Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Final Fantasy (video game) to Category:Final Fantasy I

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, For consistency with the other categories and games in Category:Final Fantasy games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --SubSeven 04:52, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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The result of the discussion was: delete, superseded by commons. >Radiant< 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Viral images to Category:Images of viruses

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "viral" ("being caused by a virus" or "having properties of a virus") seems to be misleading in this context . GregorB 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I expected image macros. — coelacan — 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above – and/or maybe move the two images currently there to the Commons...?  David Kernow (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, commons does a much better job with managing images - and both images are now on the commons. --Peta 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The two images there are not linked. If they have been moved as Peta has stated there is no reason to keep the images or the category here. Vegaswikian 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-credits scene films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, a similar category was deleted a while ago. (trogga) 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Already well reasoned in the previous CFD. --SubSeven 04:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous discussion. Haddiscoe 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous CfD. --Xdamr^talk 02:34, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:United States Presidential homes to Category:Presidential homes in the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Presidential homes to Category:Presidential homes in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per convention for buildings and structures. LukeHoC 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename sounds good. per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Homes of United States Presidents since that is what it is about. Otherwise, they could be homes of presidents of business companies, college presidents, etc. Hmains 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Rimshots 18:48, 14 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, Unnecessary, trivial category. If a user wants to find such characters, they can just search for "slingshot" and "character". greenrd 19:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Characters generally are not defined by the objects that they use. We have also deleted similar categories for people with swords in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (might be an ok list) As a general rule, categories should only include articles for which the characteristic being categorized is mentioned in the article. So even if the category were kept it should be restricted to articles that specifically talk about the character using a slingshot. That being said, this probably isn't a great category to begin with unless you were hypothetically trying to come up with a larger scheme that subdivides notably-weapon-using characters by weapon-of-choice. Constructing such a scheme would I think be problematic, and is definitely beyond the scope of this particular category. I could, though, possibly see a list article to compliment Slingshot that contains notable uses of slingshots in fiction. Dugwiki 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cruft.
• Delete as a trivial characteristic, and dear god please don't encourage anyone to turn this into another ridiculous list or "slingshots in popular culture" article. Otto4711 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial, non-defining chatacteristic. --Xdamr^talk 02:35, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Union diplomats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, has been blanked and does not appear to be used any more. greenrd 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - was recently emptied and blanked by User:JLogan, without explanation. At least partly restored. -- Mais oui! 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - barring a proper explanation, this is an extremely useful category. The European Union has its own diplomats, just like the United Nations. Unless JLogan was removing them because they were improper categorized (e.g., it's actually a British diplomat). Part Deux 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mais oui!. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Part Deux's observations, the EU has its own diplomatic structure, as such this category is certainly merited. Of course, this is not a supercategory for French/Italian/other EU member state diplomats—these should continue to be listed on a independent national basis.

Xdamr^talk 02:29, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename per standard. >Radiant< 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Level-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename Category:Level-5 to Category:Level-5 games. Considering most of the category is it's games, a rename to a games category makes much more sense. RobJ1981 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Renaming the category won't help the Level-5 article, where would it go? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would go in Category:Video game developers. --SubSeven 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I should have said is "Why do this at all?" when you could easily just create Category:Level-5 games as a subcategory to Category:Level-5. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's basically all games in the category. --SubSeven 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just make a subcat and skip this whole process? A great many of the game articles are categorized this way. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. More properly describes what the category contains. Vegaswikian 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge' Category:Fauna of Juan Fernández Islands and Category:Fauna_of_the_Juan_Fernández_Islands into Category:Endemic fauna of the Juan Fernández Islands. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Juan Fernández Islands to Category:Fauna_of_the_Juan_Fernández_Islands

• Merge, Duplicate. greenrd 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Endemic fauna of the Juan Fernández Islands - The word "endemic" should be used to indicate that the category is exclusively for animals found in these islands. Otherwise, this category will be applied to any animal found in the Juan Fernandez Islands. If such categories are used for all places in the Pacific Ocean, then the resulting category lists in some ocean-going animals will be too long to read or use effectively. (This is part of an ongoing process.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:06, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Sports management games to Category:Sports management video games. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports management games to Category:Sports management video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, these are video games, not just "games", and this category is a subcategory of Category:Sports video games. RobertG ♬ talk 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Rimshots 18:56, 14 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Puerto Rico Related Ships to Category:United States Navy Puerto Rico-related ships. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Puerto Rico Related Ships to Category:United States Navy Puerto Rico-related ships

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for conformity with the state categories. LukeHoC 18:04, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Bosnia and Herzegoniva people and Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people

Category:Bosnia and Herzegoniva people to Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Merge, into the better populated dupicate (or the other way round if preferred). Either way keep one of them as a redirect. LukeHoC 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina into Category:Bosnia and Herzegoniva people as the latter is the defacto naming convention of the higher level category Category:People by nationality Hmains 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it would be if the country was spelt correctly. Where exactly is "Bosnia and Herzegoniva"? Grutness...wha? 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If "B&H people" is kept it obviously needs to be renamed to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people. Haddiscoe 12:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people. Uses correct style and spelling.--Mike Selinker 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people as above. Wilchett 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people as per Hmains et al . The (compound) noun acts as an adjective most naturally. a fun activity, grammar. Mayumashu 02:37, 14 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Educational insitutions established in 1986 into Category:Educational institutions established in 1986

Category:Educational insitutions established in 1986 to Category:Educational_institutions_established_in_1986

• Merge, obvious typo. greenrd 17:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge - One name contains a typo. It is clear that the merge is warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge But I don't think either is correctly named. The former has the typo and the latter has underscores.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The target category does not actually contain underscores. Click on the link to see for yourself. Dr. Submillimeter 23:58, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete as presently constituted. There is currently no dynamicist article, and the term isn't mentioned at Dynamics (mechanics). If someone wants to create the category with a more definite remit, perhaps more along the lines suggested by Linas, that's fine. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dynamicists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dynamicist seems to be an uncommon term for a person concerned with dynamics. Most articles are already classified in other mechanics related categories. Inwind 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be OR. There are dynamicists, but this term usually refers to people like Yakov Sinai and Vladimir Arnold and Andrey Kolmogorov instead of Phythagoras, Da Vinci and Einstein. linas 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup to who should acutally belong 132.205.44.134 23:06, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. I'll leave {{category redirect}}s. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American football computer games to Category:American football video games
• Category:Australian rules football computer games to Category:Australian rules football video games
• Category:Baseball computer games to Category:Baseball video games
• Category:Basketball computer games to Category:Basketball video games
• Category:Boxing computer games to Category:Boxing video games
• Category:Cricket computer games to Category:Cricket video games
• Category:Cue sports computer games to Category:Cue sports video games

Rename all as part of the recent 'computer and video games' to 'video games' migration. (This is my first umbrella renaming nomination, so I hope I've done it right.) Marasmusine 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. You did it right. If this passes, we should nominate the rest in this category.--Mike Selinker 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per nom. --Rimshots 18:57, 14 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dance Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, I have moved the only article into a more specific category. greenrd 16:56, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. I assume the category means "Honorary Freemen…" My robot will listify at List of Honorary Freemen of the City of London per Orange Mike: the Freedom of the City article states that about 1800 people per year take up (ordinary) Freedom of the City of London. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freemen of the City of London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is another honor given to people who win many awards anyway. Like similar award categories, this category indicates little about the individuals' achievements while contributing to category clutter. Like similar award categories, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's quite an interesting, quirky award; and interesting to browse who else has been awarded it. The category is of value. Jheald 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That could be said of any of the other strange awards that have already been deleted (such as some of the liverymen categories from a couple of weeks ago). This award really is no different. Dr. Submillimeter 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jheald. Not very many people are awarded the freedom of a city, and it is an interesting (if quirky) aspct of that city's history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete, the arguments to keep so far might be good arguments for an article on the award, but not for a category. As a category, it is clearly non-defining trivia. Xtifr _tälk 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whatever it means to the city (and I doubt it means much to most of the populace) it is trivial in relation to the individuals. Wilchett 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with an article/list, per Xtifr's suggestion. --Orange Mike 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is really one can say when presented with such a category other than, "My, what a random bunch of people got that gong!" One might as well browse with the random article button. CalJW 15:00, 13 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. My original closure as a delete was obviously a misjudgement, as it was clearly overturned at deletion review. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, here are my original closing comments. Delete. 5 contributors say delete both, and 5 say keep RSC (of whom 3 also say keep National). Should actors' articles be categorised by theatre company in principle? Five said no, five said (implicitly) yes. However, problems with such categories were not addressed by those arguing "keep". Take the career defining argument. If playing a leading role in an RSC production is career-defining, does playing a minor role bring similar advantages? If it does not, who decides for which RSC members it was career defining? Many actors have already established their careers when they play a leading role in an RSC production; is it career defining for them? Do we decide that actors for whom it wasn't career-defining should not be in the category? So how do we make this clear, and who polices it? Some contributors invoked the RSC's and RNTC's pre-eminence. Imagine that I agree that the RSC and RNTC are the two pre-eminent theatre companies in the UK. Why allow just two British companies? Why shouldn't we allow for twenty pre-eminent British companies? Or five-hundred such companies internationally? Who draws that line and says which companies are in or out? I see no clear consensus here about that - even in this debate a contributor who strongly argued for keeping the RSC made no comment about the RNTC. Dr. Submillimeter's comment that the category is already more comprehensively listified at Royal Shakespeare Company seems valid; lists allow nuanced presentation that is impossible in a category. So I am closing the debate as delete. Since Royal National Theatre Company actors are not presented as a list anywhere I will listify this category at List of Royal National Theatre Company actors. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal National Theatre Company members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The general consensus has been not to categorize actors by production company, as the lists of categories in articles on people would become too long to read or use effectively. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are the two pre-eminent classical theatre companies in the UK. Any other such categories for the UK should be deleted. LukeHoC 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Mais oui! 19:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as performer by production company. Otto4711 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for RSC members. The RSC is very distinctive in the UK, not only because of its status which LukeHoc has already noted, and its residential base at Stratford rather than in London, but almost uniquely as it has a full-time company which actors tend to stay with for several years. A stint with the RSC is very significant in an actor's career, and places them into a very distinctive group. People voting to delete this probably don't know much about theatre in the UK. Jheald 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A more complete list of the members of the Royal Shakespeare Company is given at Royal Shakespeare Company. No information would be lost if the category was deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jheald. Tim! 09:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not comparable to most theatre companies. That said, the National is no longer a full-time company in the way it was in the Olivier days. Haddiscoe 12:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LukeHoC as an exception to the general deprecation of actors-by-production-company categories. Membership of these companies is both highly notable, and a defining characteristic of the careers of these actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 10 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comparison Articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have moved all the articles that used to be in this category into more specific categories. Also it is a duplicate of Category:Comparisons. greenrd 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant, incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Xdamr^talk 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicate. --Rimshots 21:49, 14 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Elections by country, it makes most sense to always divide these by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I am not aware of any transnational elections in Asia. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per BrownHairedGirl—improper basis for categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The elections are country based, rather than continental. Wilchett 15:51, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England to Category:Business and Enterprise Colleges in England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 06:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England to Category:Business and Enterprise Colleges in England

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To be consistent with the other categories within Category:Specialist schools in England, and with the format used by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) at their Standards website. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In principle, rename (to remove ampersand) – but should this and the other categories in Category:Specialist schools in England have sentence-cased names (i.e. "...Colleges" becomes "...colleges")...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous day's log; we have just renamed two categories that were in sentence-case, so that they match the standards mentioned above. ~ Scribble Monkey 11:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the rename to be consistent with the other existing categories. Dahliarose 15:01, 17 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Avifauna of Northeast Mexico to Category:Endemic birds of Northeastern Mexico

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Both of the birds in this category have habitats that are restricted to Northeastern Mexico. I suggest changing the category's name to include the word "endemic" so that the category is not flooded with articles on birds with much broader ranges. I also suggest replacing the word "avifauna" with "birds", as has been the preference in other category name changes. Dr. Submillimeter 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for all the reasons named in the nomination. --Rimshots 21:50, 14 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian critique on doctrines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, The title of this category is ungrammatical (it should have been "of doctrines" not "on doctrines") and its only article does not contain any information on "criticisms of doctrines" of this church, only a link to such criticism. greenrd 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague as confusing category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games using Bink Video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Contesting the existence of this category as I find it trivial, and it's certainly not a defining characteristic. Combination 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a useful way to link games. --SubSeven 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and in Bink Video place Bink games link. Hołek ҉ 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - though I think calling it "trivial" is ignorant. Replacing it with the link is a good idea. 60.240.217.170 05:52, 15 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was taken to SfD. David Kernow (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasia-stubs to Category:Caucasus_stubs

• Merge, Duplicate - note that Caucasia redirects to the article Caucasus. greenrd 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Taken to SFD. Why do people never read the instruictions at the top of this page??? Grutness...wha? 03:34, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Maine to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of Mississippi to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of New York to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of Rhode Island to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Birds of Connecticut to Category:Birds of the United States

• Merge - These are categories missed in the 10 Feb 2007 discussion to merge "birds by U.S. state" categories into Category:Birds of the United States. As stated before, the ranges of birds have little to do with the political divisions within the United States, and categorizing birds by U.S. state leads to long lists of categories at the bottoms of articles that are difficult to read and use. Because of these reasons and because this categorization scheme was already rejected in a previous discussion, these categories should be merged into Category:Birds of the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:21, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: "No consensus (keep)". I don't think either side has made much of a case for keeping or deleting. It does seem somewhat subjective, but there also seems to be evidence that this is a defining characteristic for some, perhaps most of these performers. There clearly is not a consensus one way or the other, and it seems borderline as far as policy. -- Samuel Wantman 06:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big-bust models and performers

• Delete Category too subjective. Epbr123 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not subjective. It's not performers who have a big bust, it's performers in the big-bust genre, which is fairly distinctive. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close per WP:POINT. The nominator is currently embroiled in a CFD defense of Category:Naturally busty porn stars and has repeatedly cited this category as a reason to keep that one. I don't believe he really wants this category deleted and I suspect that he has nominated this category in hopes of using the argumentation to support his case for keeping the naturally busty category. Otto4711 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember WP:AGF. Epbr123 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing subjective about it. "Category:Comedians" does not require that we decide whether the subject is funny or not, only that the subject work in comedy. Same thing with big-bust performers. We don't judge what is "big." If the subject works in the big-bust genre, she's a big-bust model or performer. Dekkappai 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category is far too subjective. How are we to determine whose breasts are "big" enough to be included? ExRat 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Same way we decide who's funny enough to be called a comedian. That is, we don't. They're either performers in the big-bust genre, or they're not. Dekkappai 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subjective inclusion criterion, per WP:OCAT. >Radiant< 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more than Category:Impressionist artists, for example. It's a genre, accepted as such by experts in the field. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Epbr123 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One set of porn star categories wastes quite enough charitiable bandwidth on its own.Wilchett 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nothing is bad about this Category, wastes bandwidth?, in that case, all the entertainment categories wastes bandwidth, not only porn star categories, or You decides what is good or bad to Wikipedia?.Kamui99 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge - no objections. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Fauna of the United States

• Merge - Animals are generally not restricted to the Great Lakes regions. The animals that are already listed in this category are found in much broader regions within the United States. Therefore, I recommend merging this category into Category:Fauna of the United States. (Also see the discussion from 31 Jan 2007, where categories grouping animal by state were merged into Category:Fauna of the United States for similar reasons.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:05, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge - no objections. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Birds of the United States

• Merge - Birds are generally not restricted to the Great Lakes regions. The birds that are already listed in this category are found in much broader regions within the United States. Therefore, I recommend merging this category into Category:Birds of the United States. (Also see the discussion from 10 Feb 2007, where categories grouping birds by state were merged into Category:Birds of the United States for similar reasons.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:02, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy (I will retag the category). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Buildings and Monuments Honoring Alpha Phi Alpha Men to Category:Buildings and monuments honoring Alpha Phi Alpha men dm ^(talk) 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete. I agree with others' reasoning on this. --dm ^(talk) 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead. This is a trivial, tangential way to categorise buildings. LukeHoC 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is very convoluted. We are already deleting categories which list people's memberships in societies (although we have not debated fraternity and sorority categories yet), and we are also deleting award and commemoration categories. This category is an ugly combination of those two things. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep I find the category to be an interesting assembly of information not found easily elsewhere in wikipedia. Thus, it is a useful category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on very obscure and irrelevant criteria. Buildings are not erected to celebrate individuals' membership of Alpha Phi Alpha. Haddiscoe 12:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Listify then) delete per above. David Kernow (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:University of California at Berkeley alumni into Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni, to match University of California, Berkeley. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - was stupidly unaware of Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni when I created Category:University of California at Berkeley alumni. RahadyanS 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per creator.Bakaman 03:50, 11 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted per below. David Kernow (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete since the only article is the main one about the show. Vegaswikian 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Television awards - The category is not needed for this one entry. However, the one article in this category should be categorized as a television award. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already a member of that cat. Vegaswikian 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 02:39, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture-related lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - ill-defined vague category. Any list that exists is in some way related to "culture" so there is nothing gained by categorizing lists in this fashion. Otto4711 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 02:39, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete, it's already empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, I have moved all the articles that used to be here into more specific categories, and a general Roman Catholic category already exists. greenrd 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, it's empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:25, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Canadian charitable organizations into Category:Charities based in Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian charitable organizations to Category:Charities based in Canada

• Merge, Duplicate. greenrd 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 02:40, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename, and no objection to creating a "Terrorism in Armenia" cat. >Radiant< 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming - Category:Armenian terrorism to Category:Terrorism in Turkey

Reason - Most of these incidents occurred in Turkey thats the whole reason this was created, very POV category, not to mention the articles do not fit the description of the category, any others we have the countries of the category. Artaxiad 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This would rescope the category. It would exclude assassinations of Turkish diplomats abroad and it would bring in Kurdish separatism, Grey Wolves, and others. I'd probably also oppose a delete. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It should include all terrorism related incidents in Turkey not just Armenian specific. RaveenS 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into Category:Terrorism in Armenia and Category:Terrorism in Turkey, to conform with the Category:Terrorism by country structure. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. If Nlu or any other editor wishes to create Category:Terrorism in Armenia they can do this and populate it. Asking an admin to split as part of this process should not be a requirement. Vegaswikian 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Han Prime Ministers to Category:Han Dynasty prime ministers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Should not be in all upper case. Further, currently, the dynasties' emperors and empresses are in Category:Han Dynasty emperors and Category:Han Dynasty empresses, respectively, and there should be consistency. --Nlu (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the following related category for renaming for the same reason:

• Category:Zhou Prime Ministers to Category:Zhou Dynasty prime ministers

I am proposing a bit of a different renaming structure for several other related categories -- since, particularly in the Tang Dynasty and following dynasties, there can't really be said to be "prime ministers" any more, in that the power (at least in name) is almost always divided between several individuals. I am proposing, therefore, instead:

• Category:Ming Prime Ministers to Category:Ming Dynasty chancellors
• Category:Qing Prime Ministers to Category:Qing Dynasty chancellors
• Category:Song Prime Ministers to Category:Song Dynasty chancellors
• Category:Tang Prime Ministers to Category:Tang Dynasty chancellors

Also, the supercategory be changed, with same rationale:

• Category:Prime ministers of China to Category:Chinese chancellors

If but only if necessary, please indicate your thoughts either as to the entire group of proposals or to specific ones.

• Rename. I suspect that the limited number of comments is due to the structure of the nomination. Since there are no apparent objections, the proposal is probably reasonable. Vegaswikian 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vw. Seems reasonable enough, it's just a somewhat obscure topic, and a complicated nomination. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:33, 14 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as [[Category:LGBT writers]] or [[Category:African American musicians]], should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid." This one strikes me as unneeded, verging on gaybaiting. Orange Mike 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it should be added that while in prior discussions of this item, the "keep" side argued that it could be useful, in practice this category has been almost entirely unpopulated, even though obviously there must be a statistically significant number of persons who fall into this set. Seems to me that argues for the category's uselessness pretty strongly. --Orange Mike 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While I don't believe that this category was created for purposes of gaybaiting, categorizing murderers by sexual orientation strikes me as overcategorization. I also have concerns about the existence of any "murderers" category for WP:BLP and NPOV issues which contribute to my unease regarding this category. Otto4711 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per previous discussions unless all LGBT occupational categories are deleted. If we are going to categorise by sexuality we should not cherry-pick flattering combinations. People who remove articles are likely to be ideologically motivated and should be watched and banned from editing related articles as appropriate. CalJW 12:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "occupational categories"?!? --Orange Mike 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, bad faith, Cal?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and indeed Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please do not breach policies in the future. I know that the liberal establishment is so confident of its ascendancy that you feel you can get away with anything, but I happen to believe that the gay lobby should not use Wikipedia for its propaganda any more than anyone else. Obviously it does however, and it is both sad and infuriating that there are not enough users willing to stand up to its well organised abuse of Wikipedia. CalJW 13:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and indeed Wikipedia:Assume good faith right back at you, Cal. CovenantD 13:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what Covenant said. There is no "abuse of" Wikipedia. The only agenda I can see is yours. Or maybe I should concede that you are right and that gay people, black people, Irish people, Muslim people... they all shouldn't be recognized, or they'll take over the world, right? I also do not take what I said as uncivil, I was simply probing you to hear your motivations, with are now incredibly apparent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla Praveen 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or restrict As with similar sort of intersectional categories, this only would possibly make sense for people whose crime was somehow directly connected to their LGBT status, such as a gay sexual predator who kills his victims. Murderers who happen to be LGBT but for whom sexual preference played no part in the murder shouldn't be included. So either delete or restrict the category accordingly. Dugwiki 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! Implies some connection between the two.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's the point of this? --Nlu (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as irrelevant intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete irrelevant Snappy56 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zythe. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as irrelevant intersection. --Xdamr^talk 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a recreation. This category has come up several times at CFD. It was deleted after this discussion over a year ago. I don't think anything has changed since we decided to delete it the last time. If anything, there is more support for removing overcategorizations like this. -- SamuelWantman 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto, Doczilla, Zythe. ZueJay (talk) 00:36, 13 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Vancouver streets to Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver - Darwinek 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - not sure what the criteria intended is, but the "and squares" bit seems unnecessary for Vancouver. "Squares" here tend to fit better elsewhere such as 'parks' (Victory Square (Vancouver)) and 'buildings and structures' (Library Square). Bobanny 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having looked at the two articles linked by Bobanny, I am at a loss as to why he thinks Vancouver should not be treated the same way as other cities. Haddiscoe 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because "squares" is a category addition that would do nothing to better organize Vancouver articles; there's already categories for "parks in Vancouver" and for "buildings and structures in Vancouver." As for being like other cities, I don't see any other Canadian city with "squares" on the 'Streets and squares by city' list either, and the only US city with "squares" is NYC, with the singular square being Times Square. Why should Vancouver be more like European cities than those in North America?Bobanny 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the proposed change doesn't meet the speedy rename criteria above - it belongs at WP:CFD, not here. Bobanny 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Victory Square is called a square and is just as much a square as any square in the old world. The nature of. Library Square is less clear, but it is called also called square, and that can only have been a deliberate reference to the widespread use of the term around the world. Grouping streets and squares is just as useful for this city as for any other. LukeHoC 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Vancouver has "squares," but that doesn't mean it makes a suitable category for Vancouver articles that are already sufficiently categorized. My concern is with

overcategorization, which has been an issue with Vancouver articles in the past. Victory Square is also a war memorial, but that's no reason to change "Category:Parks in Vancouver" to "Category:Parks and war memorials in Vancouver." Bobanny 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Victory Square also has neighbourhood associations, which makes it different from Library Square; or Robson Square or Granville Square, or for that matter there's non-squares that are Squares like Station Square at Metrotown; there are no squares here in the sense of Trafalgar Square (or Place de la Vendôme, but that's a plaza like a Domplatz or Karlsplatz or Piazza, even though it's what in London would be called a square...carre, the equivalent of "square" in French means something a bit different); except Victory Square; but then again, Victory Square also means that neighbourhood, or has come to.Skookum1 07:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate proposal: How about Category:Streets in Vancouver? Looking at Category:Streets and squares by city, not every city's category name includes squares either (eg. Brisbane, Mumbai). And I think that's justified. Not everyone in the world ascribes the same level of equivalence between streets and squares as much as people in other places (eg. Europe) do. - Hinto 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that, for the sake of standardization, and will add "Category:Ottawa roads," "Category:Roads in Gatineau," and "Category:Roads in Hong Kong" to the lists of misfits that should be renamed "Category:Streets in ____" Bobanny 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per discussion of July 16th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Categorising a square as a square is not overcategorisation. CalJW 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (but support alternate proposal above). The list at Category:Streets and squares by city is far from exhaustive and shouldn't be considered the authority and local precedent for this matter. Especially in light of other West Coast cities without this style of categorization, such as: Category:Streets in San Francisco, California, Category:Streets in Los Angeles County, California, Category:Seattle metropolitan area and in Canada Category:Streets in Toronto. And for that matter, any North American city! If Victory Square were to be included in this list of streets, then one may wonder why other war memorials that aren't officially Squares are not. Oppose because it doesn't meet precedent in North America, and in the case of Vancouver, is overcategorization, while in the case of European cities, may not be, because of the more common usage of the term. This doesn't meet the criteria for speedy renaming, by any means, based on this.--Keefer4 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per my comment above, and in general with the consistency with other urban articles/categories. There aren't enough squares (of the classic kind) in Vancouver to warrant this adjustment, or such a category; it's not like London where they number in the hundreds (and really are "squares" or at last cul-de-sac or crescent streets with gardens justifying the name). There are few enough that Maple Tree Square and Victory Square don't need their own categories; the others I named are corporate-development plazas, e.g. Granville Square (which also refers to its tower) so I'm not counting them in the formulation.Skookum1 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver. One square would be sufficient to justify using the standard form - arguably none at all should be required as that would simplify things. Wilchett 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:F.E.A.R. (computer game) to Category:F.E.A.R.

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, No need for a disambiguated title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep; certainly no consensus to delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamil Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Closing admin - please take into account this information on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#CFD_Spamming -- Jreferee 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not spammed. I am a regular here. — coelacan — 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too was not spammed. Praveen 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I also was not spammed. The category is on my watchlist -- Ponnampalam 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Also, please take into account this too.Gnanapiti 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this? Wiki Raja 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't spammed either. I participated in the discussion for the Keralite-American category. Bakaman originally informed me of this CfD, followed by Wiki Raja --vi5in^[talk] 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to Category:Indian Americans and other relevant entries to Category:Sri Lankan Americans, because every entry in the cat is a member of one of the other two per WP:OCAT#Mostly_overlapping_categories. Bakaman 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:Keralite_americans for a similar debate. The proliferation of ethnic cats serves to undermine the Indian American cat. Countries with similar demographics like Category:Indonesian Americans, Category:Lebanese Americans and Category:Pakistani Americans do not have subcats for underlying ethnic groups. If there are any allegations of racism, I am Tamil myself, and though I would love to see my "brethren" as it were categorized relevant cats like Category:Tamil politicians, Category:Tamil writers and other cats can affirm the ethnicity.Bakaman 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This argument is not workable. Somebody like Indran Amirthanayagam cannot be placed in Category:Tamil writers because he uses English to write, not Tamil. Still, he is an ethnic Tamil. This is why we have a category categorising Americans by ethnicity, and this is why we need a category for American Tamils. By your suggestion he won't be in any Tamil related category. -- Ponnampalam 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Indian American is a parent of Tamil American although Tamil Americans of Fijin, South African, Sri Lankan, Malaysian origins might not be considering them as purely Indian. Hence I made sure that Tamil Americans did not stand outside of Indian Americans when I set this category up. I followed that same argument throughout the world. I subsumed Tamils as part of Indian nationality where ever they are found except in Sri Lanka. This category is similar to Scottish Americans. Scottish Americans are British by origin and Scottish by ethnicity. They cannot be merged with British Americans. They are both British and Scottish. Tamil Americans are mostly Indian by origin but are of Tamil ethnicity. Hence most Tamil Americans are Indian by origin (just like Scotts are mostly from Britain) but Tamil by ethnicity. Tamil British has other counter parts such as Bengali British etc. Hence the argument that other ethnicities from South Asia do not have their own categories do not hold water. What we need to compare is similar ethnicities such as Scottish and Welsh from the UK. Also Tamil ethnicity is also unique in South Asia similar to the Hakka ethnicity from China because of their long emigration history they have independent settlements outside of India from a historical point of view (see Tamil diaspora. RaveenS 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep Tamils are a transnational people without a independent state yet from India,Sri Lanka,Malaysia and Singapore with a rich history and one of the oldest languages.All tamils are not from India .Hence there should a separate catagery. Harlowraman 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he could still be marked as Category:Tamil people. Cat Bengali-Americans was deleted.Bakaman 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody can be put in Tamil people. Then the category will become completely useless as a help in navigation.

Secondly, about Bengali people, I don't know if people from West Bengal and Bangladesh in America have the same institutions like Tamils do. Tamils in the US are one community. Does this apply to Bengalis?

Thirdly, I would like you to explain what the difference is between Category:Tamil Americans on the one hand and Category:Basque Americans, Category:Hmong Americans, Category:Sorbian-Americans, Category:Sicilian-Americans, Category:Scots-Irish Americans and other similar categories on the other. Either they should all be kept, or they should all be deleted. --Ponnampalam 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamils are not a minority group in India, nor do they constitute a nation like the Basque. The Hmong are a persecuted ethnic minority in Laos, I actually dont see the point for Sicily, and scots-Irish refers to Irish Protestants from the "country" of Northern Ireland. Btw, people are not notable for being Tamil, they are notable for being actors, politicians, sportspeople, etc. Bengali Hindus have the same cultural institutions as Bangaldeshi Bengali Hindus, Assamese Hindus, MAnipuri's, Tripuris. Tamil's are like the Bengalis, Sindhis, Punjabi's, and Azerbaijanis, none of which have their own separate cat.Bakaman 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, don't you think characterizing 'Humans' into subcategories in itself undermines 'Humans'? These categories convey nothing; they are there for easy navigation I guess. Please let me know if there are other reasons. Praveen 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people are not notable for being Tamil, they are also not notable for being Indian. By your reasoning, there is also no reason to have an "Indian American" category. -- Ponnampalam 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except we have figures noted in mainstream papers like Rachel Paulose, Dalip Singh Saund, Satveer Chaudhary, Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris, etc who are notable for being Indian Americans high up in their field.Bakaman 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that answer my question? -- Ponnampalam 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So. Should we award them gold medals? Wiki Raja 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wiki raja seems to have descended into incoherent babble, I will answer poonampalam's comment. Did you look at the bios? Here I'll give you one.

“

She is the first Indian American woman[1]... to hold this post.[2]

”

from Rachel Paulose. ITs people like that that make the cat notable. Note the ref right after Indian American? That's why. I'm not opposed to Tamil British, Tamil Canadians, Tamil Sri Lankans,etc, because in those countries all South Asians are categorized together as South Asians, but the American cat is structured differently.Bakaman 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for the explanation, I understand now what you were saying. But by that argument, the "Indian Americans" category should only have people who are notable for being the first Indian American to do something, or where their Indianness is a major factor in their notableness. People who simply are successful Americans without their Indianness playing a role in their notableness should not be categorised in that category. I don't think that is the correct test to use. -- Ponnampalam 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in an ideal categorization system that would be what happens, but Category:Indian Americans, Category:Indonesian Americans, Category:Pakistani Americans Category:Chinese Americans, etc. were created far before this one. Most people in the cat have been written in Indian American newspapers. If I had access to archives of India West (which I get at my library) I would probably find all those people at some point or another.Bakaman 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge. Per Nom.Gnanapiti 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wiki Raja 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is no reason to delete and merge Tamil Americans with Indian Americans, other than to feed nationalistic POV. So, what about Sri Lankan Tamils? Indian Tamils? Malaysian Tamils? I am Tamil myself, and to tell you the truth, this is a biased, one sided request. So now, we are going to differentiate between Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils? Wiki Raja 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. I am Tamil myself as well. I dont know how it is biased or one sided though coming from Mr. Gold Medal, I'm sure it makes sense in the realm of ethnocruft and babble.Bakaman 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your language. Wiki Raja 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Category:Indian Americans is good enough, no need for extra categorization. Sfacets 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - User:Wikiraja has been canvassing for votes. (Contributions)
• weak keep -- I'm not thrilled with infinite subcategorization, but in the light of Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, and lots of categories of "Americans" based on ethnicity, and Tamils being undisputedly an ethnicity (while "Indian" is not an ethnicity, but either a nationality, or a rough geographical super-group like Category:African Americans ("African" is not an ethnic group either)), I see no way to delete this unless we delete lots of other categories too. Subcategories do not "undermine" their supercat. dab (𒁳) 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete any similar subcategories. CalJW 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Similar subcategories" will include Category:Hmong Americans, Category:Sorbian-Americans, Category:Sicilian-Americans, Category:Scots-Irish Americans, and probably also Category:Scottish-Americans, Category:English Americans, Category:Welsh-Americans. The situation with these (particularly the first three) is exactly the same as with Tamil Americans. -- Ponnampalam 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Tamil is a ethnic group spanning several countries (India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Reunion) Are you going to put Tamil from i.e. Malaysia, just as malaysians? Then in the vein we shouldn't have Indian-American, just American, we use these categories to define unique groups and peoples, I suspect the reasoning behind these so called merges. This particular targeting of South asian groups is biased, if it is done all the ethnic groups in different countries need to be merged (i.e. Scots-Irish Americans, Basque-Americans, etc. need to merge just to Scottish Americans and Spanish/French Americans). It is a ridiculous that this merge is even being promoted or considered.--Kathanar 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep Nearly all Tamil associations (Tamil Sangams) in the United States have a mix of Sri Lankan and Indian Tamil members. The Tamil community in the US is a single community, regardless of which country the Tamils originally came from. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality. Splitting the category up is really completely ridiculous and does not reflect reality. If the worry is that the "Indian American" category is being neglected there is no problem to put people in both "Indian American" and "Tamil American" categories. "Tamil American" can also be an independent category, if you are worrying about that. It does not need to be a subcategory of "Indian American," since many of the people who will be mentioned there will ultimately not be Indian. -- Ponnampalam 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Added later: See also my Comment below. -- Ponnampalam 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Strong Keep. They may not possess Indian passport anymore, but they still talk in Tamil. Praveen 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman started a category called Mauritian Hindus. see here. So you would rather affix one's religious faith than language/ethinicity in categorization. Praveen 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime i see a Tamil person on wiki I put them under Category:Tamil people. Everytime I see a Bengali, they get put under Category:Bengali people by occupation. Category:Bengali-Americans was deleted, and all relevant entries were moved to Category:Indian Americans and Category:Bangladeshi Americans, so there is a precedent.Bakaman 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer any one of my previous posts. Praveen 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking in Tamil? I talk in Hindi, does that make me a Hindi-American (though I am Tamil American)? most Indians are polyglots, are you therefore(if you're in the US) a English-American? Your rationale is ludicrous.Bakaman 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil is not only a language, but also an ethnicity. Japanese is considered a language and an ethnicity. Take for example, if a couple from Japan had a child born in the U.S., would that child still be of Japanese ethnicity. Indian on the other hand is neither a language or an ethnicity but a nationality. Here is another example. If my parents were born in America, and I so happened to be born in India, would that make me an Indo-American? Your rationale is ludicrous. Wiki Raja 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are Bengali, Azeri, Punjabi, and numerous other groups without an "-American" cat.Bakaman 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is your point? Are you advocating restriction of freedom of Categories on Wikipedia? Wiki Raja 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Tamil is also on four currencies such as the Mauritian rupee, Sri Lankan rupee, Singapore Dollar, and the Indian rupee. Dravidian Warrior 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)This is user's 5th contribution [1]. This user is now indef-blocked.[reply]

• Speedy Merge and Delete per Nom. - KNM ^Talk 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The 'Tamils' are linguistically and more ethnically not confined to India. The term 'Americans' are regarding the nationality. And apart, there are also a pretty decent number of articles under the category. So it's fit and unavoidable to keep a seperate category for mentioning the combination of the both. ==> _Д=|Ω|=_{Д Paul}^Ỹ 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep: Hey KNM, stop deleting my vote! Jhnnyrj 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)— Jhnnyrj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user is now indef-blocked. [reply]

*Keep: What the heck!? My vote got deleted too. Bakasuprman be carefull who you call a sockpuppet. Just because this may be a new account, does not mean that you can delete my vote. Tamilguy07 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)— Tamilguy07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user is now indef-blocked. [reply]

• Keep. Tamils are an international population with a very strong and distinct ethnic identity and, with their ongoing oppression and, in some sectors, armed struggle in India and the subcontinent, a very strong political identity as well. Lumping Tamils together with, say Hindu Indians in the U.S. makes about as much sense as shoehorning, say, White South Africans and the Zulus, or the San, all groups living in the U.S. as expatriates, into a group called "South African-Americans" and treating them as a single people. deeceevoice 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI< most Tamils are Hindu, and not all Indian's are Hindu. Tamil's are no more special than Azeri people, who dont have their own "-Americans" cat, no more special than Bengali's, and no more special than any other ethnic group in the Indian subcontinent.Bakaman 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My bad. "Hindu" is my shorthand for the predominant population in the North (because I couldn't think of how else to refer to them), who are, by and large, physically and culturally different from Tamils, who cluster farther south, and who often are darker-skinned and generally not as mixed with Eurasian (Persian) bloodlines as Indians farther to the north. deeceevoice 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no less special than any other ethnic group anywhere else in the world. If you think there shouldn't be any categorisation of Americans by ethnic origin, start a discussion about that. It makes no sense to treat an ethnic group differently just because some of its members happen to be of Indian origin. -- Ponnampalam 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamils are multi-religious, and have been seen the dawn of history. Since early times prior to the introduction of Hinduism was Animism. The Hinduism we see amongst Tamils is a mixture of Hinduism and indigenous Tamil Animism with their own Tamil deities such as Murugan, Mariamman, and Koneshwaran amongst many others. There was a time in history when Buddhism and Jainism was practiced amongst Tamils in the Chola and Chera kingdoms which produced poets like Thiruvalluvar (Jain backgound) and Ilango Adigal (Buddhist). Christianity and Judaism was first introduced in Kerala and Tamil Nadu during the 1st century C.E. During the 16th century Catholicism was introduced by the Portuguese and Islam by Moghul influence. When the British came, Protestanism and its other denominations were introduced. So what if Hinduism is the most practiced religion, and Christianity is the second most practiced. During the late 1800s and early 1900s Atheism started taking its course amongst some parts of the Tamil areas and other parts of the Indian sub-continent. It is no wonder why the southern part of the sub-continent is more tollerant of other faiths as compared in Northern India where mosques, temples, and churches are frequently burnt. Lastly, no one ethnic group can be identified by religion. Wiki Raja 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being in immensely bad taste (implying North Indians are intolerant), you fail to note that periyar and legacy furthered by a band of rascals have undermined all this "tolerance". If your definition of tolerance is letting terrorists like Madani run scot free out of jail, then perhaps its "tolerance". The Cham Bolomon are an exclusively Hindu ethnic group, nearly all Balinese are Hindu, all Acehnese are Muslim, etc etc.Bakaman 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - their own people group, should have their own designation. Useful. Merging into existing nationalities shows an ignorance of cultural heritage; we don't delete Jewish and say they should instead be German, Polish, etc. The Tamil have their own language and ethnicity. Part Deux 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. if you think someone is a sock, please don't delete their !vote. Just tag it with {{spa}}. Part Deux 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tamil's do not constitute a nation, unlike the Jews.Bakaman 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. If you look at the article about Basque people you will see that their status as a "nation" is not different from ours, contrary to what you are claiming. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The head category is called "American people by ethnic or national origin". Are you now going to say that "Tamil" is not an ethnicity either? -- Ponnampalam 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are internal and external nations. Each state in India constitutes an inernal nation. That is why in the Indian constitution states about a federal system with a central government. A nation does not only denote to countries, but can be referred to a group of people within a federated country who have been in existence for thousands of years. In the United States, the Native Americans (or "Red Indians" as some peculiar folks in India like to call them) constitute of many nations within America. For example, we have the Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Crow Nation, etc. Wiki Raja 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews constitute a nation? I'm sorry, no they don't. They have Israel, but only since 1948 (should we not allow any people in the Jewish category that died before 1948?). And at that, being Jewish doesn't mean being Israeli. By your argument, then we should merge Category:Jewish people with Category:Israelis. Part Deux 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are 22 official ethnicities with "their own" languages in India and thousands of unofficial ethnicities with "their own" languages. Tamils are no different than Kannadigas or Telugus or Bengalis in that regard. Now, it will be extremely illogical and utterly impractical to create categories for each and every ethnicity in India if we keep on doing that. Gnanapiti 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamils are different from Kannadigas and Telugus, because "Tamil" is not only an "Indian" ethnicity (unlike "Kannadiga" and "Telugu" ethnicities). There are also Sri Lankan Tamils, Malaysian Tamils, Singaporean Tamils, and others who identify with very strongly with the same Tamil ethnicity but are not "Indian." In the US, which is what we are talking about, a very significant percentage of the Tamils are not of Indian origin. This is why the ethnicity needs a category. The analogy with Jews which Part Deux gave is very appropriate. -- Ponnampalam 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe what Gnana is saying. Now, its post is truly not making any sense. As argued in the past, these 22 officially unrecognized ethnicities fall into three families of ethnicities namely the Dravidians, Indo-Aryans, and the Mon-khmer. What gives one person the right to deprive others of their ethnic recognition? What gives a paranoid society the right to revise history? I get it now, some people out there are afraid that if all these ethnicities get recognized by the public, our precious little India will fall apart. Is that what all this paranoia is about? Get real. Wiki Raja 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprive? I have been a strong proponent of categorization by ethnicity. Tamils are no more special than other groups like Bengalis, Punjabis, Azeris, Uygurs, all of which do not have categories. Multiethnic countries like India, Indonesia, Iran and others are much better off not having their diaspora or PIO cats split up into an infinite number of useless subcats.Bakaman 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is up to them to come up with their own categories too. By whose laws does it say that Multiethnic countries are much better off not having their diaspora? Yours? Why would aditional categories be useless? I only have one thing to say about your baseless posts, POV. Wiki Raja 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A large clutter isnt going to help anyone. And what would you call pushing fringe lunatic theories of a Lemurian space-age Tamil race and trying to pull together various unrelated ethnicities into some sort of Dravidistan? Its obvious that you dislike me because I'm an Iyer.Bakaman 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this lunatic theory is any more lunatic than 'nuclear' weapons, flying saucers etc mentioned in Mahabharatha and Ramayana?

I am not talking about multiethnic countries, but only about multi-country ethnicities. I think they deserve special treatment, whatever be the principles we apply to multiethnic countries (I am not commenting about that because it isn't relevant to this discussion). -- Ponnampalam 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge with Category:Indian Americans. -- Naveen ^(talk) 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Tamil Americans who have no ancestral connection with India? A very significant percentage of Tamil Americans are not of "Indian" origin. -- Ponnampalam 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the nomination .Category:Indian Americans is one such category. This category needs to be up merged to the relevant categories such as Category:Indian Americansand Category:Sri Lankan Americans. -- Naveen ^(talk) 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I did not make my question clear, sorry for that. My question is why the Tamil ethnicity should be "split" across different categories when the fact is that most Tamil Americans identify strongly with the Tamil ethnicity. Basque Americans are in a very similar position, and they are categorised in a separate category, not as Spanish Americans and French Americans. Why should it be different for Tamils? -- Ponnampalam 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Tamils born in the U.S. Tamil Americans. Also, depending on whether their parents are from, "Indian" and "Sri Lankan" would be considered as their origins. Therefore apart from Tamil being a language, we have the following categories:

• Ethnicity = Tamil
• Nationality = American, Canadian, etc.
• Origins = India, Sri Lanka

• If they are tamils of Canadian nationality, you can use "Cat:Canadian Americans" and "Cat:Tamil people" for the article. For tamils of Fijian nationality, use "Cat:Fiji-Americans" and "Cat:Tamil people" in tandem... and so on and so forth. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no rationale behind this except to reduce the number of categories that recognize Tamil ethnicity. Do you have a NPOV reasoning instead? — coelacan — 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What? So if a Tamil is of Canadian nationality that would make him or her Canadian Americans? And if a Tamils is of Fijian nationality that would make him or her Fiji-Americans? Is that possible? So, basically what you are saying is that half of a Tamils body would have been born in Fiji, while the other half of the body would be born in America? How is that possible? Aren't those two countries kind of far from each other? I can understand if a baby was probably born right on the line of the Mexican and American border. Your statement, as with others, is not making any sense. It is like trying to tell somebody that 2 + 3 = 9. Come on. Wiki Raja 01:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please see Category:Tamils by country to understand the broader context of this category and the reasons why it exists. It is not a one-off creation. Instead, it is part of an attempt to classify notable members of the Tamil diaspora by the country in which they are located. Also see Category:Tamil diaspora. (I have already voted above, I am adding this separately as a comment) -- Ponnampalam 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Azeris come from either Azerbaijan or Iran, they have migrated to many countries, so have Bengalis (India, and Bangladesh) so have Balochis (Iran, and Pakistan) so have Punjabis (India and Pakistan), so have Pashtun (Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India), etc,etc. India, Pakistan, Iran, and Indonesia are somewhat quirky and special regions of the world. None of these countries have defined ethnic majority groups (Persians are barely a majority in Iran, but Azeris, Baloch, Arabs and Kurds are huge segments of the population). None of these groups has their own "-Americans" cat, and the Bengali one was deleted anyways.Bakaman 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the articles in Category:Baloch people and there is not a single Balochi American written about on Wikipedia, so obviously there isn't any category. For Bengalis, I couldn't find any common main category of which Bengalis in different countries were subcategories. Category:Bangladeshi people is not a subcategory of Category:Bengali people and the two are not linked in any way. This and your answer to my question about Bengali cultural institutions seem to say that West Bengalis and Bangladeshis in the diaspora aren't the same community. However, Indian Tamils, Sri Lankan Tamils, Malaysian Tamils and all other Tamils in the diaspora are the same community. So your analogy is completely wrong. The same also applies to the analogy with Azeris. There is no category here including Azeris from different countries. Maybe that is fine for how the Azeris see their identity, but that is not how most Tamils see our identity. -- Ponnampalam 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain this more clearly. Let us go back to the analogy with Jews. Now assume that the early Jewish immigrants in the United States did not see themselves as one common Jewish community, but as Germans or Russians or Austrians or whatever. In that case, it would have been correct to categorise them under the respective country categories. But because they were in actual fact a Jewish community, categorising them as Jewish Americans is the correct approach. The same applies to Tamils. Because the Tamils in the US from different countries are a definite US Tamil community, categorising them as Tamil Americans is appropriate. If this common community did not exist, that is, if the Tamils were divided on national lines, then on the other hand categorising them only as Indian Americans or Sri Lankan Americans would have been appropriate. -- Ponnampalam 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing anything to the Jews is virtually impossible. They are a religious, ethnic, and national group all at once, and belong to all three subcats. Tamil-ism is not a religion, so Tamils are not a religious group, they are not a nation either, and they are loosely an "ethnic" group along the lines of the other 900 or so in South Asia.Bakaman 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprising that 3 tamil users try to define how 70 million supposedly see our identity. Bengali cultural institutions are the same among both West Bengal and Bangladeshis. They both revere Tagore, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Ishwar Chandra Gupta, etc. They both speak Bengali. The bengali Hindus regardless of national origin congregate together, the Muslims go to a different place. The Category:Bangladeshi politicians is a subcat of Category:Bengali politicians. Tamil Muslims and Christians dont worship at a local "Tamil Abrahamic Religion center", neither do Tamil Hindus and Muslims ,etc worship at the same "Thamizh Dharma Sangha". There are two communitied of tamils in Sri Lanka, those who were there for hundreds of years, and the British Tea Planters. There are also many communities of tamils in Malaysia. Indian Chettiar immigrants, Chitty, and Tamil immigrants and refugees from Sri Lanka. The way we see our identity is irrelevant. Btw, the Jewish people are both an ethnic, national, and a religious group, so analogies to Jewish groups are irrelevant, as Wiki Raja has gleefully pointed out not all Tamils are Hindu.Bakaman 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know there are only 3 tamils trying to defend 70 million. The same argument can be applied to you too (1 tamilians and MANY kannadigas trying to speak for 70 million tamils.

I am not trying to "define" anybody's identity. I am talking about verifiable facts, namely, that Tamils in the United States have formed many common associations, which include Tamils from all countries. This is different from a feeling of revering the same authors or worshipping the same gods. Those are abstract things. This, however, is a concrete fact showing that they are one diaspora community and should be categorised accordingly. -- Ponnampalam 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again what makes them any different from Bengalis, Azeris, Persians, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Balinese, Javanese, or a myriad of other ethnic groups which are part of multiethnic nations that are also "one community"? Bengalis have formed many associations, and the Tamils that are part of Sangams, etc. are almost exclusively Hindu.Bakaman 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is factually incorrect. Tamil Sangams include Christian Tamils and even some Muslim Tamils from Tamil Nadu. The analogy to Jews is very relevant because as other users have pointed out they are not a national group. Nor, as I pointed out, are the Basques recognised as being a nation any more than Tamils are. Indians are neither an ethnic group nor a religious group - they are only national. If meeting one out of three is sufficient for Indians, Basques and Jews, why not for Tamils?

I don't see any problem with there being a category of Kashmiri Americans. If we can have Basque Americans and Sorbian Americans, we can also have Kashmiri Americans. And you are ignoring my point that I am not talking about multi-ethnic nations, but about multi-national ethnicities. -- Ponnampalam 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignoring anything, and if you took a second to read my argument you would see

I brought mant maultinational ethnicities to the table. Bengalis, Punjabis, Persians, Azeri are multinational ethnicities as well, but come from countries where there are no defined majority. practically 100% of Tamils are of Indian or Sri Lankan origin, all Bengalis are from India or Bangladesh, all Azeris from Iran or Azerbaijan, etc. The argument has dragged on 1) because of wikiraja's sockpuppetry and trolling, and 2) because you have obviously not read a word of what I typed and pretend like I didnt answer your questions when I have done so countless times.Bakaman 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very good at insulting people ("playing the ball not the man" as my football-loving great-grandson says). Anyway (1) a lot of other outside users have said the category is kept but maybe all of us are Wikiraja's sockpupptes (2) I will leave it to other users who read this page to judge the extent to which you answer my points and the extent to which you keep repeating the same thing without answering my counterpoints. -- Ponnampalam 13:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I may out-debate some people, they tend to go for the low blows. Three other users who voted to keep this category were crossed out, just because they may be new users or what not. Sockpuppets or not, I have been falsely accused of being those users just for the fact I have spoken up against a lot of misconstrued issues. Users such as Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have taken the liberty to post blatant warninings on my talk page threatening me to get me blocked. When I have pointed out a confirmed sockpuppet issue from the past about Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya, Aksi great, an administrator, threatens to block me if I ever bring it up again, and thus removed some of my posts. Furthermore, this administrator Aksi great has went to the extent to accuse me of sockpuppetry here, here, and here without doing a usercheck on me. It's amazing how truth hurts. I see no rule against that.

Wiki Raja 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Another user, dab, has said above pretty much everything I would say. This is a well defined ethnic group, who do not necessarily identify as Indian (because not all of them are) or Hindu (because not all of them are) or anything else except Tamil. There's a lot of very strong debate that goes on around the Tamil and especially Sri Lankan Tamil topics on Wikipedia. No disrespect to Bakaman, but I don't see getting rid of this category as being any kind of measure to help matters. And simply as a matter of encyclopedic accuracy, we need to make the differentiation. — coelacan — 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other well defined ethnic groups that for good reason lack a category. The PErsian ethnic group in Iran lacks an "-American" cat, and there are persian associations, Bengali associations, etc in the US. Multiethnic nations (especially those with no majority) do not need every ethnic group in their dominion getting their own cat. If onew looks at WP:OCAT you can see that the Tamil cat overlaps totally with either Indian Americans or Sri Lankan Americans. Bengali overlaps with Indian and Bangladeshi, Punjabi with Pakistani and Indian, Azeri with Azerbaijani and Iranian.Bakaman 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan - "...do not necessarily identify as Indian... or Hindu ... or anything else except Tamil." - if they arent Indians, then dont worry about the Cat:Indian American cat. If they arent Indian, they must be something. May be Malaysian, Canadian, Chinese, Pakistani or Srilankan. In such cases, simply feel free to use an appropriate category from what already exists for those countries in tandem with Cat:Tamil people. Simple. Sarvagnya 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but by the same reasoning, we should not have Category:Cherokee people, and they should all be upmerged to the US people's category. In fact, this argument would result in the complete deletion of Category:Tamil people; since they have no nation, they should be upmerged to Sri Lankan people or Indian people? But no, this would be intolerably POV. If we recognize that Category:Tamil people should exist, and it must, then there's no excuse for watering it down over at Tamil Americans. We don't categorize simply by geography, we take ethnicity into account as well. Your proposal would eliminate recognition of an ethnic group. Moreover, it is politically POV as well. What about Tamil Americans from the LTTE-controlled areas of Sri Lanka, who don't recognize Sri Lanka as one political entity? It would be POV to force them into a "Sri Lankan Americans" category against their own self-description. I'm sorry, this proposal is unworkable and unacceptable. — coelacan — 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense, ethnic+immigrant cats are entirely different than ethniccats. This woul;d not result in any sort of deletion of Category:Tamil people, and it is rabid paranoia and a loss of intelligence to assume anything like that would happen.Bakaman 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Is there any Wikipedia rule that suggest selective application of rules to ethnic and ethnic+immigrant categories? You are right on one account though; its exactly lack of intelligence that we are forced to deal with Praveen 02:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete - Merge with existing Cat:Indian American or delete it. There is no shortage of ethnicities in India and the world in general. We dont want thousands of ethnic "cats" running around.Dineshkannambadi 02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what is meant by "We dont want thousands of ethnic "cats" running around"? Who exactly is we supposed to be? Also, are these ethnic "cats" supposed to be in a cage then? Wiki Raja 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No we send them to Lemuria.Bakaman 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Straw man. What is the connection between the Kumari Kandam myth and the existence of a Tamil community? -- Ponnampalam 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...are these ethnic "cats" supposed to be in a cage then?..." - Yes the Dravidian kittens in Srilanka atleast need to be put in cages and put to sleep. Sarvagnya 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was somewhat in bad taste. Tamils in Sri Lanka have suffered, in fact I know people who fled from Black July.Bakaman 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was specifically about LTTE, not innocent Tamils(who surely exist and suffer). These kittens are terrorists(nothing more, nothing less) and deserve to be culled like the rest(of the terrorists). LTTE has caused as much suffering to Tamils as Islamic terrorists have caused innocent Muslims. They are an embarassment for Indian tamils except the Lemurian kind. Not to mention, their alleged extortions from Tamils in UK and Canada. Comment is certainly not in bad taste. Sarvagnya 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that political, racially motivated statement have to do with this discussion? Please explain. Just because the Indian army lost 1000 of its soldiers in Sri Lanka after raping Tamil women and shooting up a hospital in Jaffna during the late 1980s, doesn't give anyone the right to hate Tamils and speak of murdering them. Wiki Raja 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? 1k Tamils died, and after the Indian government put pressure on the Sinhalese, the fighting magically stopped. Your allegations of Indian army members raping Tamil women and blowing up hospitals is totally unfounded and smack of Indophobia.Bakaman 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So all this "magically" stopped? For the time being, until the IPKF ended up fighting the war. Your statement is very uncalled for. FYI, Amnesty International has reported the rape of Tamil women by the IPKF in its annual report in 1988. In 1989, Amnesty International came out with another report of hundreds of disappeareance committed by the IPKF as well as the Sri Lankan forces for their annual report of 1989. Several reprisal attacks on Tamil civilians by the IPKF including the the Velvaturai hospital massacre at the hands of the IPKF were also reported in the Amnesty International annual report for 1990. So, please do not tell me that all the fighting "Magically" stopped when the IPKF went in to save the Tamils. That is a slap in the face to many. Wiki Raja 05:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another thing, please do not give me this indophobia story. We all know in the U.S. that during the Vietnam War there was the Mai Lai massacre committed by some of the American troops. But, that does not make us Americaphobic if we talk about it. That is a part of our U.S. history. I do not know how things are run in India, but out here in the U.S. we do not alter or hide our history. Wiki Raja 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I came up with this category not as a political statement about Tamils as an seperate ethnic group outside of an Indian identity but as a clerical category to be able to group diverse Tamil diaspora people of different Tamil ethnic origins to be categorized by different countries. I hope we can avoid the perenial arguments and unfound fears about the alleged Tamil seperateness from the general Indian identity away from these discussions as it is simply a clerical category. Even Tamils from Sri Lanka are originally from India. That cannot be denied but they have their own identity now so do Tamils from Malaysia. For example if Miss.XYZ is an Indian Tamil writer from the USA. Why cant we have her categorized as Tamil American, Indian American, Tamil writer etc ? what's wrong with that ? ThanksRaveenS 03:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian American" shows that she's from India and that she is in America. "Tamil writer" and/or "Tamil people" is more than sufficient to establish her 'Tamil'ness. Then, what on earth is "Tamil American" for? Sarvagnya 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it for? Perhaps for recognizing that people do not give up their ethnicity when they pack up their bags and get on a plane. — coelacan — 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we categorize the person by ethnicity and profession, if that escaped you.Bakaman 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete. Sarvagnya 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment My comment on ethnic "cats" was not meant to be derogatory. There is enough turbulence in the world already, most of it caused by "political exclusivity" and subregionalism. The lesser we have it the better. The cat:Tamil American makes Tamils exclusive with a linguistic identity in an otherwise English speaking country. I dont think this is right.Dineshkannambadi 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Tamil is not only a language, but an ethnicity as well. The United States is home to hundreds of ethnicities from all over the world. Just because there is turbulence all over the world doesn't mean that we must try to stop ethnic groups from being known. That is how wars get started in the first place. I hope I am making sense. Wiki Raja 04:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does not. Tamil is a language, not an etnicity. It is construed to be an ethnicity based on language.Dineshkannambadi 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I am beginning to sense Anti-Tamil hatred in this discussion. First, we have Sarvangya's message making a joke about killing Sri Lankan Tamils. And next, you are saying that we are not an ethnic group. So, if Tamils are not an ethnic group, I suppose that Kannadigas are an ethnic group as stated on this page? Wiki Raja 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing anti-Tamil about what I wrote. I cant change how you feel. There is no shortage of fabulous topics and articles to write about, pertaining to Tamil people, their rich culture and history. User:Venu (Parthi) has been an inspiration to me and I think you should take that path too, instead of wasting your energy on such futile tags, cats etc. I wish you the best and want to log of this topic and focus on more important articles. Again, I hold no malice against you.Dineshkannambadi 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Directly or indirectly? Wiki Raja 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Bakasuprman: Since you didn't give me a chance to finish, but instead reported me for a personal attack, I will finish what I was going to further say. I do not appreciate being accused of disliking anyone because of their social or so called caste status. If that was the case, I would not have contributed a Tamil Brahmin external site to this page. However, it was removed by Sarvagnya here. Also, what is wrong with this picture? We have categories for Bengali Brahmins, Telugu Brahmins, and Malayalee Brahmins. What happened to the category or page for Tamil Brahmins? I do not see you raising any issues about this. In regards to the Kannadiga group, I have personally created some Kannadiga ethnicity templates here. I have done the same for other groups out of repsect and to promote their ethnicities. But, sadly, we have a few bad apples. Wiki Raja 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice discussion. Very enlightening, too. But, really, should we really start categories for every tiny fragment of ethnic identity - Candian Christian Tamils from Shrilanka or UK Bengalis from the Sylhet District in Bangladesh - unless there is a valid reason, and thus clutter up Wikipedia? I know, we can't fit everyone fit perfectly into larger ethnic categories, and a lot of relevant identity statement may go missing from the category, but that's what the articles are for. And, can we, please, keep the Indian Army out of this discussion? Aditya Kabir 06:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider the merits of this particular category instead of inventing straw men. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy. We also have a Category:Sri Lankan Americans. But there are some Tamil people who are supporters of the Tamil Eelam, and to describe these people as being identified by the political entity of Sri Lanka is blatantly POV. Category:Tamil Americans solves that problem in an NPOV way. They're Tamil, they're Americans, all's well. — coelacan — 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are some Tamil people who are supporters of the Tamil Eelam, and to describe these people as being identified by the political entity of Sri Lanka is blatantly POV.

No. Infact, it is your argument that is POV. Tamil Eelam is not any legal entity. It is run by a ragtag bunch of outlawed bandits posing as a government. No responsible government anywhere in the world accords their so called 'government' any legitimacy. And there is no reason Wikipedia should be an exception. For example, there may be some Afghans who are sympathetic to the Taliban and the Taliban may continue to hold on to petty little fiefdoms in Afghanistan even as of today. That doesnt mean Wikipedia take a sympathetic stance towards Taliban. To solve your problem of terrorist sympathisers among Tamil Americans, we can make use of the Cat:LTTE or Cat:Tamil Eelam or Cat:Srilankan terrorists that already exist(infact, those cats need some cleaning up too). Also your logic is strange. If srilankan tamils in US who are sympathetic towards LTTE are to be brought under Cat:Tamil Americans, what about Tamil Americans who dont want to have anything to do with them? You'd be tarring them with the same brush. Sarvagnya 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

And, can we, please, keep the Indian Army out of this discussion? Aditya Kabir 06:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

Sorry to pull a couple of skeletons out of the closet. However, it was Sarvagnya who first sarcastically mentioned about the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. His rash statement only shows the negative violent nature of the message directed towards Tamils. Wiki Raja 07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My original points in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:Keralite_americans stand. But I am voicing stronger support for both these categories on the basis of categories like Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans and such. Each state in India has a very distinct culture, ethnicity and language. --vi5in^[talk] 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why should not Tamil Americans have a category, just like Irish-Americans or German-Americans? This is about their Tamil heritage, not which nation-state their parents were citizens of or what politics they adhere to. --Orange Mike 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From the Category:Irish-American

This category includes articles on people who (or whose ancestors) emigrated from the U.S to Ireland.

• From Category:German-American

German-Americans are American persons of German birth or ancestry.

• Now, can you please show me where on earth you have a country called "Tamil-Land"?? Germany is a country. Ireland is a country. German-Americans and Irish-Americans are Americans who(or their ancestors) emigrated to America from one of those two countries. Tamil Americans on the other hand are of Tamil ancestry only insofar as their mother tongue is Tamil. As for the place/country of origin, it is in an overwhelming number of cases one of either India or Srilanka. And we already have Cat:Indian-Americans and Cat:Srilankan-Americans. Sarvagnya 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just proving my point. Category:Irish-Americans includes people not only from the territory of the Republic of Ireland, but also ethnic Irish people from Northern Ireland which is in the UK. See John Hughes (archbishop) as an example. There are dozens of others. So contrary to what you said, Category:Irish-Americans is not a category of people who emigrated to the US from the country Ireland. Instead, it is a perfect example of a category which is not linked to a modern country, but to an ethnic group which lives in more than one country!

And what about Category:Basque Americans? There is no country called "Basqueland", just an autonomous region in Spain and a few districts in France - exactly the same situation as Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka with the Northern and Eastern Provinces! -- Ponnampalam 11:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Irish-Americans and most German-Americans are descended from people whose ancestors emigrated to the U.S. when there was no country called Ireland, or Germany! What is now "Ireland" was part of the United Kingdom; what is now "Germany" was a morass of kingdoms, principalities, bishoprics, duchies, etc.; and the boundaries of neither ethnic group match the boundaries of the nation-states marked by those names. You picked the worst possible examples! Tamils are an ethnic group, not a set of citizenship papers. Your POV is showing, Sarvagnya. --Orange Mike 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But were not talking about history, were talking about now. Tamils are one of many multinational ethnic groups in South and Southeast Asia, and are part of countries with no ethnic majority. Germany was united by Bismarck over a hundred years ago. Since you obviously cant argue with a present day ethnic group/naitonal group/religious group your argument holds no water. And if you're wondering I am Tamil, so allegations of ethnocentrism or "Racial bias" hold no water either.Bakaman 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Tamil too, and I disagree with you, Bakasuprman. Someone saying whether they are Tamil or not, to get their POV across does not hold water either, so what is your point? Wiki Raja 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you are Tamil too does not mean all Tamils are agreeing with you. All I see here is you (Tamilian?) and a bunch of Kannadians (who have ongoing dispute with Tamilians in areas such as Cauvery water sharing etc. see these 1 2) oppose MANY Tamilians (and a handful of other people). Praveen 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm of European ancestry and I live in the USA. What does any of this matter? Who cares where Bakaman or Wiki Raja is from? Must we go down this tangent? — coelacan — 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what say you of Category:Palestinian-Americans? They don't have a country so they can't have a category? It is a politicial viewpoint that says that all Tamil people are either Sri Lankan or Indian. "Sri Lankan" as in "of the island of Sri Lanka", perhaps, but "Sri Lanka" is also a political entity, a government, that some Tamils in the Tamil Eelam areas do not recognize. Parts of that area are de facto controlled by the LTTE. To say that those who come from those areas and do not recognize the rule of the political entity should nevertheless be labelled by the name of an entity they do not recognize is to silence their voices. That viewpoint is not exactly uncontroversial, and I haven't seen anyone address this problem yet. In fact I wonder what's the point of deleting this category in light of this fact? It's odd to find such determined insistance against the visibility of an ethnic group. I would think it particularly odd if someone were insisting that Category:Palestinian-Americans should be merged into Category:Israeli-Americans. This would seem to have the same kind of effect. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, Bakaman. But I'm afraid it would be the unintended consequence. — coelacan — 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but "Sri Lanka" is also a political entity, a government, that some Tamils in the Tamil Eelam areas do not recognize. - whether terrorists and their sympathisers choose to recognise a democratically elected govt., or not is besides the point. Scores of countries recognise SriLanka. The United Nations does. The SAARC does. Sorry. Wikipedia cannot be expected to conjure up a nation state for them out of thin air. And in any case, like I've already pointed out, we have categories for LTTE, Srilankan terrorists, Eelam etc.,. Just because a certain population is deluded is no reason to create superfluous categories. Sarvagnya 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, your example of Palestinian-Americans is not a very good analogy. The more commonsense counter for that would be Eelam-Americans. If you so wish, go ahead and create that cat., and pray that you can actually find articles to categorise under that. Sarvagnya 04:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Tamil Government Coelacan unlike Hamas and the PLO.Bakaman 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then who controls Kilinochchi? The Kotte government, or the LTTE? — coelacan — 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a tangential argument, noting the fact LTTE is called a terrorist group in America, and not recognized by any country as a legitimate government. Moqtada al Sadr controls part of Baghdad, doesnt make him a government. The Palestine Government has Gaza and the West Bank to "govern" and at least the PLO is regarded as a legitimate entity.Bakaman 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it is Hamas who control the Palestinian National Authority, not the PLO. If you are predicating your arguments on what you consider legitimate poltical entities, I just hope you can understand why Wikipedia cannot simply bend to that POV automatically. And none of this addresses the separate fact that Tamil people are an ethnic group, and this proposal denies them the recognition of their ethnicity after they get on an airplane. — coelacan — 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because LTTE is using terror tactics doesn't mean that there is/was no oppression by 'democratically' elected government in Srilanka/Eelam. It also doesn't mean other innocent Tamils do not want a Freeland. The point here is that there are many Americans who would fit Tamil-Americans rather than other categories. And, moreover this category will definitely be a valuable navigation tool (which is the main intention of having a category). BTW: you have started a category called Mauritian-Hindus (See here). By your logic above, is there a 'Hindu' Government? Praveen 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People are claiming that there is no "Tamil" or "Kerala" government, and that we should club it all under "Indian". What about Sicilian-Americans? Sicily is an autonomous region of Italy, but not a country in its own right. Using the logic of the people against having a separate category for Tamils and Malayalees, we should Merge Sicilian-Americans into Italian-Americans. In India people identify themselves as Indian, but also have a very strong identity of being Malayalee, or Tamilian, or Marathi, or Punjabi, and so on. Simply clubbing everyone into "Indian Americans" would ignore this. --vi5in^[talk] 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some of these topics being discussed are irrelevant, they only provide diversion from the issue. Category:Tamil Americans should be allowed as precedent has already been set, with categories for Basque-Americans, Sicilian-Americans, and especially Scots-Irish Americans. Tamil has as a long or longer history of independent identity and sojourns in other countries. If the other categories are allowed, then so should Category:Tamil Americans (as well as other ethnic identities, i.e. Keralite/Malayalee Americans being discussed at [2]) Kathanar

Keralite Americans was merged. Scots-Irish are a religious majority in Northern Ireland, named so because they are ethnically Irish, but proclaim the religion of the Scots. I think Sicilian Americans should be deleted as well, and if any of you wishes to CFD it, that would be your prerogative. The existence of some bad cats does not excuse the creation of others. On Praveen's note, we are not discussing religion at all, and religion is absolutely irrelevant to the arguments noted here and are tangential to the issue. And are you suggesting umpteen "navigational tools" for the infinite number of ethnic groups in South, SE, and SW Asia? The Tamils are not alone in being an ethnic group in South Asia without a cat. Infact none do, not Sinhalese or Persian (majority groups), not Punjabi, not Baloch, not Pakhtun (multinational groups). The Sri Lankan cat only means people with ancestry from the island of Lanka, it does not automatically mean Sinhala, as Lakshman Kadirgamar and Yogaswami and others cwould note.Bakaman 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a category with one or two members to warrant your 'umpteen/infinite' rationale. There are enough members in that category to argue that the category is useful navigation tool. And your creation of a category with religious connotation all the while opposing a valid category just proves POV pushing. Praveen 02:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure in Kumari Kandam its considered POV pushing, but seeDemographics of Mauritius or CIA Factbook for that matter. Hindus are around 50% or so of Mauritius' population, making a religion cat quite relevant. Your continued bringing up of the Hindu issue, as well as calling a dumping ground for Eelam sympathizers a "Valid category" ispeculiar. There are enough to start Pakhtun, Persian, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Assamese, Tripuri, Javanese, Hui, Zhuang, Kannada, Malayali. Oriya, Sindhi, Punjabi, Azeri, Kurd, etc,etc. The list goes on and on.Bakaman 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic straw man strategy as pointed out by Ponnampalam. Its astonishing to see how some people wouldn't let go of free cows (while most of them already did). Back to the point: all the languages that you pointed out are different from Tamil in that Tamil is one of administrative languages in 4(or more) countries. Also when did 50% percent become the criteria? And who made this criteria? Is it created on-the-fly or written in some book gazillion years ago? Cherokee people form less than 5% of US population; so they should not have a category? That will be news to many Cherokees. Praveen 13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for contradicting yourself Baka, according to your logic pushed by you for CFD tamil american, Scots-Irish (also know as Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland) do not need a separate american identity just a all encompanssing one, whatever country they are in. It irrelevant if they are the majority of Northern Ireland, they share it with a significantly large Irish Catholic "ethnic" group (more than 30% of the population), would't they just come under the Northern Irish Identity? Are you trying to appease someone? It seems you make up new rules as you go just to suit your needs, how hypocritical, or maybe doing some damage control as you have opened up a can of worms in your efforts. Oh and Keralite Americans was merged mostly thanks to you and some of your buddies agendas, and is the only reason you CFD Tamil Americans. According to the reasoning presented here and in CFD Keralite American, Category:Scots-Irish Americans, Category:Basque Americans, Category:Sicilian-Americans and "umpteen" others will need to be merged or deleted. Its funny how you ask somebody else to CFD Category:Sicilian-Americans, don't ask others to do your dirty work. Wikipedia will need to over haul itself with all these new exceptions being made up to selectively target groups. --Kathanar 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITs funny how you and Wiki Raja gang up and revert war together as well. Perhaps a shared disdain for Hindus, especially Brahmins is an obvious similarity. A Northern Irish identity is unneeded, as Scots Irish is the term used for anyone from the 'country of Northern Ireland, or the region known as Ulster. Sicilian Americans probably does need to be deleted, I dont see why you dont do it if you feel so strongly. If there was a cat for Punjabi Americans I would vote delete, its only because I'm opposing some anti-Hindu ethnocentrics that I'm being accused of an agenda.Bakaman 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is the other way around. A long known career to some folks. But, when we speak up, we become the bad guys. By the way why we feel strong about Tamil-American? For one, Tamil is our ethnicity, and two, America is the land of our birth. Now take your problems somewhere else. Wiki Raja 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baka actually is just regurgitating some of the accusations continually leveled against him and his cronies. Its not nice to mock people Baka. There seems to be a revealing of true colors here. What "anti-hindu ethnocentrics" and the other garbage babbled? When did religion become a part of this? "Anti-Hindu" is a label that Baka and his buddies throw as a method of intimidation at anyone who doesn't conform with them or their version of how things should be. Look at his history, you will see its very anti-non-hindu ( for lack of a better term), aggressively biased and POV'd in these aspects. These words and actions are actually "anti-hindu" Baka, just by trying to color this with religion. Baka true motives are in his version of religious supremacism which he has somehow translated into this debate about ethnic labels. You do a disservice to real Hindus by these actions.

Do the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland end up being called Scots-Irish? Have you forgotten about them? You said anyone from Northern Ireland is called Scots-Irish right? You are making no sense now, or you are just making stuff up. Do you think people will fall for some of this false information being spouted? Again if we took your reasoning Scots-Irish Americans is a invalid category due to their being from Northern Ireland, a place with more than one ethnicity. I think now that Baka has revealed his true motives (religious/ethno supremacism), this debate should be invalidated. Its ridiculous that nonsense such as this is entered into a serious discussion. --Kathanar 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnosupremacism? I treat all ethnicites fairly by advocating none of them have cats. Apart from that it seems you are apt to attack me, on account of that I revert vandalism by you revery day, as does every other Hindu user you encounter on wikipedia. Scots-Irish is the correct term for a person from Ulster which is Northern Ireland. It is a valid national category therefore. Your inability to understand reasoned argument and your constant attacks on me and my religion serve to indicate your reasons for existence on wikipedia do not have any relationship to encyclopedicity or any positive outcome really.Bakaman 03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This debate cannot be resolved. Both sides have valid arguments. My viewpoint on this is that as long as a person is in India, he can be classified according to his ethnicity. But if he is outside India, he should only be classified as being of Indian heritage. Or we will start having categories like Tamil-Singaporeans, British-Gujuratis. NRI's who speak a particular language can be categorized as being Tamils or Malayalis. On the debate regarding Sicilian-Americans, I think it should be deleted on these lines.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A valid transnational ethnic group as Basques, Huguenots, Arabs, Jews etc. the supracategory page is named ETHNIC and national groups for cases as these. Mayumashu 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge per nom. Aside from the views put forth by different parties, we have to keep Wikipedia policies in mind and that is why I agree to the nom with respects to overlapping categories. Ekantik ^talk 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having a category for Tamil-Americans in no way undermines the Indian-American category. Its nothing more than navigation tool. If overlapping categories should be deleted, then we have to delete Tamil people category because it overlaps Indian, Srilankan categories. The main point here is that there are many Americans from different countries (India, Srilanka etc) who could be clubbed together as Tamil-Americans. This might help many users who want to see all americans of Tamil ethnicity. Praveen 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ekantik, what is the relevant Wikipedia policy here? I haven't seen one presented. — coelacan — 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge Per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Per Nom--D-Boy 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per comments by Orange Mike.--Joebengo 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge as per nomination. I find the arguments from precedent and economy persuasive. rudra 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: No need to delete. Tamils are a transnational group and tamils from current day india have migrated to other countries even before the formation of india. and tamils from srilanka are historically independent of indian influence. This category would be very usefu; to know people in america by their language and ethnic origin. Should keep this category. I am a regular contributor in tamil wikipedia and we were invited for comments here--Ravishankar 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like WikiRaja spammed Tamil wikipedia to solicit votes?Bakaman 03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

//There is no reason to delete and merge Tamil Americans with Indian Americans, other than to feed nationalistic POV//

• Strong Keep: Just likes Jews, Tamils live across globe. The national (country of residence) identity and Tamil identity are important identities for Tamils. Within the Tamils discourse it is custom to refer to people by the country of their residence. For example Indian Tamils, Sri Lankan Tamils, Singapore Tamils, Canadian Tamils etc. Thus, American Tamils is an appropriate category to keep. --Natkeeran 19:20, 15 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.