Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20[edit]

Category:Single covers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Single covers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As far as fair use goes, there's no reason to differentiate between album and single covers. 17Drew 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drew. Category:Album covers, fed exclusively by {{Non-free album cover}}, is an administrative cat and doesn't need subdivision. This cat, by the way, is not template-fed. ×Meegs 10:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Meegs. We might also want to clarify at the cat and template that they apply to all audio recording release covers, not just album covers, despite their name. --PEJL 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PEJL. It's pointless starting another cat but we do need to clarify that album covers include the single covers, despite the name of the former cat. Bull Borgnine 01:28, 23 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hogwarts employees[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting Category:Hogwarts_employees
Nominator's rationale: This category is essentially fancruft, changes often and is essentially trivial. Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that characters are added in and out (including some users adding themselves or pals), whether or not they actually are employed at Hogwart's. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not fancruft as inclusion is sourceable to the books. There are only a limited number of articles for individual professors/staff. Still don't understand what "changes often" means - the only userpage inclusion is to a sandbox not the user's actual page. Wl219 07:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every character in a series of novels of films is going to get their own article, usually because they simply aren't notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of info, nor is it a directory of "lists or repostiories of loosely associated topics." This category is precisely that, and because it is additonally not an inclusive list of Hogwart's employees, it is crufty as all get-out. Coming and going, it's just bad. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this category a loose association? The articles in it are all Harry Potter characters (or lists of characters) who are professors/staff of Hogwarts. The individual character articles are notable characters, which is why they have individual articles. Using this category to organize them as a sub-cat of Category:Harry Potter characters is appropriate. Wl219 07:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is a useful subcategory of three legitimate parent categories. The notability requirements for individual HP characters have been debated and these ones have articles. The category should stay as long as the articles do, and I don't see them getting deleted. Postlebury 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Setting up such a category in the first place gives undue weight to characters that are background to the story. It's cruft and unnecessary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lockhart, Lupin, McGonagall, Hagrid, Quirrell, Slughorn, Snape, Trelawney, Dobby, and Umbridge are most definitely not background characters. Wl219 03:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in a very real way, they are. Look at the title of each of the books. It isn't called Hagrid and the Prsioner of Azkaban. Seriously, though, we KNOW these people are Hogwart's employees; there isn't a need to group them together. As well, they aren't the only ones on the list. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those arguing for deletion are engaging in one-dimensional thinking. This category serves a triple purpose as a subcategory of three disparate parent categories. Alex Middleton 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could avoid the passive-aggressive insults and explain the "triple purpose" in greater detail? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories are used to organize the articles that exist. If you think the articles should not exist, it is the articles that you should be nominating for deletion, not the category that holds them. If you manage to persuade the community to delete nearly all of the articles, then renominate the category afterwards - but it's a pretty safe assumption that you won't be able to. Perebourne 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. This subject is better covered in a list than in a category, because the list can indicate when those people entered (and left) employment at Hogwarts. >Radiant< 12:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We can add a list; but this is the claim to notability, such as it is, for most of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, being a character from the Harry Potter series is the claim to notability. Xtifr tälk 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Harry Potter characters, something that should be done with most of the subcategories of that category. This is blatant overcategorization. No objection to a list, but given the obsessive behavior some people are showing here, I'm amazed there aren't already several lists and half-a-dozen templates. Xtifr tälk 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection in principle, but I'm not sure that one cat of 150 is an improvement on a dozen cats of a dozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's a major improvement myself. I find collections of tiny subcategories hideously awkward to navigate in general. Especially when compared to a category of only 150; something I would consider a fairly smallish category as such things go. In addition, in this case, the subcategories require an inappropriate level of familiarity with the subject matter to be useful or meaningful. Wikipedia should be readily accessible to anyone, not just hard-core fans. Even for something as popular as HP. Xtifr tälk 23:55, 25 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category-Class[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename, to Category-class X pages. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match peers in Category:Category-Class articles. I wouldn't have capitalized Class, but I'm not about to advocate renaming all of those other cats. Note, these cats are each template-fed. ×Meegs 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't mind renaming to match the peers, but we use all lowercase "class" in the other assessment categories for WP:PLANTS and WP:CPS. Could we keep it the same with a "Category-class plant pages" and "Category-class carnivorous plant pages"? It's just an assessment category, anyway. --Rkitko (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films in the Criterion Collection[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting Category:Films in the Criterion Collection
Nominator's rationale: This category, or variations on it, was deleted twice in 2006 once on January 29th and again on September 28th. Discusions by the wikiproject films [1] have resulted in a delete based on the fact that it promotes one companies product and that there is a wikipedia page List of Criterion Collection releases for those that are interested in this subject. This is my first time of using this page if I have done anything in error, or if this should be done somewhere else please let me know. MarnetteD | Talk 19:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Jan 16, Sept 22, and Nov 16 ×Meegs 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually just go ahead and delete it didn't realize that this category was deleted twice. Just go ahead and remove it then. As the creator I will be fine with it - RedNeckIQ55
  • Delete for the Nth time. Carlossuarez46 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, there hasn't been a change in circumstance sine the last time this was deleted. Carlossuarez46 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, recreated contra three prior CFDs. This should be closed and the category cleared with no further discussion (I, however, am going to bed now...) Postdlf 05:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining/advertising. Postlebury 12:57, 21 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Conservatories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Conservatories to Category:Music schools
Nominator's rationale: Merge, and keep a redirect. This is essentially categorization by name, as it is simply a matter of chance whether or not the word "Conservatory", or a variant thereof, features in the name of a particular music school. Nathanian 18:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. Well said. There is no effective difference between an institution that calls itself a music school or a conservatory; College or university school of music shows various possible titles, which all boil down to the same thing. BencherliteTalk 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. Postlebury 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. Note also that the word conservatory is ambiguous, since it can also refer to a greenhouse. LeSnail 16:05, 23 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:A (band)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization for a musical group. Material does not warrant the category. Otto4711 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate organizational device. Golfcam 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent; navtemplates are much better suited for this. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason why this one should differ from all the rest deleted recently. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. --PEJL 04:05, 22 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Billy Graham[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billy Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently prominent and has sufficient articles. Golfcam 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment four of the articles were added following the nomination; there were only two, for Billy and Ruth, at that time. I would contend that even with the additional articles the category does not meet the exception laid out at WP:OC as coverage of Graham's life is not divided into numerous sub-articles that cannot be easily interlinked and otherwise categorized. The prominance of Graham is not relevant to whether he should have a category, as everyone with a Wikipedia article is supposed to be "prominent." Otto4711 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some people with articles are far more prominent than others, and it is simply intellectual gamesmanship to pretend otherwise. Nathanian 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, can you point out to me where "prominent" is recognized as an exception to the overcategorization guideline? For instance, Donald Trump is quite prominent and his category was deleted, because despite his prominence the category was not warranted for the material relating to him. Otto4711 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it currently stands it does not appear that this category is needed for navigating articles about the individual. His main article suffices for that purpose currently, so delete the eponymous category as per WP:OCAT. Note that "prominence" isn't relevant to the discussion. Dugwiki 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Look at the articles in the category. Some of the, just seem really odd to have "Billy Graham" as a category. This is overcategorization. This isn't about every prominent figure gets a category, but instead what is categorization supposed to accomplish. These aren't "key words" or word association. They are the most defining aspects of the articles. The most defining characteristics of "Christianity Today" is that it is an "American magazine" and a "Christian Magazine", not that it is a "Billy Graham".-Andrew c [talk] 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 03:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eponymous category. Wryspy 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "eponymous category" is an null argument, as it has long been established that such categories are valid parts of the category system. Postlebury 12:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. See WP:OCAT and many, many previous cfds for eponymous categories. Dugwiki 15:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCAT is a mere guideline, so anyone who disagrees with it is free to ignore it. Basically it was only created to provide spurious authority to deletionist arguments on this page, but they should stand and fall on their own merits in each case, just as inclusionist arguments are expected to. Using the so called guideline amounts to an attempt to manufacture a systemic bias towards deletion. Postlebury 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that comment reflects a misunderstanding of what guidelines represent. A guideline isn't just a personal essay or opinion piece. To quote Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines, "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus." In other words it's a document formed by editorial consensus which articles are expected to follow in most cases. Referring to a guideline is a way of saying "here is what most editors have agreed is appropriate, and rather than retype the same explanations over and over I will refer you to the document that explains it for me." Saying that you're "free to ignore a guideline" overlooks the consensus buidling aspect of guidelines and prior precedent in their enforcement. Dugwiki 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace by navbox or article text, per Otto & precedent. >Radiant< 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eponymous categories can be useful e.g. Category:John Peel, but this one does not add any navigational value. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Children of category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename and merge as nominated. the wub "?!" 12:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:
  • Rename—Child categories should be renamed to conform to the guidelines and be consistent with other related categories.
  • Merge—"Future armoured fighting vehicles" includes two articles, and should be merged into the renamed "Post-Cold War armoured fighting vehicles. This was discussed and meets consensus at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.
 —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 16:18 Z
  • [Note] I just remembered to post notices to the category pages to be changed now. —Michael Z. 2007-08-22 17:59 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Immanuel Velikovsky[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete per precedent and WP:OCAT, and to a lesser extent, Dugwiki --Kbdank71 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immanuel Velikovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category is serving as a catch-all for people who are to a greater or lesser degree associated with Velikovsky, usually in the context of being a critic but in some cases so nebulously that Velikovsky himself is not mentioned in the article. Velikovsky does not meet the exception set forth in the guideline in that coverage of his life is not split into multiple sub-articles and the material here that actually clearly relates to him is appropriately interlinked and categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you consider the characteristics of this specific category for a single nanosecond? Postlebury 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction - this probably is overcategorisation, but please don't overstate the case. Talking about "the exception set forth in the guideline" is simplifying the matter. That is an example of an exception, not the only exception. Sub-articles are one example of what you would find in an eponymous category. There are other examples. Take a look at Category:Alexander the Great. Arguably the following there are subpages: Alexander the Great's personal relationships, and Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great. But the net of an eponymous category is sometimes cast wider. Here we have: Alexander (film), Alexander Mosaic, Alexander Romance and Alexander in the Qur'an. These are effectively forming a topic category (I've also called this a portal category - imagine Portal:Alexander the Great cycling through these articles). The many "people associated with Alexander the Great" should probably be moved off into their own category, as they are overwhelming the main Category:Alexander the Great. If people are misunderstanding the overcategorisation suggestion to avoid eponymous categories as "delete all eponymous categories", then it needs clarification. I'll do that now. Getting back to Velikovsky, some of the critics probably should have a mention of him in their articles - if they are not mentioned, that is a reason to add a mention in the articles, not to remove them from the category! Don't assume a Wikipedia article is complete. For example, see my edit here. Also, consider that it could be simpler to rename the category to Category:Velikovskian studies, to encompass books and critics and scholars of Velikovsky's work (not that I am any great fan of Velikovsky, but he has attracted a lot of attention from both sides of the debate). Carcharoth 00:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Velikovskian studies. This might appear to be an eponymous category, but it is in fact a topic category, dealing with the topic of books and authors of studies concerning Velikovsky's theories. After renaming, the category may need slight adjustment to fit its new role. Carcharoth 00:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Velikovskian studies. This is a far better way to proceed, a highly controversial but influencial maverick. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Velikovskian studies per above. Postlebury 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't currently support the Category:Velikovskian studies idea I'm not sure I yet support the idea for Category:Velikovskian studies due to some questions. First, how do you objectively identify which articles actually belong to that category? There is no Velikovskian studies article, for example, or any indication that it is an accepted academic term. Also it seems to me quite likely that academics will run the spectrum from studying just a little bit of Velikovsky's works to studying him as a primary focus to specialization. It's a bit like actors and films - actors will appear in all sorts of films and all sorts of genres, so we don't categorize actors by what films they appear in or what directors or production companies they've worked with due to the great amount of crossover. I would think that historians are similar, studying a wide variety of fields and topics. If you were to start labelling individual historians with unique topics for every possible major topic they've studied, it would probably become a huge clutter.
So given that there's no actual associated main article for Velikovskian studies and the inclusion criteria for such a category seems nebulous, I'd advise against it and lean toward simply deleting this eponymous category. If these individuals actually siginificantly discuss his work, then Velikovsky's article will appear in their articles and their names should probably appear in his either under "critics" or "see also". Articles which don't even mention Velikovsky should be removed entirely from the category if it were even kept. Dugwiki 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try Googling for "Velikovskian studies"? It is certainly used in academic papers. As for the articles, we have: "[Kronos] was "founded, with no apologies, to deal with Velikovsky's work""; "a special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée produced to "encourage continuing critical analysis of all questions raised by Velikovsky's work""; "a membership-based organization "formed in 1974 in response to the growing interest in the works of modern catastrophists, notably the highly controversial Dr Immanuel Velikovsky""; "Talbott was one of several scholars who had "entered the full stream of Velikovsky's work""; "now a prolific critic of controversial writer Immanuel Velikovsky"; ""That Immanuel Velikovsky remained so long a public figure is arguable due to the efforts of Alfred de Grazia in the 1960s". These are all obviously responses to Velikovsky. William Comyns Beaumont is tricky, because he preceded Velikovsky: "Beaumont was an eccentric with several unusual beliefs, many of which were later mirrored by Immanuel Velikovsky's works." Please, Google, read around the subject, read the articles, several of which are well-referenced, and then see what you think. There is ample precedence for categories covering areas of academic study, response and continuing legacy. See Category:Shakespeare academia, as I pointed out, and Category:Holocaust studies for another example. Carcharoth 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against academic study category in general, per se. But there needs to be something that editors can refer to to objectively decide if an article belongs in the category. "Google around" isn't a viable option. Now it's quite possible that a good definition that can be used for category inclusion can be constructed from the sources you mentioned that appear in the google searches, but I think that definition needs to be put down in some form within Wikipedia so we can actually reference it.
Also note that even if the term is used, it still might be something that is either too subjective or not defining enough for academics to be useful as a method of categorization. For example, the phrase Cult film is a commonly used phrase with some subjective meaning, and the study of Cult Films is a reasonable area. But Category:Cult Films was deleted because of the overly subjective nature of trying to identify when specific films should be labelled as having cult status.
So I'm not dismissing the idea of the studies category completely and forever. I'm just saying I think it needs some clarification and a supporting article or article section before I can support it. Dugwiki 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Velikovskian studies and criticism. Carcharoth is very much on the right track with his proposal and supporting arguments. I think adding the word "criticism" rounds out the scope of the category and serves to lessen the burden on the specific term "Velikovskian studies". Cgingold 12:17, 23 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Late Night Poker series winners[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Late Night Poker series winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for a cancelled TV poker series with no chance for expansion. There are dozens if not hundreds of poker tournaments out there and this one was in no way so major or defining as to warrant separate categorization for the winners. Otto4711 14:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- it's not that small really (6 members), and seems like it might be a valuable subcat of Category:Poker players. There are many other such poker winner categories. LeSnail 16:12, 23 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:David Guetta[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:David Guetta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception for an eponymous article. Otto4711 13:24, 20 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress
Nominator's rationale: Merge, This category level is superfluous. It only contains three subcats and nothing else. The subcats would become subcats of the higher-up category. In effect, just move them all up a notch. Thus, Category:U.S. Congress articles by importance, Category:U.S. Congress articles by quality, and Category:U.S. Congress articles by subject would all become subcats of Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress. —Markles 10:57, 20 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Afghanistani people by occupation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Already deleted by User:After Midnight. Non-admin closure. Metropolitan90 05:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghanistani people by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Afghan people by occupation, convention of Category:Afghan people. It is my understanding that citizens of Afghanistan are Afghan people, not Afghanistani people, and that Afghan people are not the same as Pashtun people. -- Prove It (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These Afghan categories are being emptied and moved without discussion. --musicpvm 05:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Besides all the dicitionaries, government sources and media of the world, Chapter 1, Article 4, of the Constitution of Afghanistan clearly states that regardless of what ethnic group they belong to, all citizens of Afghanistan shall be called "Afghan".[2]Mirrori1 01:21, 21 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UFO religions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was The result was nomination withdrawn. SefringleTalk 07:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UFO religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What is a UFO religion? There isn't even a wikipedia article on the topic, so this category is undefined. Who is to say what is and what isn't a UFO religion? And most importantly what dose it mean to be a UFO religion? SefringleTalk 05:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an article at UFO religion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This looks like a perfectly valid category to me. I've just added a link to the main article & a one-sentence definition (taken from the intro). I wonder if perhaps Sefringle might want to withdraw the nomination, given that he hadn't noticed the main article? Cgingold 12:02, 23 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dartmouth College trustees[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and listify, non-defining characteristic. NB, the cat's current entries already listified at the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dartmouth College trustees to Category:Trustees of Dartmouth College
Nominator's rationale: This is the proper formulation of the group's name. Dartmouth College is officially incorporated as "The Trustees of Dartmouth College." [3] Dylan 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Golfcam 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. The trustees of a college are rather like a board of directors of a corporation, many people sit on multiple boards and we don't need to clutter up bios with every affiliation the person has. There will no doubt be a link where it is mentioned that the individual is a member of such-and-such board and anyone interested in who else is on that board can click that link for a list. Carlossuarez46 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, this isn't a deletion debate. If you feel strongly about it, nominate it after this discussion is over, but for the time being, it's just about renaming. Dylan 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • au contraire - we're discussing the fate of the category renaming is one possibility, deletion another, no action a third. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per Carlossuarez. It is quite common for articles nominated for renaming to end up deleted and vice versa. When a category is bad is one way, it is often bad in others. LeSnail 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Carlos is right, people often sit on the boards of many corporations and organizations, and it is not a defining characteristic. ×Meegs 13:37, 25 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's baseball players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename, per nomination. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's baseball players to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets baseball players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In U.S. college sports, baseball is exclusively a men's sport (although women can theoretically play). Women play softball, specifically the fast-pitch version, instead of baseball in intercollegiate competition. This change also matches other school categories under Category:College baseball players. Dale Arnett 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – that GT doesn't have a women's team is enough for that. Also, it looks like Dale is correct in general: I can't find any evidence of intercollegiate women's baseball in the U.S., though it does exist in Canada and Australia. It does look like the U.S. had it decades ago, though. [4] ×Meegs 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom. Onnaghar tl | co 12:39, 20 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's golf players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's golf players to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's golfers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The standard term in English for players of golf is "golfers". Dale Arnett 03:57, 20 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Afghanistani singers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge, same reason as Afghan musicians below. --Kbdank71 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Afghanistani singers to Category:Afghan singers
  • Merge per nom. Besides all the dictionaries, government sources, media reports of the world as well as every single Afghan website, Chapter 1, Article 4, of the Constitution of Afghanistan explicitly states that regardless of whatever ethnic group they belong to, all the citizens of Afghanistan shall be called "Afghan".[5] user: beh-nam, please do not remove my posts from here again or i will report you to an administrator.Mirrori1 01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The origin of the word 'Afghan' means 'Pashtun' and they will always be synonymous with one another. The majority of people in Afghanistan are not Afghan/Pashtun. At the present time 'Afghanistani' is the only identity that is fair and representative. The majority of these singers are not Afghan/Pashtun and the singers sing in Farsi, not in Pashto which is the language of Afghans/Pashtuns. --Benafsha 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is not about what the word "afghan" means, it is about using the proper name for the people of afghanistan. calling the people of afghanistan as "afghanistanis" is like trying to make fun of them because they take pride in their name as "afghan", in some cases you can get yourself killed in afghanistan if you call them this name. all the citizens of afghanistan have been called "afghans" for 1,000s of years. if the word "afghan" refered to ethnic pashtuns only, then consider that the nation of pakistan has about 28 million ethnic pashtuns, which makes it more than the entire ethnic pashtuns of afghanistan, but the pashtuns of pakistan are not called "afghans", they are called pakistanis because they are citizens of pakistan and the term used for the citizens of pakistan is "pakistani". if you call the people of pakistan as "pakis" or "paks", they take that very offensive, like making fun of them and for that reason they will attack you. i am an expert on this subject that's why i cam to comment here. some of these users such as beh-nam, anoshirawan, annonymous IP address and new user accounts are enemies of afghanistan, beh-nam lives in canada, anoshirawan lives in germany, trust me i've been tracking them to see what they're upto, and all they are upto is spreading iranian propaganda, they think afghanistan will soon become partitioned and northern parts of the country will become parts of iran, or become indepenent, which is impossible due to religious and economic reasons. these enemies of afghanistan are also trying to spread propaganda that ethnic pashtuns are minority in the country, not realizing that pashtuns are the majority. the afghan elections were the more accurate way to determine the census of afghanistan because every ethnic group voted for their leader and hamid karzai, who is ethnic pashtun, won with 55% votes, second place was yonus qanooni, who is ethnic tajik, with 16%. i'm not forcing you to believe this but this is the more logical way to know information about afghanistan. the parliament has over 220 seats filled by ethnic pashtuns and they did not force their way there, there was a nationwide election held, which was closely monitored by usa and european government and ngo workers. the governors of almost every province are ethnic pashtuns, the entire country is ruled by ethnic pasthuns, even the major businessmen are ethnic pashtuns. the bottom line is Afghan people is what all the afghans living in afghanistan want to be called, if you call them afghanistani, there is a chance you can get yourself in trouble if you are in afghanistan.Mirrori1 11:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afghan has always been a term used for Pashtuns and in Afghanistan the majority still refer to Pashtuns as "Awghans" "Awgho" or "Afghan". Afghanistani is a National Identity while Afghan is an ethnic identity. In other discussions you claim Pakistani Pashtuns are "Afghans" and now you are tellign us non pashtuns are also Afghan. "Afghan" cannot serve as a National Identity and an Ethnic Identity at the same time. Most countries that end in "istan" use this concept, for example in Tajikistan we have ethnic Tajiks but the non Tajiks use Tajikistani or in Uzbekistan we have ethnic uzbeks but the non uzbeks refer themselves as Uzbekistan...etc. The term "Afghan" is in the Constitution but the majority still doesnt agree with it and this debate is going on in Afghanistan since the constitution got ratified. Please stop making this discussion personal. Pashtuns are a minority in Afghanistan.Majority means one more than half. The elections were not accurate and if Karzai was an ethnic Pashtun his two running mates were also influencial non pashtuns. Many Hazaras and Tajiks in the northern and central provinces voted for karzai. The Parliamentary elections were also biased. for example, kuchis have 12 representatives while kapisa + parwan + panjsher only have 10. Kuchi representatives were selected not elected. Afghanistan is a country made of ethnic minorities But has a Persian speaking Majority.--Anoshirawan 12:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the pashtuns of pakistan were afghans before the 1893 Durand Line, they are pakistanis for the time being, and they may be afghans again if their territory becomes part of afghanistan again or remain pakistanis if they remain with being part of pakistan, it's their choice. the more you proceed with your arguments over this issue, the more you expose to readers your personal views, which are completely wrong. i really don't care if wikipedia labels the people of afghanistan as afghanistanis, it does not affect me in any way. everybody who use wikipedia check for sources to make sure that the information is from official sources. no government, media or school of any country will ever rely on wikipedia's information because they would first check the official websites from afghanistan when doing any country or people research. you and your buddy take wikipedia as if it is the ultimate official source of information, and that if you change "afghan" to "afghanistani" here then it will spread to all the other websites online. wikipedia is just a starting point to do search, it's like a search engine or free encylopedia. the information is not that important, the more important place to look in articles is the external links, where you see links to official websites with related topics. i am just trying to solve this problem by providing to you and others information that you might not have come across. please do not explain to me about which ethnic group make up the majority or which group make up the minority, i know where to get my information from. afghanistan is made up of pashtun, tajik, hazara, uzbek, aimaq, baloch, pashai, nuristani, and several other groups, the group with higher numbers is pashtun. the others are not one group for you to say that majority are persian speakers because persian speaker is not an ethnic group. i've travelled all over afghanistan and i noticed that about every 1 hour you drive on any highway or road, the language changes, meaning there are many many different languages in afghanistan. there are small very old style shops by the side of the major highways about every half hour, people stop there to buy snacks or drinks, and when you talk with the shop owners you notice the language changes. i wish you also travel to afghanistan one day and see things for yourself instead of relying on your thoughts about the country. you are too used to thinking like a westerner, assuming that every part of the country you travel to people there will speak the same language. you are right that some tajiks, uzbeks and hazaras from the northern part of the country view pashtuns as "afghans", while seeing their selves as tajiks, uzbeks or hazaras. however, you are not speaking for all the tajiks, uzbeks and hazaras because most of those groups disagree with the northerners' thinking. i've heard some pashtuns say that only they are afghans, and that tajiks, hazaras and others are not. they are also wrong, and the reason they say that is to make fun of tajiks, hazaras and others as to express their views that tajiks, hazaras and others are not afghan nationals but from tajikistan, uzbekistan and elsewhere. if you are from afghanistan, then you are supporting them by not accepting "afghan" as your nationality. anyway, from my own experiance of afghanistan, there is no such ethnical problem within the country, i've seen every city as ethnically mixed and everyone were enjoying their lives.Mirrori1 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are not Pashtun ethnic categories, they are country based. -- 70.51.11.204 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom into Afghan singers, certainly not into Pashtun singers. -- Prove It (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Afghan" is ambiguous, while "Afghanistani" is not. All these categories should be at "Afghanistani X". Golfcam 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ethnic Afghans are Pashtuns, which make up 37-42% of Afghanistan. Most of these singers are not ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns), most singers in Afghanistan are ethnic Tajiks from Afghanistan, a non-ethnic Afghan (and/or anyone) from Afghanistan would be an Afghanistani. --Behnam 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's no such thing as "Ethnic Afghans" -- "Afghan" is a reference to nationality. Cgingold 23:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet - We should go by the more accurate term as we have for Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and all the other "istans". --Behnam 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mirrori1. The demonym for people from Afghanistan is "Afghan", not "Afghanistani". --Metropolitan90 05:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mirrori1 and Metropolitan90. As others have ably pointed out, Afghanistani isn't the preferred term, nor is it widely used. In my experience it's occasionally used by non-Afghans -- but I've never heard anybody from Afghanistan refer to themself as "Afghanistani". Cgingold 23:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is lots of people that call themselves Afghanistani. I am such person since I am not an ethnic Afghan (Pashtun) but I am from Afghanistan. Afghanistani is the proper term but some non ethnic-Afghans might call themselves Afghan for short (like calling a Pakistani person "Paki"), but the correct term is Afghanistani. --Behnam 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - funny, i've checked your history and saw that you were calling your self user:tajik-afghan (click on the name and it will redirect to user:beh-nam), since you just lied to us, why should we believe you? please don't be fooled by couple of these anti-afghans, they are fooling you and you people are falling for their game. check every singer of afghanistan to see what ethnic they belong to and make sure you verify the source to see if somebody did not juse place their POV. these editors, users: beh-nam and anoshirawan want to start edit war with the people of afghanistan.Mirrori1 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cross-cat if necessary; a singer can have multiple cats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
  • Oppose The term Afghan is understod within Afghanistan as reffering to the Pashtun ethnic group, and this is especially apparent amongst the music. The term Afghan as it is promoted by some people within Afghanistan as refereing was a tool for the Pashtunising of that land to the discrimination of the native majority Farsi culture. Afghanistani although not going far enough is a term which makes an attempt to compromise against the fallacy of the term Afghan, hence this music tab should be kept as Afghanistani.
When voting please provide an informed reason or please do not vote at all. --Behnam 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Afghanistani is a National Identity while Afghan is an Ethnic Identity which is synonymous with Pashtun. most of these singers and musicians arent ethnic Afghans but Tajiks,uzbeks,hazaras...etc. Afghanistani is an accepted term inside Afghanistan today and it should be used on wikipedia. --Anoshirawan 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve -- Preserve the name "Afghanistani singers". When I first saw Behnam using Afghanistani instead of Afghan I asked some questions, frankly expecting him or her to realize they had made an honest mistake, and reverse their position. What I found instead were reasoned arguments, and examples, and I was convinced. Although I have done a lot of reading about Afghanistan over the last two years, I am not a citizen or resident of Afghanistan, I speak none of the languages of Afghanistan, and I don't know any citizens of Afghanistan. There is no way I am going to put my "common knowledge" of what Afghan means against that of someone with direct personal knowledge of the region.
    • Worth bearing in mind that the wikipedia is a worldwide effort. There are situations like Duetchland/Germany, where, for historical reasons, we should stick with the incorrect English name. But, when there is no huge inertia for the wrong name, why shouldn't we use the right name?
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just wanted to say that Afghan is an ethnicity and where I come from, we only call pashtuns "Afghan. Afghanistani is a better term and I support it--Sasansamani 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - [same as below] As much as I would like to, I don't know how to resolve this to the satisfaction of all parties. If the only issue was the personal experience/knowledge of our fellow editors Behnam, Anoshirawan, and Sasansamani, and others who have lived in that part of the world, the solution would undoubtedly be a lot easier to agree on. The problem here, as several editors including myself have argued, is that in the English-speaking world, the accepted and by far the most widely used term is "Afghan", whereas "Afghanistani" is only infrequently encountered. The disparity in usage is extreme, as illustrated by two pairs of Google searches: 1) Total: 551,000 English pages for "Afghan people", versus 869 English pages for "Afghanistani people"; 2) Within Wikipedia: 474 English pages from en.wikipedia.org for "Afghan people", versus 4 English pages from en.wikipedia.org for "Afghanistani people". I really don't see how we can just ignore that clear-cut preference for "Afghan" over "Afghanistani". Cgingold 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On Wikipedia we do not use the most common name, we use the correct and full name. For example for the poet most commonly known to the West as Rumi, we have his full and correct name as Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi. This is the convention here on Wikipedia and we should apply it in this case. -- Behnam 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeThe term Afghan does not correlate with many different ethnic groups who call Afghanistan their home. Afghan is misnormer for a citizen of Afghanistan since only a minority ethinc group is identified by it within the country. Its generally accepted that the term Afghan or some also pronounce it as "Awghan" means Pashtun in our country. Therefore, Afghanistani is a more suitable term to be used, when one wants to refer to a citizen of the country or anything else that is identified with Afghanistan. --24.193.134.129 08:26, 25 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Afghanistani musicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated. Also, Afghanistan shows a demonym of Afghan, Afghan is used throughout WP to denote the people of Afghanistan, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_27#Afghan_people. --Kbdank71 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Afghanistani musicians to Category:Afghan musicians
Nominator's rationale: Both of these categories were originally located at "Category:Afghan (occupation)", but the original categories seem to have been blanked, emptied, and moved by User:Beh-nam without discussion. They should be merged back for consistency with Category:Afghan people by occupation and its other subcategories. Also see 2007 July 27 discussion. musicpvm 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not finished with the full move yet. I am also moving the Category:Afghan people by occupation category. The reason for this is that Afghan is mysnomer and is not representative for the entire country. Afghan is a synonym for Pashtun, and for exmaple the Uzbeks are not Afghans though they are from Afghanistan ie Afghanistani. Likewise with music, food, people, etc. I am in the process of moving these categories fully. It does take time since I haven't figured out AWB yet, please be patient. --Behnam 03:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to manually move categories without discussion; it is against policy to empty and move categories without following the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --musicpvm 06:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, yes. But in general (ignoring the case here) if you restructure an obscure area of the category system, and it looks good, only a pedant would kick up a fuss. If someone objects, then yes, take it to CfD. Carcharoth 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The origin of the word 'Afghan' means 'Pashtun' and they will always be synonymous with one another. The majority of people in Afghanistan are not Afghan/Pashtun. At the present time 'Afghanistani' is the only identity that is fair and representative. The majority of these singers are not Afghan/Pashtun and the singers sing in Farsi, not in Pashto which is the language of Afghans/Pashtuns. --Benafsha 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are not Pashtun ethnic categories, they are country based. -- 70.51.11.204 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These are Afghan people, not Pashtun people. -- Prove It (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no such article as Afghan people, please actually read those two articles and it will be explained that ethnic Afghans are Pashtuns, and that non-Pashtuns are not ethnic Afghans. Afghan includes 37-42% of Afghanistan, Afghanistani includes 100% of Afghanistan's people. So obviously we should choose a term that includes 100% of the population as opposed to 42%. In addition, most of these musicians are not ethnic Afghans. --Behnam 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Afghan people article was redirected to Demographics of Afghanistan by somebody in the past. Afghan people is the only accurate term used by the government of Afghanistan (see paragraph 7 where it mentiones Afghan people at Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan).Mirrori1 15:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment This constitution was created 3 years ago, prior to that Afghan was Pashtun and Pashtun was Afghan. Uzbeks would have Uzbek on their passport, Tajiks would have Tajik, only Pashtuns and even Pashtuns of Pakistan would have Afghan. That is only for 3 years (since 2004) and it could change soon anyway. --Behnam 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are wrong, every constitution of afghanistan ONLY has "afghan" written for the entire people of that country. according to the Constitution of Afghanistan (1990), CHAPTER THREE -- CITIZENSHIP, BASIC RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS -- ARTICLE THIRTY THREE: EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAVING CITIZENSHIP OF THE REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW SHALL BE CALLED AFGHAN. check the remaining constitutions if you have time, Constitution of Afghanistan (1987), Constitution of Afghanistan (1976), Constitution of Afghanistan (1964), Constitution of Afghanistan (1923). just give up your silly propaganda, you are giving a bad name to other ethnic tajiks, as most tajiks are proud to call themselves "afghans", and you were one of those user:tajik-afghan before january 2007.Mirrori1 13:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom. Onnaghar tl | co 12:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ethnic Afghans are Pashtuns, which make up 37-42% of Afghanistan. Most of these musicians are not ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns). Most singers in Afghanistan are ethnic Tajiks from Afghanistan, a non-ethnic Afghan (and/or anyone) from Afghanistan would be an Afghanistani.
  • Merge per nom. Besides all the dictionaries, government sources and media reports of the world, Chapter 1, Article 4, of the Constitution of Afghanistan clearly states that regardless of what ethnic group they belong to, all citizens of Afghanistan shall be called "Afghan".[6]Mirrori1 01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - We should go by the more accurate term as we have for Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and all the other "istans". --Behnam 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pakistan was created as a nation in 1947, a nation made up of punjabis, pashtuns, sindhis, baloch, kashmiris, and many others, the people of that country decided to call themselves "pakistanis" and nobody is against it. uzbekistan and tajikistan were created as nations in 1992, the people of those countries decided to call themselves uzbekistanis and tajikistanis because they could not call themselves uzbeks or tajiks as that would have included uzbeks and tajiks of afghanistan, china and elswhere. if they called themselves uzbeks and tajiks, then all the uzbeks and tajiks of afghanistan, china and other places would be counted as nationals or citizens of uzbekistan and tajikistan. so for that reason they made different names such as uzbekistanis and tajikistanis, to refer to the citizens or nationals of those 2 countries ONLY. on the other hand, the people of turkmenistan are not called turkmenistanis but rather turkmen ONLY.Mirrori1 13:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mirror1. The demonym for people from Afghanistan is "Afghan", not "Afghanistani". --Metropolitan90 05:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mirror1. It is simply not true that "Afghan is a synonym for Pashtun". This is pushing one individual's POV. As I said above, "Afghan" is a reference to nationality -- there is no such thing as "Afghan" ethnicity. All of the various ethnic groups within Afghanistan are Afghans. That is their nationality. Cgingold 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How would you know there is no such thing as "Afghan ethnicity"? First read the Origins of the name Afghan and the Pashtun people article before assuming that. Pashtuns of Pakistan get free passports that says "Afghan" on it and in the past Uzbeks passport would say Uzbek. You can also use Afghanistani and it is more correct since Afghan is a synonym for Pashtun. Please be informed about these terms before commenting! --Behnam 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is another lie by user: beh-nam, there is no such thing as "afghan" being written on pakistani passports. since 2003, pakistan has issued computerized national ID cards to every citizen of that country, it's similar as western ID cards, there are no "punjabi", "pashtun", "baloch", "Sindhi", "kashmiris" written on these ID cards. the pakistani passports also do not have any ethnic names on them, all it says is the province where the individual is from. the only pakistani document that has "afghan" written on is refugee cards that pakistan's government issued to afghan nationals living in pakistan. afghanistan just began computerized ID card system in kabul, and the cards uses "afghan" as citizen of afghanistan, the issuing of these cards will begin in the rest of the provinces of the country in the very near future. why are some people still pushing their POV when they are 100% wrong?Mirrori1 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose this. Afghanistani is a Nationality while Afghan serves as an ethnic identity. Most singers from Afghanistan are non afghan and they cannot be labelled Afghan but Afghanistani. Afghan has always meant Pashtun and the vast majority in Afghanistan still use it for Pashtuns. --Anoshirawan 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, explain in cat, and make Pashtun musicians a subcat. This is the English adjective for the nationality; there's no reason not to cross-cat to Hazara musicians if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Instead of making a category for a misnomer and then making categories for each group we should just make one group for all the ethnic groups and use the correct term Afghanistani. It makes much more sense. --Behnam 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Afghanistani is a National Identity while Afghan is an Ethnic Identity which is synonymous with Pashtun. most of these singers and musicians arent ethnic Afghans but Tajiks,uzbeks,hazaras...etc. Afghanistani is an accepted term inside Afghanistan today and it should be used on wikipedia. --Anoshirawan 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is a complete lie to say that most of the afghan singers are tajiks, uzbeks, hazaras, especially uzbeks and hazaras looooooool, name one hazara or uzbek singer, looooool. almost all afghan singers are well known as ethnic pashtun singers, just few example, Nashenas, Naghma, farhad Darya, Noor Muhammad Katwazi, Khayal Muhammad, Shahwali, Gulzar Alam, Rafiq Shinwari, Habib Qaderi, Noor Muhammad Kochi, Ustad Sarahang, Ahmad Zahir, Ahmad Wali, Khattak and many many more.Mirrori1 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per also Mirror 1--JForget 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term Afghan is an ethnic name which is exclusive to the Pashtun ethnic group, the non Pashtuns of Afghanistan are not called Afghan. So, when refering to musicians of Afghanistan - the correct grammitical and anthropoligical term in this day is Afghanistani - as it denotes belonging to the geographic entity of Afghanistan as opposed to the Afghan ethnic group. A good example of the fact that Afghan is an ethnic term refering to Pashtuns exclusivesly is the fact that the Pashtuns of Pakistan are refered to as Afghans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FlyingPhonex (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Preserve -- I offered my reasoning for using the wording "Afghanistani" above -- same arguments apply here.
  • Oppose I just wanted to say that Afghan is an ethnicity and where I come from, we only call pashtuns "Afghan. Afghanistani is a better term and I support it--Sasansamani 07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you are obviously depriving tajiks, hazaras, uzbeks, baloch, and other citizens of afghanistan from their nationlity by stating that these groups are not afghans.Mirrori1 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As much as I would like to, I don't know how to resolve this to the satisfaction of all parties. If the only issue was the personal experience/knowledge of our fellow editors Behnam, Anoshirawan, and Sasansamani, and others who have lived in that part of the world, the solution would undoubtedly be a lot easier to agree on. The problem here, as several editors including myself have argued, is that in the English-speaking world, the accepted and by far the most widely used term is "Afghan", whereas "Afghanistani" is only infrequently encountered. The disparity in usage is extreme, as illustrated by two pairs of Google searches: 1) Total: 551,000 English pages for "Afghan people", versus 869 English pages for "Afghanistani people"; 2) Within Wikipedia: 474 English pages from en.wikipedia.org for "Afghan people", versus 4 English pages from en.wikipedia.org for "Afghanistani people". I really don't see how we can just ignore that clear-cut preference for "Afghan" over "Afghanistani". Cgingold 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On Wikipedia we do not use the most common name, we use the correct and full one. For example for the poet most commonly known to the West as Rumi, we have his full and correct name as Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi. This is the convention here on Wikipedia and we should apply it in this case. -- Behnam 14:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeThe term Afghan does not correlate with many different ethnic groups who call Afghanistan their home. Afghan is misnormer for a citizen of Afghanistan since only a minority ethinc group is identified by it within the country. Its generally accepted that the term Afghan or some also pronounce it as "Awghan" means Pashtun in our country. Therefore, Afghanistani is a more suitable term to be used, when one wants to refer to a citizen of the country or anything else that is identified with Afghanistan. --24.193.134.129 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
many 100s of years ago, persians decided to call the pashtun people "afghans", not sure for what reason. the pashtuns liked the name and used it as a nationality term, meaning that wherever they settled they called that territory as "afghanistan" (land of the afghans). in 1747, the modern nation of afghanistan began to be created and all those living within this nation were called "afghans", including pashtun, tajiks, hazaras, uzbeks, aimaqs, pashais, baloch and others. if the persians, many 100s of years ago, called the pashtuns as "afghans" for humour reasons, then the joke is now on persians, and because of this reason the persians do not like to be called "afghans".Mirrori1 16:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many ways to oppress people. One way is by taking away their identity. Afghanistan as a country of different ethnicities has always seemed to be troubled with its identities, yet another taboo topic amongst the people. The threat of being called a “traitor” and a “foreigner” hangs over those who dare tread upon the topic of national identity. For the longest time, the term “Afghan” has been pushed upon every ethnic group of Afghanistan and for years, that is what Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmans, and other non-Pashtuns were known by the rest of the world. Today, however, it needs to be made clear that “Afghan” is not the rightful national identity for the country.The history behind the word “Afghan” is disputable due to various sources of where it originated from. However, one thing is clear: “Afghan” has always been synonymous with Pashtun. Writers and travelers to and from the country have stated that the word “Afghan” was always used to distinguish between the Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns such as the Tajiks, Hazaras, etc. The name of country is believed to have been given by the British when they first invaded the country in the 19th Century. The areas that they encountered were predominantly Pashtun and since they knew “Afghan” as synonymous with “Pashtun” they therefore erroneously declared the entire country as “Land of the Afghan” or “Afghanistan.” And even though the majority of Afghanistan isn’t even Afghans, the name has stuck since then.Before the invention of the “Afghanistan,” the land used to be known as other names: Ariana and Khorasan, with the most recent being Khorasan. The region was called Khorasan for 1500 years and the name was fairer and represented the state as well as the people better. It clearly doesn’t favor one ethnicity over another. As Khorasan, the region was once an advancing civilization and embodied many ethnicities. However, as the Pashtun nomads entered and invaded the regions, they scattered and spread over, imposing their existence as well as a need for a country.Now, it doesn’t take a Ph.D.—self-taught or not—to figure out that those events were not just. And no matter what changes the country and the people have gone through, the term “Afghan” is not a legitimate one. Tajiks and Hazaras and Uzbeks and other non-Pashtuns were never and will never be Afghan. When the literal term of a word obviously means something you are not why would you be crazy enough to fight for the right to be called one? By non-Pashtuns adamantly choosing to call themselves Afghan just because they want peace and quiet, they are inadvertently throwing their rights and their heritage away. Losing your identity as a Hazara or a Tajik, Uzbek, or Turkman, you are being oppressed and your heritage and history is being rewritten to those who crawled out of the Suleiman Mountains. When you don’t even speak the language of an Afghan (supposedly Pashto) then why call yourself one? There are a lot of people that will threaten you if you refuse to call yourself an Afghan when you aren’t one. They will call you a “traitor” or “foreigner” and try to get the mass against you. There is a full culture and history behind the names of “Tajik” and “Hazara,” etc. When the world thinks of “Afghans” hardly anything good will come to mind. It is often associated with the horrors of Ahmad Shah Abdali, pedophilia, the Taliban, and now drug dealers. Though there are some bad within non-Pashtuns, they, however, have contributed greatly to the world and to civilization. When you begin to associate yourself with what you rightfully are, you will see just how rich your past is. Rumi, Avicenna, Sa’adi, they were not Afghans and would never have called themselves one.When the slaves were brought from Africa to America, the first thing the enslavers did was change the names of the slaves because they knew that was the only way to completely rid them of their identity and utterly deter them. They knew it would give them total control over them and help their oppression because they weren’t even allowed their own natural, rightful names. During the Holocaust, the Nazis took away the names and identity of the Jews and just replaced them with numbers because they knew it was a way to dehumanize them. Taking away someone’s name and identity is the surest way to destroy them as a people. Every evildoer has known this.The national identity is constantly surrounded by lies and deceit. Pashto is trying to be pushed upon those who have no need for it, the word Afghan is insisted upon even though the majority of Afghanistan isn’t even Pashtun. Afghans have always and will always be known as Pashtuns only. A Tajik and an Uzbek and other non-Pashtuns are separate and they should be known as separate. When this comes to light, only then will the people be able to gain the rest of their rights. Only then will the name of the country be forced to change because it isn’t a fair representation of the majority of the people. The people who don’t wish to call themselves Afghan are not trying to start trouble. Instead, they have opened their eyes and trying to open the eyes of others to the mistake and the lie that has covered the entire people. Issues like these need to be discussed because even though they might seem minor, they are in fact major. If the name non-Pashtuns choose to call themselves isn’t such a “big deal” then why are people trying so hard to fight those that decline the name Afghan?--Anoshirawan 05:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
exactly what i thought, you are a proven enemy of afghanistan, a term which is now used by the afghan government. in every country if someone is anti-state, they are considered traitors and they usually can face the death penalty. lets look at another issue, if tajiks have a nation (tajikistan), uzbeks have a nation (uzbekistan), turkmen have a nation (turkmenistan), pakistanis have pakistan, iranians have iran, baloch will someday have their nation (balochistan), so you are saying that the afghans should have no nation to their name? i find this very very unfair. the term afghan does not apply to ethnic pashtuns, it applies to people of many different ethnics who live accordingly to the afghan way of life, which is slighty different from the lifestyles of persians, central asians, and south asians. let me teach you some about AFGHAN and AFGHANISTAN, the term "afghan" has always refered to a brave and multi-ethnic (mixed) individual that keeps the conservative afghan traditions. all afghans are a mix of pashtun, persian, turk, indian, arab, mongol, others. why do you follow what westerners say or think about "afghan" or "afghanistan"? if you are from afghanistan then you should know your own self more than the westerners. what do westerners know about life of the afghans when everything is kept secret? mullah nas'rdeen would do such thing, and you should have used mullah nas'rdeen as your user name. the name "afghanistan" was not made by westerners but rather by the afghan people. it was first suggested to call it "pashtunistan" but then it was agreed by all different ethnics to call it afghanistan (a very old name which was used for the territory that included people of many different ethnics or religious followers). there are books with the name "afghanistan" written in them since the 1st century, when invaders came in the area. every person who visited afghanistan wrote articles on the land, and most of these works are kept in musuems. you are partially correct about khorasan, only the cities of herat and balkh were at one point or another recognized as khorasan, the capital of afghanistan is not herat or balkh. when the mongols entered afghanistan in the 13th century, the entire persian population was whiped out by the mongol armies, they only wanted to kill persians for personal reasons, many parts of the land became emptied from people and the fertiled areas where people lived turned to deserts. the pashtun population grew rapidly to northern areas of afghanistan after that period, many turks, mongols and the remaining persians began mixing with pashtuns and they all lost their true identity so they all became to be called "afghans". this is why you see afghans sometimes switch, because they don't know which is their true ethnicity. today, most afghans look at the language to determine who is who. if one speaks farsi, then he is labelled as farsiwan and if another afghan speaks in pashtu language, he is immediatly considered as ethnic pashtun. in comparing afghanistan with the united states, i cannot view ethnic tajiks, uzbeks and hazaras as african-americans because these groups were not brought to afghanistan as slaves. i view tajiks, uzbeks and hazaras as mexican-americans who are wanting to claim that the state of texas, arizona, and california are their land, that white-americans invaded and took the land from them. there are some mexican-americans who do not like calling themselves "americans", even when they are natural born citizens of america, many of them rather call themselves "chicanos" which is like an ethnic name. these chicanos are mostly gang members, drug dealers, drug addicts, winos, pimps, prostitutes, thieves, murderers, prisoners, etc. in afghanistan, most of the similar things are also done by tajiks, uzbeks, and hazaras. you can see an article on prostitutes in afghanistan on RAWA website, which have personal interviews confessing of their sin and telling that every single one is ethnic tajik. pashtuns are like the white people in washington dc, who go around the entire country to help fix the problems every afghan citizen faces. for this reason the overwelming majority of afghanistan's population love their nation and the rulers of afghanistan. of course the smaller minority US chicano-style gang members of northern afghanistan who always fight and kill one another over turf and ethnicity will remain enemies to the government of afghanistan.Mirrori1 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you prove you are a racist and have ethno-fascist ideologies. I am not going to respond with racism even if I can say plenty of things. But I find it funny that you compare Tajiks with those people. Tajiks are the real natives of most of this land like you yourself said. It is our language and culture that is the dominant one and we dominate the major cities. We are not nationalist people, that is why we put up with the things Pashtuns do. Don't compare Tajiks to criminals, Tajiks didn't become Taliban or Heckmatyar or Communists like your people. Tajiks don't lie on the Quran. Tajiks don't make claims on other people's land. Tajiks don't commit genocides. Tajiks aren't known for being opium smugglers, hostage takers, killing innocents... 95% of the world's opium comes from Pashtun lands... I can go on and on, I won't be racist like you and say the things Pashtuns do. Don't kid yourself though. As for those women, that is again thanks to your Taliban criminals. They burnt down people's homes and farms and killed the men. Also they kidnapped hundreds of little girls and sold them to Pakistanis and Arabs for money. I don't know when Tajiks have done this Pashtuns, and you are calling us criminals? These women that were widowed had children and work was banned by your people's Taliban. Women had no work no jobs and no husbands to support them and a few turned to this. But why were women pushed into this by your Taliban? If they were an Islamic movement they would have cared for widowed women. Just proves they were not an Islamic movement but an ethno-fascist movement. Now before talking about others, go do a Googles search for Pashtuns selling their daughters for money, to settle debts, for opium, and for livestock. You can find dozens of articles. Here is just one article were Pashtuns are selling their daughters. I have NEVER heard of a Tajik doing this. Now thats enough of my response. I am not a racist but I had to answer your racist ocmments. You are a racist ethno nationalist and your rants prove it. This is not an internet forum, stop with your rants. -- Behnam
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Iranian women mathematicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Iranian women mathematicians to Category:Iranian mathematicians
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article at the moment (it should also contain Leila Khatami though). Category:Iranian mathematicians contains only five articles, plus 37 from the Persian era in the subcategory Category:Persian mathematicians, so I don't think the nominated category will get many articles. Furthermore, there is no category of the form nationality + women mathemacians, though there are categories for Category:Iranian mathematicians (and other nationalities) and Category:Women mathematicians. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_20&oldid=1138387682"