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 iff template is deleted --Kbdank71 15:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles cannot be legally moved to Wikitravel. Thus, nothing can ever be put in the category. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the original author(s) could be asked to re-post the material on the other project. That would be legal, and somewhat useful. -- Beland 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• HOLD. This category only exists as a result of Template:Move to Wikitravel, which is presently on TFD. This cat should be deleted iff the template is deleted, no point in discussing it twice. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete iff the template is deleted. --Kbdank71 15:31, 13 Jun 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.

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 15:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty duplicate of existing category Category:United States Department of Defense -Etoile 21:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per systemic bias. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 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.

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 Category:U.S. Dept. of Defense agencies --Kbdank71 15:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate of existing category Category:U.S. Dept. of Defense agencies which is in line with other relevant dept. categories -Etoile 21:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Why do we use abbrev. in cats naming? I'd prefer not doing that. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Me too, but the fact remains that it is a habit here - in suggesting this switch I was just going with what seems to be the established preference. Please feel free to make the change the other way. -Etoile 12:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Very well. It seems that there are many articles going the other way, too. See today's vote. Radiant_>|< 12:37, Jun 13, 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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:History by country like the rest of the subcategories of Category:Categories by country. Neutrality^talk 19:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Object Country and nation are not the same thing, and nation is more appropriate here because it is more comprehensive. CalJW 17:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Neutrality; most Wikipedia categories are grouped by country. And 'country' is more strictly defined than 'nation'. Also, from Nation, "In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms". Radiant_>|< 07:32, Jun 15, 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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the subcategories of Category:History by nation; more logical. Neutrality^talk 19:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename for consistency. --Kbdank71 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object The former is more comprehensive, with less emphasis on state history. CalJW 17:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Neutrality, consistency is important. Radiant_>|< 07:32, Jun 15, 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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These ought to be merged together into category:locomotives by wheel arrangement as this is an artificial classification; in en: Whyte system is used for steam and diesel shunters, UIC for modern diesel/electrics; but the UIC system can be applied to all locomotives, and would be used in fr: and de, so reading into this you create the possibility of duplicate articles on C and 0-6-0, say. Did anyone understand that? Dunc|☺ 18:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No, but it does make sense that this is overcategorization, so delete. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• With the above argument, I believe the difference between C and 0-6-0 is that 0-6-0 have coupled wheels (i.e. like a steam loco or small shunter like British Rail Class 03), whereas C has the wheel in a single bogie. The trouble is a 4-6-2 steam loco is rarely known as a 2C1 apart from in continental europe. Since this is the English wikipedia I vote to keep. One solution might be to give articles both a Whyte category and a UIC category.... Our Phellap 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment. No a "C" has coupled wheels, i.e. an 0-6-0, a "Co" would have three independently-driven wheels. Duplicating the categories won't work because then you'd have to have everything in category:0-6-0 locomotives also in category:C locomotives which would be silly. Merging them into a single category works best. Dunc|☺ 15:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you mean recategorise all the steam locomotives into UIC (e.g. 4-6-2 to 2C1]])? Our Phellap 16:50, 18 Jun 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.

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 (keep) --Kbdank71 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A similar case to category:Cantonese terms nominated below. I am nominating this to facilitate a discussion among contributers. — Instantnood 14:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• For the reason stated, I abstain from voting. — Instantnood 19:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, useful way to group articles. Kappa 19:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure, but wouldn't this fall under "Wiki is not a dictionary"? Seems to me, that if a term or word was on here, it would be a definition? I looked at quite a few of the articles in this category, and they are well defined articles in their own right, such terms as Aikido, for example, I would feel would do better in its respective categories "Martial Arts of Japan/Akido.", and as a topic, excedes what would be considered a generic definition. Each article should define its origins and history, w/o categorizing them in a trivial fashion. (I hope that wasn't written too confusing, kind of tired) <>Who?¿? 04:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphasize on comment; I was leaning on Delete, just wanted to point out the terms, in this case, were not definitions, but the category itself would be pointless unless it were full of generic definitions, as Huaiwei states below, categorization by language is not a good reference. <>Who?¿? 20:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination below.--Huaiwei 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 15:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe the issue is whether Japanese origin is considered a trivial attribute. As User:Who says, many of these terms have encyclopedic articles so not a a dictionary does not apply. Many of them should be in other categories as well, but (to pick one) where else would Gaijin go? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • My original reasoning behind their removal is not fixated on whether articles within these categories are encyclopedic or not. Instead, I question the rational of lumping together terminologies by no other factor but language. Categories are there usually to group similar themes for ease of navigation and reference, and not languages. How similar is Sushi to Nunchaku? We have to consider implications should this category be considered acceptable. Are we now justified to create similar categories for all other languages...including English?

• • On a side note, some "non-English" words were accepted as English words (for example, karate, sushi, tsunami), while others are not (baka, Henohenomoheji), so if the later is acceptable, can anyone then add hundreds of anglicised terms of various languages as articles so long that they could write an article on it? I am already considering the tonnes I would add for Chinese terms if this is considered acceptable.--Huaiwei 19:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure, but I would think the answer to the question is yes. The difference between words accepted as English, like karate or sushi, and the words I think this category is more appropriate for is perhaps a little squishy, but amounts to degree of adoption. English is a hodgepodge of borrowings from many languages. IMO this category is appropriate for the words where the borrowing is or may be in progress. Where similar borrowings are in progress from other languages, I think it's probably appropriate to have similar categories. Glasnost strikes me as one of these, and (you might not believe this, but I picked the word before I knew this) it's in category:Soviet phraseology. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - It's no dictionary; it's mora than it. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "WP:NOT a dictionary" is irrelevant as long as the articles themselves are encyclopedic. Sebastian (talk) 20:33, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Keep. Terms can have an encyclopedic value, and articles on them more than just definitions. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 22:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. for the reasons mentioned above. (This comment by User:TakuyaMurata)
• Keep. While I personally believe that some terms (e.g. sushi, nunchaku, ninja) don't need to be in this category, there are others, more central to modern Japanese sociology/culture that are worthy of encyclopedic treatment. For example, gaijin, nisei, and uchi-soto. I think it's good to have a category to group more traditional/historical terms like daimyo, mon (crest), and tabi. Maybe, if we feel the need to delete, can we reorganize into a number of smaller categories? Maybe 'Traditional/Historical Japanese terms', 'Japanese pop culture terms' 'anime terms' 'Japanese cultural terms'. I'm not sure how to recategorize... LordAmeth 22:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: FYI, category:Mandarin terms was recently created by Huaiwei, who nominated category:Cantonese terms below. — Instantnood 07:40, Jun 16, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This category was previously marked as {{db}} for "ridiculous category as he is not dead. Can be created when it becomes a relevant question". But since that is not a criterion for speedy, I'm listing it here. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neutrality^talk 18:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• delete aren't all catholic males technically eligible? Dunc|☺ 11:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Dunc's RFP (request for popeship) :) deletion Radiant_>|< 08:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 15:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, way too early. K1Bond007 18:01, Jun 13, 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.

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 (keep) --Kbdank71 15:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An impossibly broad category, with the only thing in common between entries being language. Its mother categories, Category:Terminology and Category:Chinese language, does not have a single subcategory based on language. If we accept this, do we condone the creation of Category:English terms?--Huaiwei 14:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: How would you comment categories for terms of languages, such as category:Japanese terms? — Instantnood 14:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • 182 articles? Seems like it needs a cfd as well along with this one. Do you have any other similar categories to nominate for cfd?--Huaiwei 14:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think they have to be deleted. I am looking for similar categories to nominate here to have the matter better discussed. — Instantnood 14:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • But you have not explained why they should not be deleted. From the above, it seems as thou you are justifying the existance of this category because category:Japanese terms exists. Unfortunately, my reasoning to have one deleted applies to the other, and to all other similar categories found. As I said, we do not need Category:English terms.--Huaiwei 15:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I have not decided whether it should be kept or be deleted. I just presented the fact that there's at least one similar category. I was not justifying anything. FYI there was a vote on category:English words. — Instantnood 16:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Cantonese and Japanese terms are somewhat rarer in the English wikipedia than English language terms. Kappa 19:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In the English version of wikipedia, of coz non-English terms will be rare. Do we have category:English terms in non-English versions of wikipedia?--Huaiwei 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the category is perfectly useful with respect to transliteration, likewise ethnic culture that shows an overwhelming influence upon the English world. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Same as previous comments for Category:Japanese terms. <>Who?¿? 04:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 15:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - same as Japanese terms, above. -- Rick Block (talk)
• Keep - it's more than a dictionary. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "WP:NOT a dictionary" is irrelevant as long as the articles themselves are encyclopedic. — Sebastian (talk) 20:33, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Comment: FYI, category:Mandarin terms was recently created by Huaiwei, who made this nomination. — Instantnood 07:40, Jun 16, 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.

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 15:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This goes in with the whole Wikipedia:Babel template implementation. la-N is reserved for Native speakers of Latin. Although, worldwide, there are probably half a billion people who know Latin at some level, I very much doubt we'll be able to find a Native speaker of it. ℬastique▼^talk 14:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• lol - I agree. Useful but not a mother tongue. delete
• delete we'll create it again when Julius Caesar joins Wikipedia, but until then it isn't needed :) Alensha 11:56, 19 Jun 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.

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 15:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The same goes for Englisc, aka Old English, aka Anglo-Saxon ℬastique▼^talk

• Keep - In these times, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone had actually been brought up with Englisc as their first language, and English as their second. --Thf1977 12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete I think it's highly unlikely... Alensha 11:56, 19 Jun 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.

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 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misnomer, since there were four Iraq wars in history. Also, redundant with Category:2003 Iraq conflict. Thus, delete. Radiant_>|< 09:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Kbdank71 15:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 20:34, 2005 Jun 13 (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.

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 15:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This category is under Category:Animated television series and Category:Children's television series. Reasons for deletion and recat'ing the articles/subs.

• Some of the articles are placed in all of them, others just in two. Redundant listings (ex Ed, Edd, n Eddy is listed under Category:Children's television series & Category:Animated television series), but not under Category:Animated children's television series, where it supposedly would be correct.

• I understand the naming convention when it comes to Category:Children's television series, however, why should we distinguish between the animated series based on child and not list under adult? Should be just one.

• The Category:Animated films is sorted by type and distributor (ie. Category:Computer-animated films & Category:Disney animated films). We should use that schema for Category:Animated television series.

• There are several articles in each category that either belongs in one or the other, with the current name schema, yet they are too confusing, some people do not know the difference between a children's or adult animated series. The rest don't know that there are two different categories to put them in.

So I propose we delete Category:Animated children's television series, and move all the articles and subs to its parent, Category:Animated television series.

<>Who?¿? 08:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good example of overcategorization. I agree with Who. Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, moreover, what may constitute a children's animation series could sometimes be a judgement call. Hiding 19:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object A clear example of good comprehensive categorisation. CalJW 17:17, 14 Jun 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am completing an improperly nominated CfD on behalf of User:Ariele who wrote on the Category talk:Iraq War people page: Redundant, but if a KEEPER this Category is incomplete.

I, myself, abstain. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• First, it's improperly capitalized (war is not a proper noun). Second, what are 'war people'? I recall at least three Iraq wars, there were probably more. Does this mean 'everybody who has had something to do with any of the Iraq wars?' Delete unless someone comes up with a meaningful name and description. Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The category is historically correct. See also Category:People associated with wars:Category:Vietnam War people,Category:American Civil War people, Category:Spanish-American War people,Category:Spanish Civil War people,Category:World War I people,Category:World War II people,Category:Cold War people, ... After a few years, some wars are proper nouns and are capitalized. User:Leonard.007 20.16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename, all of them. I know it sounds rash, as they are established, however it's too broad of a category. What entries go in here? Soldiers, civilians, spectators, journalists, dictators, government? The spectrum is too broad. I definately would not suggest "Participants" as it's not a game. I looked at the lot of them, and it seems only Category:American Civil War people, has a useful sub-cat'd desiginations of people. I propose we rename them something less confusing and broad, such as Category:Peoples attributed with the Persian Gulf War (peoples?; attributed with or to?). Not sure if i'm stretching it here.

However, agree with Leonard.007, War is capitatilized as a name.

Side note, U.S. Congress never "officially" ended the 1990ish Persian Gulf War, so the current war, is still the same war, with different "cute" little phrases, "Desert Storm" "Desert Shield", etc.

- <>Who?¿? 04:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Even if the two America-vs-Iraq wars are considered one war (which most people do not), there were two earlier Iraq wars in history (one vs Iran ~1980, one vs England ~1930 iirc). Thus, whichever way you put it, Iraq war people is a misnomer. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At the very least, this category, at most, all subcats of Category:People associated with wars. They are all too broad, and as such, not of much use. --Kbdank71 14:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This could probably be solved with appropriate subcategories. – However...
  Delete as per Radiant!'s argument. — Sebastian (talk) 20:41, 2005 Jun 13 (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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename this category to Category:Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem to fit in with the main category of Christianity's Category:Eastern Orthodoxy. And, so as NOT to be confused with Judaism's Category:Orthodox Judaism. IZAK 06:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem; since when is 'patriarch' a proper noun? Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• rename as per radiant!. --Kbdank71 15:35, 13 Jun 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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename this category to Category:Eastern Orthodox Icons to fit in with the main category of Christianity's Category:Eastern Orthodoxy. And, so as NOT to be confused with Judaism's Category:Orthodox Judaism. IZAK 06:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox icons, but since when is 'icon' a proper noun? Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• rename as per radiant! --Kbdank71 15:40, 13 Jun 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.