton of Vaud. All are already in Category:Vaud and/or Category:Municipalities of the canton of Vaud, which does not otherwise have subcats for individual districts. Delete unnecessary category for consistency. -- SCZenz 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Canton level subdivision is sufficient for Switzerland. CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Native American tribes of Arizona to Category:Native American tribes in Arizona
• Category:Native American tribes of Florida to Category:Native American tribes in Florida
• Category:Native American tribes of Wisconsin to Category:Native American tribes in Wisconsin

Because Native Americans have been inhabiting what are now U.S. states since long before the states were created, I'm proposing that the word "of" in the above categories be replaced with the word "in". "Of" is not as accurate as "in" because these peoples pre-date the creation of the states, which was a political act. This wording would also match the wording chosen for Indigenous peoples in the United States and Native Americans in the United States. Kurieeto 18:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. Arniep 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -Mayumashu 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rhollenton 17:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will help make the purpose of this category more self-evident, and reduce confusion between it and its children. -- Beland 17:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I continue to believe that Category:Categories is the natural name for the root category. (Of course there probably isn't a true root category; people create categories all the time without bothering to put them in a bigger category. But that's a bug, not a feature.) By the way I'm not too sure I like Category:Top 8. I think they should all be direct children of Category:Categories, and there should be one other grab-bag category where everything else goes. --Trovatore 19:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be more specific: The grab-bag cat should also be a child of Category:Categories; the latter should have exactly nine children. --Trovatore

Oppose It isn't clearer to me. category:Categories is the natural top category. CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Category:Category schemes sounds like Category:Categorization schemes to me, where I expect to find stuff like Dewey Decimal Classification or Library of Congress Classification (or maybe Category:Wikipedia categorization), not all of Wikipedia. (And indeed, that's what's in the category that Category:Category schemes redirects to) Kusma (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or vice versa. This merge was requested on 2 October by someone else who added a merge box, but I guess they didn't post here. -- Beland 17:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Although there may be some non-human societies, most societies are human, so the difference between these categories is low (they are almost the same). In fact, much content is repeated in both categories. And some articles that are, in general, related to society, are placed in one of both categories arbitrarily; this means that if you are looking for society articles and subcategories, you have to check "society" and "human societies". -- Jaimedv 10:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the corresponding MoS entry also has been nominated for deletion.

Essentially duplicates the idea of disambiguation pages, and in simple cases redirects. Offers no benefits, but adds yet more complexity to the Wikipedia world! As it stands it has only 11 uses to date, these should be reformatted as disambig pages... Thanks/wangi 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't believe there was any discussion on this, when I first saw it it had two articles. Neonumbers 09:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The description states that signpost articles "are a lot like disambiguation pages, except that the target pages need not have the same name." This is a misunderstanding of disambiguation pages (which can incorporate synonyms and topics for which the applicable term describes a relatively minor element). As such, this setup is entirely redundant. —Lifeisunfair 18:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: League no longer exists; disbanded after the 2005 season. –Swid 16:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- that's not a reason for deletion. Seems like a perfectly reasonable category. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that most other defunct leagues I could find (e.g. the ABA, the AFL, etc.) maintain their associated categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My fault, I should have provided better reasons than the one I initially provided. The one entry remaining in the category is a template listing the three teams in the league at the time of its disbanding; all the other former teams have been moved into the category for their current leagues. Also, I only found one defunct *minor* league that has its own category, and it was in existence for over 50 years. The AFL was a major league, as was the ABA; the ABA (well, the name, anyway) isn't defunct, either. To sum things up, retaining a category for a low-level minor league that no longer exists is kinda silly, unless someone feels motivated to create articles/subcategories for players, coaches, teams, etc. –Swid 17:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Nlu 17:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Joshbaumgartner 22:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Empty. Golfcam 23:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as below. -Mayumashu 15:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative name This isn't like the others. Not all literary academics are concerned with literature in English. In fact most aren't, albeit I almost certainly not most of those with articles. So rename Category:English literature academics CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. but "English literature" often if not usually refers to the lit. of England as American literature does for the States. i tried to get around this by having the cat "wider" to include academics who study any literature. Category:Academics of the literature of English is probably the most accurate choice, but long. i say let the broader cat fill up and sometime in the future start one up for the academics of lit. in the English language. -Mayumashu 03:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Literary academics" means academics who are literary, not academics whose discipline is the study of literature which appears to be the proposer's intended meaning. [:Category: Literature academics]] would be less bad, but is clumsy English (IMO). Valiantis 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming to Category:Anglists, which works for scholars of both English language and literature. u p p l a n d 20:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on Earth? I read English at university and that term is unknown to me. CalJW 22:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A google search reveals that this term is used almost exclusively in non-English speaking countries so it isn't an option here. CalJW 11:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the word "anglist" is included in my Concise Oxford Dictionary, which I always assumed to be a dictionary of English, and this word would do the job of describing the group of people in question, as opposed to all the other suggestions I have seen here. A professor of English is not necessarily a professor of literature but may well be a professor of the English language, i.e. a linguist specializing in English. (And some, of course, are both. And the same thing works for lecturers, senior lecturers, readers and so on.) u p p l a n d 13:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Amendment It seems the briefest unambiguous option is category:Academics of literature in English. CalJW 11:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as category:academics of English-language literature, or as CalJW proposed. — Instantnood 14:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I don't know what it should be renamed to, but renamed it must be: Category:English professors is just too confusing. Have you seen Category:English academics (ie. academics from England)?--Mais oui! 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose either name is bad (English professors... are they professors from England?). How about Category:Professors of English literature? —preceding unsigned comment by Vizcarra (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 December 2005
  • comment No, all the "professors" categories need to go. "Professor" is a title, not a description of what someone does, and the standards for granting that title are too different in different countries. --Trovatore 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CalJW's proposal; it's a little awkward-sounding but I can't think of anything better. However I think it should be clarified just what an "academic" is (as I asked in the corresponding debate on CS profs, is a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study an academic? If not, then I think we need a different name.) --Trovatore 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per reasons given immediately below. -Mayumashu 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE That would imply that CS profs are praticing researchers, which is not always the case. A CS prof teaches CS courses, a CSist researches CS. How many HS CS profs research CS? For that matter how many HS science profs do research? 132.205.45.148 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "High school CS professors"? Your IP says you're in Canada, but I'm guessing you're from somewhere else, right? As far as I know, "professor" is not used for high-school teachers anywhere in the English-speaking world. Let me know if I'm wrong about that. --Trovatore 19:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong. Professor is used indescriminantly in place of teacher, Sunday school teacher, etc. 132.205.44.134 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where, exactly? Certainly not in the States. I haven't noticed it since I got to Canada. I know the cognate words are so used in Italy and Germany. --Trovatore 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the move; "professor" is a title, not a description of activity. --Trovatore 19:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. u p p l a n d 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose alternative - Category:Computer science academics to match the direction the vote just below is taking. Academics is general enough to include high-chool and other level teachers, but specific enough to preserve the fact that this category is for CS educators, not all CS personell. - TexasAndroid 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does an "academic" really have to be an educator? What about, say, a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study? I'm genuinely unsure whether he counts as an academic. Just something that should maybe be made clear before this general renaming gets going. And, do we want such fellows in these categories? (I'd think yes, so if they're not academics, then maybe we should look for something else.) --Trovatore 16:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not all professors do research and not all researchers teach. --Vizcarra 23:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, but the alternative should be to delete the category altogether; the reasons that Category:Professors was deleted apply here as well. All the "professors" categories have to go, on the grounds that professor is a title rather than a description of activity, and at that a title that means different things in different countries. --Trovatore 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Other professors categories have been deleted as there is nothing inherently encyclopedic about holding the post of professor and all professors who happen to be encyclopedically note-worthy (for their research or otherwise) can be described as academics without exception. -Mayumashu 15:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong object. Many people who teach philosophy are not themselves philosophers. - SimonP 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming. There is an inherent American systemic bias in categorizing people as professors, as the job title of "professor" is extremely devalued in the US, compared to Europe at least. But SimonP has a good point. Maybe we need a category for people who teach or write about philosophy without having any independent philosophical thoughts of their own. "Category:Philosophy professors" is just not a good name. u p p l a n d 16:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:Philosophy academics CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with that. - SimonP 23:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this too. by the way, how can put a line through my nominated renaming to put this alternative name into the nomination? (got it) -Mayumashu 03:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(in line with naming conventions and general Category:Government by country) Damac 08:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Moved from speedy section Hiding talk 11:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - i am not making an objection but I hope Damac that you are not making this because of the current discussion Category:Departments of the Irish Government - This category (Irish Government) is for officials of the Irish Government which is quite distinct to a Department of State (Ireland). So even if it does pass its not going to be a "dumping ground" for departments and ministers. Djegan 10:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, honestly it's not. I was about to start contributing on the ministries of the Greek government, came across the Category:Government_by_country, and saw that Ireland was not listed. It is an anomaly that I thought should be brought to your attention. --Damac 13:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This needs discussion. Ireland is not currently the name preferred on Wikipedia for the Irish state, however unfortunate and incorrect that may be. I think it would require a stronger consensus than a speedy rename would allow. Hiding talk 11:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the name dictated by policy at the moment on Wikipedia for the Irish state is the Republic of Ireland. Hiding talk 11:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since when was wikipedia a dictatorship? Djegan 11:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, that's ever so slightly objectable don't you think. Could you not retract that? Aren't we here debating and attempting to come to a consensual position? If people feel the policy needs changing, what prevents them from proposing such a change? Nothing. I am sure you are well aware of the many different meanings of dictate, however, I retract the usage of the word dictate and instead ask everyone to accept that I meant that in my opinion, and whilst I fully accept other people may have differing opinions, we should respect the community consensus formed within the established policy. Hiding talk 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am not trying to be a b***** - but if you are going to propose an alternative then at least be consistent in your terms - "Irish state"/"Irish State", whats that? By the way as you can see I have yet to make a decision on this one as the main article is indeed Irish Government and I am concerned that this category should follow that. Djegan 12:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please enlighten me as to where I proposed an alternative. And if we are correcting spelling and grammar, you have a missing apostrophe in your "whats". Hiding talk 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - handbags at dawn or not you have got me on both counts, you are correct. Djegan 13:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as the proposed name is the legal name of the government - whilst the official description of the state is the Republic of Ireland its official name is none-the-less simply Ireland, agreements and treaties are made in the name of the government, viz the Government of Ireland - the government is rarely, if ever, formally referred to as the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying I am voting oppose, since previous object was to the speedy listing. Am I the only one who finds it confusing that Category:Government of Ireland will be a sub-cat of Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland which is in turn a subcategory of a subcategory of Politics of Ireland. Like it or not, this is a confusing area and to avoid the confusion between the island of Ireland and the political state of Ireland it has been decided the latter is to be referred to by the Republic of Ireland. This move will confuse the category structure, and I believe the rename is expressing a Point of View, however unfortunate that is, as there are people who dispute that this is the Government of Ireland. There is a reason why that link redirects to Irish Government. Hiding talk 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename Leaving aside the Ireland/Republic of Ireland debate for a second, bear in mind that "Government" in the category name is in reference to the formal designation for the Irish cabinet, not "Government" in the same broad sense that most English-speakers would use (akin to "State apparatus" or something). The latter definition is covered the subcats of Category:Government by country, like Category:Government of the United States, Category:Government of Germany or indeed Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland. This category is under the umbrella of Category:Government ministers by country and should more properly be termed Category:Members of the Government of Ireland or, to be less official but more clear, Category:Members of the Cabinet of Ireland (the latter term is in common use there, anyway). Because it's a proper noun, I'm in favour of keeping the "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland" without necessarily overriding the normal naming conventions. The Tom 22:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The term Minister of the Government is the generic legal term applied to members of the Irish Government - but this would create issues for the Taoiseach and particularily the Tánaiste. The Tánaiste would be considered a Minister of the Government only by virtue of the fact that they will always head a Department of State, not by virtue of having the Office of Tánaiste. Djegan 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and propose instead:

And explain how the Executive branch of the Government of the Republic of Ireland is refered to as Irish Government, etc. --Vizcarra 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ewww. That's a pretty brutal stamping on proper nouns just because they don't immediately correspond with American political vernacular. I would avoid anything of the sort. "Scottish Executive" is the proper name of the Cabinet of Scotland. "Irish Government/Government of Ireland" is the proper name of the Cabinet of Ireland. No need to avoid using them. The Tom 00:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand. Wikipedia has a naming convention that states that categories of this type must follow the pattern Government of... There can only be one outcome here IMHO, and that is Category:Government of Ireland. Ireland is the consitutional name of the political entity otherwise known as Republic of Ireland and as the consitution of that political entity makes clear, this state makes no territorial claim over Northern Ireland. Why do we have to pussyfoot around this issue? or spend our time inventing ridiculous, cumbersome names that bear no connection to reality (i.e. Executive branch of the Government.....). Seriously, it's time for some poeple around here to take a reality check and to realise that Ireland and articles relating to Ireland must follow Wikipedia conventions and not be given special treatment all of the time. --Damac 13:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Wikipedia has a naming convention which states that the name of the country should be Republic of Ireland. If we follow the naming conventions, the name of this category should be Government of the Republic of Ireland. Seriously, it's time for some people around here to take a reality check and to realise that Ireland and articles relating to Ireland must follow Wikipedia conventions and not be given special treatment all of the time. Hiding talk 13:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to be an expert in how Ireland should be called on Wikipedia, would you mind providing me with a reference where I can find this particular naming policy you are referring to?

I'd also like to draw your attention to a clear naming policy which will cover this area. --Damac 14:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be an expert, please don't try to paint me as such. The policy you seek is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How to name the country which directs the use of the Republic of Ireland. Please accept my apologies, I had assumed you were already aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), since that is the policy you refer to above when you note we have a policy to standardise categories. Finally, I note that your link took me to a talk page, which isn't policy, but rather discussion on the formation of policy. Hiding talk 14:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim you were anything; I simply stated that you seemed to be an expert in this field. I'd really love to see how this policy was formulated as regards case of Ireland and to see the arguments used to reach such a conclusion.

My sincere apologies on the link. I had meant to type "to a clear naming police proposal"--Damac 15:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a duplicate of Category:Modern_weapons_of_South_Africa. I moved the only subcategory that existed under it to the other. Ze miguel 10:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Honbicot 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Joshbaumgartner 19:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I start with this one? First, the category was a misnomer, as it doesn't include relationships, but persons. Second, "pederastic" is not defined, and the people in the category weren't necessarily engaged in pederasty -- engaging in homosexual relations in ancient times doesn't automatically make a person pederastic. Third, many entries in the category right now are/were based on flimsy evidence. (I've personally removed two -- Gaozu of Han and Emperor Hui of Han -- which I feel I have sufficient knowledge about to confidently remove from the category.) Fourth, the category is necessarily POV. Delete. --Nlu 05:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, concur with all arguments. --Golbez 05:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Bhoeble 10:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Where do I start with this one?! How about point by point?
  

1. I accept the criticism that it is a misnomer, I am not well versed in creating categories. How is "Partners in historical pederastic relationships"?
2. "Pederastic" is explained in a number of articles in the Wikipedia. Does it need to be restated somewhere in the category page? If so, it can be done at the drop of a hat.
   • The reason why I raised this as an objection is not because we need to define words in category descriptions always, but rather that in this case, the category becomes misleading because there is more than one way to define pederasty, and depends on what the definition is, a person might fit or not fit. --Nlu 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
     • Granted, and that can be done. Haiduc 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Each of the individuals on the list has been researched and is there because of the evidence to that effect.
4. The Han emperors all had male lovers, at a time when such relationships were necessarily not egalitarian, and the two chosen for inclusion are specifically known to have had young lovers. Brett Hinsch, in his Passions of the Cut Sleeve, on page 36, cites Sima Qian (Ssu-ma Chien), Records of the Grand Historian of China: "When the Han arose, Emperor Gaozu, for all his coarseness and blunt manners, was won by the charms of a young boy named Ji, and Emperor Hui had a boy favorite named Hong. Neither Ji nor Hong had any particular talent or ability; both won prominence simply by their looks and graces. Day and night they were by the ruler's side."
   • That's hardly conclusive (or particularly indicative) of pederasty, and you know it, any more than Abraham Lincoln's sleeping a man proving that there is a sexual relationship, if that. Where it came to a specific strong indication of a sexual relationship (as was the case with Ban Gu's description of the relationship between Emperor Ai of Han and Dong Xian -- and even that one is not conclusive), much stronger language is used. I might accept that there was sufficient evidence of a sexual relationship between Emperor Wu of Han and Han Yan, for example, but that is much weaker than the evidence of the relationship between Emperor Ai and Dong Xian. If Sima wanted to indicate a sexual relationship, he could have at least used somewhat analogous language, but he didn't. Plus, included in that chapter were some individuals who clearly did not have sexual relationships with the emperor. Hinsch jumped to conclusions, and we shouldn't here. --Nlu 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
     • It is not up to us to start questioning the conclusions of a published scholar. If you have academic sources contradicting Hinsch, please cite them. All else is hearsay. Haiduc 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
       • Have you even read the source that Hinsch himself was reading? His reading of it was forced, at best. --Nlu 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Since people far more erudite than you or I seem to consider the above paragraph sufficient (rather than "flimsy") evidence, I trust that you will have the good grace to revert yourself on those pages. And since this applies to those two entries about which you claimed to have "sufficient knowledge" I trust that you will see the logic of really familiarizing yourself a bit better with this aspect of history before attempting further edits on topics where even you admit you have insufficient knowledge.
   • Feel free to revert me if you want, but read the chapter that Hinsch cited yourself first. --Nlu 16:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. As for the category being "necessarily POV" I am reluctant to say too much, for fear of having mis-interpreted you. But let me say that at first sight it smacks of rank sexism, which is an ugly sentiment and does not belong anywhere in a civilized project like the Wikipedia. But I hope that I am wrong, and that you had something else in mind. Perhaps you'll care to explain.
   So what is my vote?
   
   • I meant that it was POV in the sense that it requires a judgment whether pederasty (which, I might mind you, is a crime in all modern societies regardless of whether it has de/criminalized homosexuality) happened, which is POV. --Nlu 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. • • I am afraid that it is your own bias that is showing. It is standard usage in the academic community to categorize amorous relationships between adolescent boys and adult males as pederastic. And regarding your admonishment about the legality of such relations, before you presume to lecture me on morality, perhaps you need to take a more ecumenical view of things, and consider that in most civilized countries relations between adolescents who have come of age and unrelated adults not in supervisory positions are very legal indeed. So that a twenty five year old Londoner can stroll down the street with his sixteen year old boyfriend, and a forty year old German can take his fifteen year old boyfriend to the beach, and a thirtyfive year old Italian can go camping and make love to his fourteen year old boyfriend, and a Montrealais too can date a fourteen year old boy, all in full legality and without any fear of the sex gestapo that haunts those trapped, mentally and physically, in more benighted places which I shall not mention here. Look at your own biases before you preach to me about "neutral point of view." Haiduc 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
       • You are free to think whatever you want. But what is that this category inherently has no good way of defining itself (other than as Sethmahoney suggested below -- make it about articles about pederastic relationships rather than about alleged pederastic relationship participants. Whether I'm biased or not is not the question; whether this category inherently requires one POV or another is the question, and it clearly does, as demonstrated here.
       • And the reason why I pointed out that it is illegal is because you appeared to imply that there is nothing defamatory about alleging a non-pederastic individual as being pederastic. It's clearly not true in the vast majority of the world. Whether you or I personally would approve of that kind of a relationship is not the question. --Nlu
         • Allegations of homosexuality may well be defamatory, as would allegations of intergenerational homosexuality, but it is not our business to be concerned with who may blame or praise the people on the list.

Keep, with modifications Haiduc 12:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We really don't need this. Honbicot 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Badly named cat, no need for it. Alexander 007 13:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poor name, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, troll magnet. --A D Monroe III 13:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Mark¹ 14:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category bordering on the irrelevant. Soltak | Talk 14:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the above reasons and then some. Postdlf 01:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of argument, like many above, reminds me of Thurgood Marshall's comments upon resigning from the US Supreme Court, when he said that the new conservative court no longer decided cases through strength of reason but through force of numbers. Comments like "unneeded" or "irrelevant" are little more than authoritarian ploys. If you really think it is a certain way, it might be more useful to state your reasons, so that they can be properly answered
    
  • Speaking in general terms, since I have been given precious little material to actually refute, let me point out to you that there are three major types of same-sex relations, gender-structured, age-structured, and unstructured or egalitarian. Historically, the most common was the age-structured, and this is what I am trying to document here, by making accessible in one location all the articles dealing with individuals known to have engaged in such relationships. This information can be of value to any number of readers, whether they are history students looking for patterns, anthropologists looking for similarities or differences, boy lovers looking for historical excuses, or moralists looking to indict homosexuals as child molesters. I frankly could not care less how the information is used. But no one here has made even a start of an argument on why it should be squelched, rather than modified. Haiduc 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we don't need to. Wikipedia is about NPOV, and this category is, as I've argued, inherently POV.
    • But you can take a look at Sima Qian's own writing yourself and make a case with regard to the two I removed if you so wish. It's available all over the Internet. --Nlu 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That the contents of a category are inappropriate doesn't mean the category should be deleted. Keep, but remove articles about people, and include only articles actually about pederastic relationships. -Seth Mahoney 05:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seth, I disagree mildly. If a category's own definition (or lack thereof) invites POV, then it is a category that should not be kept. --Nlu 06:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this CfD vote particularly obnoxious, so I'm just going to make one point: If a category invites POV, that's fine. It can be corrected. Whether or not a category is POV is the only pertinent question, and the only POV your attempts to respond to that question have shown is your own. How much less evidence, for example, would you require to support the claim that a given person was completely heterosexual in the modern sense, with a wife of roughly the same age, etc.? Regardless, since you seem to be involved in some of the articles involved, I would invite you to participate in a discussion on how to restructure a similar set of categories in order to avoid, as much as possible, issues of POV. -Seth Mahoney 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that Category:Historical people engaged in adult-adolescent relationships (which is sexuality-neutral) may be more appropriate -- but that the category itself should only be populated with confirmed personalities, both on the issue of whether a sexual relationship existed and whether the people involved were of those age groups. But even then, I still find the premise of the category questionable; even within those confines, it's still going to be POV. --Nlu 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have two criteria for categories. One, "is it useful?" and two, "is it studied?". Certainly, Pederasty is studied, and a historic look at individuals who were in these relationships could be useful. That leads me to say "keep". A paragraph explaining the category would be useful and help define it. Perhaps there is a better name for the category. The definition and name of the category are not fatal flaws. They can be fixed. Miscategorizations can be fixed. I don't find any of the delete arguments compelling enough to warrant the removal of the category and some seem to have been quick judgements. -- Samuel Wantman 07:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems clear that the name is misleading. How about "Pederastic men and boys"? Haiduc 12:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the POV argument, if others have no problems in recognizing pederastic relationships, and studying them and writing about them, why should we? Nlu seems to be aiming for a mechanistic system where if something cannot be programmed into a computer it is "POV." What is so complicated about definig pederasty as amorous relations between men and adolescent boys? Haiduc 12:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your own definition suggests POV. "Amorous" is a loaded word. Better yet, in the two examples that I removed from the category (Gaozu of Han and Emperor Hui of Han) there is no evidence at all as to the age of the other parties allegedly involved, other than that they were "young". Don't you see the problem with this definition? --Nlu 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nlu, by your standards it becomes impossible to say anything about sexuality. What would you make of the definition of homosexuality, which talks about "romantic love"? Slap a "NPOV" on it?! Hinsch's description of Gaozu's boyfriend as a "young boy" makes you think of what, a nonagenarian?! What would satisfay your needs for "evidence"? A 2500 year old birth certificate? You are grasping at semantic straws: "We don't know what pederasty is so we can't (shouldn't) talk about it." But everyone in academia who cares to can talk and write about it with no problem.
        I am sure that if you were sincerely willing to discuss the details of how to express these ideas we could find common ground. But I have not seen any indication that you are willing to engage into a serious discussion of the merits of this topic, and ways to fix the minor flaws of this category. You are simply reacting to your discomfort with this topic - and even more so some of the other "commentators" here who seem to have come only to project their own prejudices and sully the discussion with invective. And I am not the only one here who finds fault with the level of this discourse. When and if the editors here are willing to seriously address this topic then we may find a reasonable resolution. Until then we will remain stuck at the junior high school cafeteria level. Haiduc 00:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing POV about, for example, a category of Chinese emperors who engaged in homosexual relations assuming that there is sufficient uncontroverted evidence. There is no such thing here. The two examples that I have were based on nothing but innuendo -- and to interpret the innuendo the way you have is, no matter how you try to call it, POV. The flaws of this category are anything but minor, and you appear to be the only one who is unable to see it; even the other people who voted "keep" indicate that there are major flaws. Yet, somehow, you're the only person who allegedly has a level head. And calling others juvenile. --Nlu 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also note that you've not responded to this question I had a while ago: have you even read the chapter of Shi Ji that you cited? --Nlu 00:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nlu, I do not find your contributions jejeune. Others' yes, not yours. But you are just as vulnerable as I am to being led astray by personal bias, and while you claim to see mine clearly you of course seem to think you are immune. That is why I think we both need to draw back a bit from the topic and not impose our perceptions on it too much. Your contention that pederasty is undefinable and therefore beyond the ken of an encyclopaedia is just that sort of projection, since it is obviously refutable at the most elementary level. Likewise with your invitation to have me go read the Shi Ji myself. I cannot do that. I wish I could read archaic Chinese script, but I was told (by Hinsch, coincidentally) that it is far from a trivial task. Perhaps you can. But I have to rely on those who can, and who will each translate it in a different way (having done a bit of translation work myself I know how the game is played). So what are we going to do? Pit translator against translator, and bias against bias? If you disagree with Hinsch's interpretation please produce a credible academic critique of Hinsch and I will be glad to withdraw those two entries. I really do not see why you are so opposed to the reading of Chinese history that restores homosexual expression to a level of normalcy. Have you not seen all the homoerotic art from pre-modern China? Its mention in the histories? Its parallel existence in neighboring societies? Are you trying to defend a heterosexualized reading of pre-modern China? Why?
            
            • Hold on a moment. This has nothing to do with "restori[ing]" homosexual expression to a level of normalcy." It has everything to do with factual accuracy. I wouldn't accept it any more if someone had put Emperor Hui of Han in a category: "Wagon thieves of antiquity" or "Lychee lovers of antiquity." (The latter would be appropriate for Yang Guifei, of course.) If you want to discuss homosexuality in ancient China (which clearly existed), do so in the appropriate article; don't go around and add a bundle of people to the category based on flimsy evidence.
            • And I don't need to "produce a credible academic critique of Hinsch[.]" I can read ancient Chinese. I can read modern Chinese. There is absolutely nothing that I can find that conclusively shows that such relationships existed for the two individuals I took out; nothing that conclusively shows that they were not involved in such relationships, but the lack of evidence is not the same as confirmation. --Nlu 01:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If I read you right, you would have me think your motivation here comes from the fact that your reading of the Shi Ji is at odds with Hinsch's. You may be right. But I am afraid that comes under the heading of original research. Neither I(*) nor anyone who write or reads the Wikipedia is going to want to know what Nlu thinks about the Shi Ji. They will want an accredited academic's views, first and foremost. And I am sure I do not have to go and dig up the Wikipedia rules, chapter and verse, to prove to you that you can not interpose yourself here. (*The truth is that I am curious about your reading of the Shi Ji, and if you would be so kind as to give me your interpretation of the passage in question, I would be grateful.) Haiduc 01:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Shi JI's text itself is not original research. By your suggestion of what original research is, everything on Wikipedia would be original research since it would require the interpretation of an external source. Go dig up those "Wikipedia rules, chapter and verse, to prove" that this is original research. You will find that this isn't. --Nlu 04:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • As far as my translation of what the relevant passage of Shi Ji would be like, since it takes more space than the discussion really should be, I'm going to take it to Talk:Gaozu of Han. --Nlu 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • My explanation of the passage has been added to Talk:Gaozu of Han. Please take a look. But if your ideology won't allow you to accept that the evidence is flimsy, I don't know what else to say, because it is flimsy. --Nlu 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Original research Here is the relevant text: The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". While you are right, and Shi Ji is not research, an alternative translation of a text, at variance with one presented by a recognized academic in a published source, is a new interpretation. I happen to find your work of value, and your argument intriguing, though I am not convinced by your restrictive translation of "Ru" as simply a name without further meaning, since it is the key to the question of whether or not their relationship was of a pederastic nature. Hinsch translates it as "boy". However, my favorable opinion of your research does not change its nature as research.
                    Homosexuality of Gaozu; I am almost speechless - first you offer "They lay with the emperors." in your translation, then you counter with "There might have been sexual relationships, but it's hardly shown." Historical accounts must conform to standards of decorum while describing embarrassing acts. This is how they say "They made love."
                    Flimsy Again, I follow the conclusions of recognized modern western academics published in reputable venues. If it's good enough for them, it is good enough for me.
                    Your slant In one of your messages yesterday you wrote, "even the other people who voted "keep" indicate that there are major flaws." That is not so. The whole thrust of Wantman's argument is that the flaws are not of the essence of the category, but minor details easily modified.
                    Conclusion I repeat my offer to co-operate with you and any serious contributor here to work out a balanced way to present what is demonstrably a serious historical topic. We need to work on the naming and on the definition. As far as the question of who should be in it, that is best left to discussion in the individual pages. Haiduc 11:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, that's not "original research" -- you're grasping as straws here. This is not a "new" interpretation; if anything, Hinsch's is the new interpretation. I think I can confidently say that how I am translating this is the traditional interpretation. Hinsch's getting himself published in English doesn't wipe out millenia of Chinese/Japanese scholarship on the subject. And people lay with the emperors back then without sexual relationships -- for example, Emperor Guangwu of Han with Yan Zhuang, without any suggestions that they had sexual relations. In modern times we might think that people who lie together have sex, but that's not true of ancients.

Further, you are twisting the original research rule even if, arguendo, what I interpret is original research. The original research rule says that no original research is to be there in the article -- which it is not. The alleged original research (and I continue to maintain that this is not original research) is used to eliminate incorrect information, which is permissible. This is what Wikipedia:No original research says:

A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas; that is:

• it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
• it introduces original ideas; or
• it defines new terms; or
• it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
• it introduces, without citing a reputable source, an argument which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
• it introduces or uses neologisms.

Hinsch's own book disproves that it "introduces original ideas," since he was purportedly debunking old beliefs that he considered unsound. And note that this refers to Wikipedia entries, not to the discussion that we're having here regarding the appropriateness of an entry.

You cited a single source -- Hinsch. That's not "recognized modern western academics" (plural).

I have no intention to "work with you," as I stand by my original assertions that the category is irreparably flawed, and you're not seeing it. The entire debate we're having as to these two individuals show how the category is inherently POV. --Nlu 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • You continue to hold partisan positions, as evinced by that bizarre (and homophobic) comment that pederasty "is a crime in all modern societies," when intergenerational homosexual relationships clearly are legal to a greater or lesser degree almost everywhere; and by your position that the existence of such relationships cannot be ascertained and thus cannot be discussed, despite the long and rich history of such studies in academia. You also continue to debate with an established academic's findings, which is not our prerogative here. I am sorry that the time we both invested in this discussion has yielded so little, especially in light of your comment that you "have no intention to work with me." That too seems out of character for this project. See below for my conclusion. Haiduc 23:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons already given. Carina22 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sick. Golfcam 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me?! This is not a valid reason to delete something! Ashibaka (tock) 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after looking at both sides. Ze miguel 12:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The arguments which would need to be made to justify inclusion neccesitate this information best be presented in the article space rather than the category space. Hiding talk 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • It has become amply obvious that this category is badly named. In a separate discussion, one of the contributors here suggested I circumvent the process and re-name the category. If there are no objections (I'll wait 12 hours for comments) I intend to do just that. I shall also append an explanatory paragraph. I am not wholly against Hiding's suggestion, but I would be interested in knowing the reasons behind it in order to be able to respond. Haiduc 23:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always get nervous when I see something that suggests "circumvent[ing] the process." The category should be deleted, not just renamed. If it's to be brought back, it has to be done in such a way as to avoid POV; otherwise, we will end up back here again. --Nlu 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that would be a circumvention of if you're not recreating the same category, but a new set of categories which deal with relationships structured in specific ways and people known to have been involved in those relationships. -Seth Mahoney 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. Ashibaka (tock) 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the arguments above. Do not rename. —Cleared as filed. 11:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do not rename, ie recreate as that would be a defiance of the consensual principles of wikipedia. Sumahoy 20:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the category may be recreated and renamed, being that "category was a misnomer" was the #1 reason in nomination. --Vizcarra 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is only one of the reasons, and being first doesn't mean that it's the most important reason. --Nlu 23:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't like the topic but not only Disney-related articles should be kept. --Vizcarra 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually identical article content. Alternators is the English name and is therefore preferred. Apostrophe 03:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete as proposed. Honbicot 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete as proposed. Carina22 15:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With precedent of Destrons being deleted, this should go as well. There's nothing here that can't be able to be categorized as an Autobot or Maximal.

Also, if the decision is to delete, simply delete the code for it on the pages. Do not replace it with anything; they are already all categorized properly as an Autobot or Maximal. --Apostrophe 03:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Honbicot 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The description section of this category is a duplicate of a list article of the same name, and the name is not well suited for a category. CG janitor 02:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Categories can't present this sort of information effectively. Bhoeble 10:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it could be done, but would just duplicate information in a needlessly difficult way, even if the category was renamed. - Bobet

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Wasn't aware when I created the categories that they were named "Conference", not "Division"... will be further populated as we expand the Pro Bowl articles and work on the NFL players. Anthony 01:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Bhoeble 10:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Golfcam 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant categories for Wikipedians. Category:Mad scientists was previously deleted after merging into Category:Fictional scientists, but in its current incarnation it'sa only a category for Wikipedians. Delete both. -Sean Curtin 00:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Nlu 08:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - --Jondel 08:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Honbicot 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rhollenton 17:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Vizcarra 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any category with the word "famous" in the name is an invitation to point of view categorisation. This is little used and the contents make no sense. Certainly the two London Underground stations included aren't particularly famous compared to other London Underground stations. Delete CalJW 00:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -Most transit stations are unimportant but there are notable exceptions. Contrary to your claim, both London Underground stations in this category are important and famous. Mornington Crescent has been honoured to have a BBC radio game named after it STopCat 01:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still can't be in the top 20 most famous stations in London. CalJW 11:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Let people keep names familar to them like famous. There is no harm done.--Jondel 08:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How famous and where? Abortive category. Bhoeble 10:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As arbitary as category:famous people. Categories for each system are fine. Honbicot 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inherently undefinable category. FCYTravis 00:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If they weren't notable, they wouldn't be in WP. (Yes, I'm aware that e.g. Underground stations are notable by policy. Proves my point.) Besides, half the members aren't even transit stations. —Blotwell 04:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any category with the word famous in its name should be a speedy. Carina22 15:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or listify. There's certainly a need to group major and notable stations in one page. — Instantnood 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it doesn't do that! Famous and large are not the same thing. It is a complete mess. Go ahead and do your list if you want, but please don't try to preserve this sort of useless mess. CalJW 22:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's more like "not famous transit stations" anyway. Golfcam 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To Notable transit stations - is that better? - -- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why would they be here if they aren't notable. Sumahoy 15:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Catgories are best based on facts. Rhollenton 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - inherently subjective. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there is already Category:Australian writers. No appreciable diffrence between the two.Bjones 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Vizcarra 22:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - wrong capitalization, too. BD2412 T 17:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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