Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

Category:Cornwall, Connecticut

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cornwall, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, category has only one article other than Cornwall itself, unlikely to grow and unnecessary. Schzmo 00:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The city only has a population of 1,434. --musicpvm 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Trip hop artists to Category:Trip hop musicians

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat should be renamed to match all the other categories of Category:Musicians by genre. --musicpvm 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Twittenham 00:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Piccadilly 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiP difference with Commons Cats

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:
Category:WikiP difference with Commons Cats to
Category:Wikipedia categories different from Wikimedia Commons categories.

This change parallels the one that created (per action in this forum)
Category:Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories per this namcon section, which cases seem not to be speedy-rename covered, despite being an administrative or WikiProject category. (These are part of an experimental attempt to better interwiki connections, soon to be a Meta-project proposal.)

Miscellany: Only one page will require change. {{commonscatNo}} which auto-categorizes this category, to be used as a To-Do or 'WIP' list. // FrankB 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-reference. Merchbow 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Trapezuntine Empire

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

The result of the debate was category redirect --Kbdank71 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, To match the article Empire of Trebizond, which I believe to be the more familiar term. Cloachland 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but note alternate name in article, and throw in a redirect for good measure. HawkerTyphoon 23:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but keep the old name as a redirect. Casper Claiborne 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Locomotive engineers

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Locomotive engineer is ambiguous: in this category it means "someone who designs locomotives" (UK usage) but in the USA it means "the person who drives the locomotive". There is even one case (Francis Webb (engineer)) where a British locomotive designer links to locomotive engineer. If we are going to have such a category (which we should) it needs an unambiguous name. Mangoe 22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Locomotive designer". Although I grew up calling them "locomotive engineers", I recognize that "locomotive designer" is the best solution, given that more than just the UK exists. Calling this category "locomotive engineer" is misleading in large parts of the world. I don't like "locomotive builder" since that means something different: a person who works at a locomotive manufacturer and actually assembles the loco. Gwernol 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Locomotive designers (plural) for reasons given by Gwernol. Cloachland 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — Category:Locomotive designers makes more sense considering the people being listed do not actually sit up front and drive the train!--Lordkinbote 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as category:locomotive engineers. The designers/builders suggestion is absurd - a builder is a company such as NBLC. A engineer engineers. And more often than not did not do the designing as they had a drawing office to do that for them (and besides which locomotive designer sounds horrible). We are also not going to need a category for engine drivers, since none of them was famous. — Dunc|☺ 23:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are famous engineers in the American sense, e.g., Casey Jones. I have found others, though perhaps not so many as to justify a category for them (my standards for that being on the high side). I am amenable to removing "builders" from the new category name, but considering the number of British "locomotive engineers" whose articles talk about them "designing" locomotives, referring to them as "designers" is not a stretch, nor particularly obscure. Mangoe 23:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I personally can't stand American English - No offence meant - but I understand that Wiki has to have some give in it for the colonies (bless them(j/k)), and 'engineer' does mean something different in other parts of the world! HawkerTyphoon 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Locomotive designers. However if there is a chance that some locomotive drivers would be notable, then Category:Locomotive engineer (designers) might be better since we could then create Category:Locomotive engineer (train operations)). Vegaswikian 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These men were almost all known in their day as engineers rather than designers. The greatest of the British locomotive engineers were called 'The Chief Mechanical Engineer' of their employing railway company, that was their official title. They were proud of that highest honour when elected by their peers 'President' for a year of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. NoelWalley 07:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not internationally true. Ephraim Shay for example could not have been so elected, for he was an American. Indeed, I note a decided reluctance to allow any American members in the category; Shay seems to have escaped removal by a fluke of timing. I also note that some of the British members, at least as far as their articles are concerned, don't appeat to have been involved in the engineering of locomotives. At any rate I don't see how pride in a title outweighs a reader being able to figure out what the category is about. Mangoe 11:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither designers nor builders fits the bill as well as engineers. One possible alternative is Category:Locomotive entrepreneurs. Noisy | Talk 08:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with modified version of User:Vegaswikian's suggestion. Neither designers nor builders fits the bill as well as engineers, and this is what they were called, otherwise why was there an Institution of Locomotive Engineers?. Use Category:Locomotive engineers (design and construction) and Category:Locomotive engineers (train operation). This is the standard mechanism for disambiguation of multiply-used terms. Noisy | Talk 07:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the American sense, that would imply people who started firms which built locomotives, which would exclude all the later British members. It would also include financiers as well as engineers, which I think almost everyone would find less interesting. I'm having a hard time understanding the repugnance for "designer", but thus far it is the only word which identifies the right people in an international context. Mangoe 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And similarly we can't understand your repugnance for an expression that's been around for nigh on two hundred years. We're not talking here about people who were just involved in the theoretical side of designing, but got their hands dirty in building the things. Why use a clumsy term which only conveys a portion of their involvement when a comprehensive term like 'engineer' exists? [1] Strikes me that a more inclusive term for the other form of locomotive engineer would be train driver, which seems totally unambiguous. Noisy | Talk 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is "engineer" meaning train driver has as long and storied a history on the other side of the Atlantic. The thing that makes someone like Stephenson, Churchward or Gresley stand out from someone on the workfloor who made locomotives is the fact that they designed the overall vehicle and/or specific important components. That's why categorizing them as designers makes sense to me. We cannot use the term engineer as its so overloaded. There's nothing clumsy about "designers" as a term, indeed its used widely in other disciplines (aircraft designers, for example) so it seem a reasonable compromise. Gwernol 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't find the phrase repugnant. But it's simply a matter of fact that nobody in the United States would understand it correctly without instruction. "Casey Jones was an engineer," as the song goes. And personally I'm inclined to doubt that Nigel Gresley made his major contributions at the foundry or lathe; I'm far more ready to believe that his conjugated valve motion was something he "constructed" with paper and pencil. Gresley indeed seems to be the analogue of someone like George Emerson on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Mangoe 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just reflecting back your use of repugnant to make a point. ;-) My attitude is one in search of accuracy and not one of repugnance. Just a look at the category shows that there are five instances where the term 'engineer' is used to distinguish these characters from others with similar names, so forcing those people into a category with the title 'designer' is patently wrong. Noisy | Talk 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, by that logic the category can't be called "locomotive engineers" either since it contains Matthias N. Forney who is described as a locomotive designer and William Norris (locomotive builder) and Thomas Rogers (locomotive builder). The point being that the terms "locomotive engineer" and "locomotive designer" are both used with equal legitimacy to mean the same thing. Either we find a term for this category that is never used in any situation ("locomotive creator"? Ugh) or choose one of the existing ones. Its clear that "locomotive engineer" has two very different meanings, so is misleading. "Locomotive designer" does not suffer from this, so seems like the better choice. Gwernol 00:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Noisy, I'm afraid I don't see your point. We've been back and forth over the exact ambiguity in "locomotive engineer"; but nobody seems willing to explain what is wrong with the word "designer", especially since the articles themselves talk about the designing these men did. I really would like to hear a concrete reason why this word is so objected to, since in my American context it captures exactly what is important about these men. Mangoe 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now advertised this at Portal:Trains | talk, which might attract a relevant community. Noisy | Talk 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The category name as it's being used now is ambiguous because "locomotive engineer" has two different meanings. In the US, a "locomotive engineer" is a person who operates a locomotive, while in other regions, notably in the UK, a "locomotive engineer" is a person who designs a locomotive. The term "designer" is already used in articles about British personages, moving this category to "locomotive designer" seems an appropriate disambiguation to me. Slambo (Speak) 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since both professions seem to have a substantial claim, I would like to counter-propose that two categories are a suitable solution: Category:Locomotive engineers (design and construction) and Category:Locomotive engineers (train operation). Noisy | Talk 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Refactored into above discussion.[reply]
Rename per Gwernol. I had no idea a "train engineer" means something else in the U.K., and I can't be the only one. It's just going to confuse people. Incidentally, our locomotive engineer article gives no indication of the British usage. —Chowbok
Rename to eliminate confusion. In America "Locomotive engineer" has only one meaning - the train "driver". As wikipedia is an international source, its categories need to be easily understood in both the U.K. AND the U.S. --Tim4christ17 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the above argument but surely by the same logic Casey Jones must be classified as 'Engine Driver' since nobody in the UK (including the engine drivers) would think a locomotive engineer drove railway engines for a living and that despite the fact that almost all train drivers in the UK are members of the trade union A.S.L.E.F. (A? Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) of course we no longer have firemen - its a funny world! By the same logic we all own and drive cars, motor cars, or just motors but we have our brakedown insurance with the A.A. or the R.A.C. (guess what an 'A' in each case stands for! Regards NoelWalley 20:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the famous "engineers"/"drivers" have a list in the article in question, but no category. I don't know that there are so many of them now that we need a category, but I would probably go for "Locomotive drivers (engineers)" if we wanted to introduce one. "Driver", unfortunately, is also a problem word (in US parlance, the driving wheels on a steam locomotive), but I think the category is made clear enough in that way. Mangoe 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear! don't say after all this we are short of engine drivers worthy of merit? We can supply at least half a dozen 'top link drivers' (sort that out) who have written and published their auto-bio's including the great Bill Hoole who on retirement from the top shed at Kings Cross (Flying Scotsman and all that) switched to "Prince" on the Ffestiniog Railway, the world's oldest regularly operational steam engine and happily took it from Porthmadog to Tan-y-Bwlch, 7½ miles in 40 minutes. He did his utmost in 1961 to persuade me to abandon the booking office for the footplate but I was allergic to overalls! NoelWalley 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was informed up above that there weren't any famous drivers (UK, one assumes), and in my cruising around I recall finding only two more besides CJ to add to the category in its brief American revisionist period. I can only take the Brits' word on this..... If there are enough examples out there, by all means create the category (after we figure out what to call it, of course). Mangoe 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:National final songs

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National final songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, Unnecessary category. Used for Eurovision national final songs. VERY few national final songs are notable enough for encyclopædia inclusion (as opposed to actual Eurovision songs). If there were enough articles about notable NF songs then this category might be needed, but as it is, there aren't. EuroSong ^talk 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --musicpvm 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the title makes no reference to Eurovision, without which the category makes no sense. Carlossuarez46 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wizard rock

Category:Wizard rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Mikkalai. - EurekaLott 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Only one article in the category, and there does not appear to be any other band that will gain enough notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article. Saralk 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 22:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the term itself didn't gain notability to make it into a category. `'mikka (t) 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, it looks like someone speedied this one. --tjstrf 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Flemish activists

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSED to the renaming proposed by LucVerhelst at Category talk:Flemish activists. Such reasoning would suggest that "Category:Taiwanese activists" be renamed "Chinese activists"; "Category:Uyghur activists" be renamed "Chinese activists"; "Category:Tamil activists" be renamed (essentially) "Sri Lankan activists" and "Category:Northern Irish activists" be merged with "Category:British activists". I think that the nationality referred to by Category:Activists by nationality is that of the desired nationality, not that of the alledgedly occupying forces. Bejnar 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Spare us the nationalist paranoia. There are no "occupying forces". Modern Belgians should be classified as Belgians. A category called ~~Category:Flemish independence activists~~ Category:Flemish secessionists (amended as per Intangible) would be acceptable, but this isn't. Hawkestone 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jesus, some people really don't understand anything of what this discussion is about. Dionysos1 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OPPOSED to the renaming: no need to do so. Everything else is too specific or too general. This name is PERFECT and NEUTRAL. Dionysos1 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Flemish secessionists, which is what they really are. Intangible 22:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Flemish secessionists per Intangible Cloachland 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are they really all secessionists, or are some merely Flemish human-rights advocates and so on? --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. They are all fighting for the "Flemish cause", giving more independance to Flanders. But while some are secessionists (a minority), the majority wants to give Flanders some sort of authonomy within a federal or confederal Belgian state. I think "Category:Flemish secessionists" would be a mistake.--LucVerhelst 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, both the change to Belgian activists and to Flemish secessionists. In the latter case, there would be need for a Category:Flemish federalists and a Category:Flemish confederalists.--LucVerhelst 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a Category:Fighters for the Flemish cause within the centralised Belgian state, and a Category:Fighters for the Flemish cause in general, because they're in Category:Flemish activists too, and neither in "secessionists", "federalists" nor "confederalists".

Of the 14 people that are now in the category, 2 or 3 would fall under "secessionists", 5 under "federalists" or "confederalists", and the remainder would be hard to define (and cause for quite some edit warring, too).--LucVerhelst 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It wouldn't make sense to categorize Flemish federalists. They are just Belgians. Intangible 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And how would that be ?? --LucVerhelst 18:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Activists advocating Flemish political rights. Casper Claiborne 13:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is likely to be a "no consensus" after 7 days due to the variety of suggestions and new information put forward. If so I would request that it is kept open for another 7 days so the discussion can reach a useful conclusion. Casper Claiborne 13:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will you be proposing a same change of name for the Uyghur activists, the Tamil activists and the Northern Irish activists ? There is something to be said for that. --LucVerhelst 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tax Acts of the United States

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. It ought to conform to other sub-categories of Category:United States federal legislation. —Markles 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. Merchbow 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Tim4christ17 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Famous members of Red Sox Nation

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, In June there was a no consensus regarding deletion of this category. Since then, I believe that precedence has been set for deletion on Category:Notable ice hockey fans and Category:Notable baseball fans, so I am re-nominating at this time . Brian G 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hobbies/interests should not be made into categories. --musicpvm 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Mike Selinker 01:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Piccadilly 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my original nom. —Chowbok 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I still think it's bad precedent for the same reasons I stated in the baseball fans vote. --M @r ē ino 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this categorization is too trivial to be of any meaning. I don't think we should categorize people by their favorite TV shows either. --Cyde↔Weys 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cydeweys; I also think this would be bad precedent to keep as it will lead to a proliferation of relatively meaningless categories on nearly every person entry: every sports-team they support, tv-show they watch, car they drive, product they consume...Carlossuarez46 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Malayalam Film Stars to Category:Malayalam film actors

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Malayalam-language film actors --Kbdank71 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization, and to call them actors instead of stars. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --musicpvm 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename obvious per nom. Bejnar 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Malayam-language film actors per Hawkestone below. David Kernow 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC), updated 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No it isn't obvious. Malayalam is not a place so it should be Category:Malayalam-language film actors to match Category:Malayalam-language films. Hawkestone 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I meant stars to actors and dropping the capitalization, I didn't know that Category:Malayalam films was changed to Category:Malayalam-language films last week. Although I don't know why a language can't be an adjective, as in Sanskrit literature or Urdū literature. But I see that you have also changed Tamil films to Tamil-language films. So I guess simplicity is a lost cause. Bejnar 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can recall I have never edited any article or category connected with Tamils. Hawkestone 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Malayalam-language film stars per Hawkestone. Cloachland 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Malayalam-language film actors per Hawkestone. However, shouldn't malayalam cinema also be renamed? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Malayalam-language film actors per Hawkestone. Piccadilly 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sandbox

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

The result of the debate was delete category and subcategory. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an experiment that escaped. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David Kernow 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, please.--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Category:Sandbox/User:Ian Spackman/A Category should also be deleted. --musicpvm 05:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Archaeological artefacts to Category:Archaeological artifacts

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a spelling error. Is there any country in which the "e" is the most common spelling? It's certainly not used in the US.--Mike Selinker 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google showed artefacts has 15 million hits as opposed to 83.7 million for artifacts (YMMV). So artifacts is more common, for whatever that is worth. Bejnar 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Renaming global categories to American spelling is against policy. The name chosen by the creator should stand. Osomec 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is reasonable if, say, the United Kingdom uses artefacts more often than artifacts. If so, I'll withdraw the nomination. Can anyone back that up?--Mike Selinker 01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The OED prefers artefact. —Blotwell 08:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Turns out my Chambers Revised does too. OK, seems like I support a redirect instead.--Mike Selinker 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the varities of English policy. Merchbow 01:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Category:Archælogical artefacts in that case. --tjstrf 01:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, artefact a perfectly correct variant, fine as it is under english usage policy guidelines here.--cjllw | TALK 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Category:Archaeological artifacts to Category:Archaeological artefacts. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support, because the main article is Artifact (archaeology), whereas Artefact (archaeology) is a redirect. Mangoe 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cancer deaths

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by bone cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Bone cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by brain tumour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Brain tumour deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from breast cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Breast cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from cervical cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Cervical cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by facial cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Facial cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from kidney cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Kidney cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from leukemia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Leukemia deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by liver cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Liver cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by lung cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Lung cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from lymphoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Lymphoma deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by oral cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Oral cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from ovarian cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Ovarian cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by pancreatic cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Pancreatic cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by prostate cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Prostate cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from stomach cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Stomach cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths by throat cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Throat cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Deaths from uterine cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Uterine cancer deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These subcategories all fall under the category "Cancer deaths" and should be named similarly. Additionally, the category titles vary between "by" and "from", and rather than worry about which word is better for uniformity's sake, it's best just to do away with the preposition. I apologize for beginning to migrate these categories earlier without notifying here; I had been removing redundancies within the subcategories' articles to reduce the number within Cancer deaths, and I went right into moving the subcategories. I didn't understand the procedure at the time, and as soon as it was pointed out to me I came here. If consensus decides, I can move them back if need be. --Chris Griswold 09:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming all The renamings are reasonable. They save confusing about the by/from thing which makes referencing them on articles easier. Ansell 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support all. Seems good. It doesn't give us clear direction on some of the other types of death, but at least these should be consistent.--Mike Selinker 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. The names are clear, and we're better off without the by / from. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Cloachland 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom. Doc 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom. Good job! Carlossuarez46 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"XXXXX cancer deaths" just doesn't sound right. Remember, we are categorizing articles about people. How about "People who died of XXXXX cancer"? --Cyde↔Weys 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rename, but not the nominated category names. Agree with Cyde, because the nominated names suggest it's the cancer that is dying. I suggest rename top Category:Cancer deaths to Category:People who died from cancer, and rename all Category:Deaths (by/from/of) foo cancer to Category:People who died of foo cancer. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Suggest "People who died from/of..." unnecessary as it's unlikely any other organism will merit such categories;
(b) Suggest these categories begin "Deaths from...", i.e. "Deaths from X cancer" or "Deaths from cancer of the X", as death seems the paramount aspect;
(c) But how many folks above will revisit this nom before it's closed...? Perhaps everyone posting to a CfD should automatically receive an alert if it's been edited since their last contribution...
Regards, David Kernow 09:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Delaware Routes to Category:Delaware state routes

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to follow form of most other entries in Category:State highways of the United States. Vegaswikian 05:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename to 'Delaware state highways' to actually match the other articles in the supercategory. Count them. And to make things clear to the world reader of WP. 'Routes' is not clear' Thanks Hmains 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some states call their highways something else. The state specific category can be different to reflect this. When I did the nomination, I elected to not address that problem since I don't know what is accurate for these states. I was just trying to clean up the use of state and caps issues mostly. Vegaswikian 07:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Routes in Oregon to Category:Oregon state routes

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to follow form of most other entries in Category:State highways of the United States. Vegaswikian 05:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename to 'Oregon state highways' to actually match the other articles in the supercategory. Count them. And to make things clear to the world reader of WP. 'Routes' is not clear' Thanks Hmains 05:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an author and editor of articles on communities in Oregon, work that often leads me to articles in the routes category, I support whatever efforts are made to make the categories and articles consistent throughout the Oregon roads/routes/highways articles. (Since they aren't very consistent now.) Katr67 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Elections in Ecuador

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elections in Ecuador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, superfluous. Home to a single stub of the same name that went to Category:Ecuador --Andrés C. 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep The only article in Category:Ecuador should be Ecuador. Hawkestone 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And now it is. Hawkestone 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A single stub doesn't warrant an entire category for it, does it? If it doesn't belong to Category:Ecuador, then let's put it in Category:History of Ecuador --Andrés C. 11:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per which WP policy? I don't know about it, and creating superfluous subcats just to keep the country's top one empty seems silly to me. Besides, it wouldn't be upmerged to Category:Ecuador, but to Category:Politics of Ecuador Duja 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I would say that it is leaving a random selection of articles in the national category which is silly, assuming that one doesn't want Wikipedia to look like a shambolic amateurish mess. Hawkestone 21:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge to Category:Politics of Ecuador. Duja 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Politics of Ecuador should be sufficient. Bejnar 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should have a complete category system covering all countries in every basic subject area. Osomec 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's coverage of Ecuadorian elections will be better in the future than it has been in the past, and there should be a category for the articles. We should build a consistent category system to accomodate future expansion, rather than waiting until things get out of hand and then creating the minimum possible number of subcategories. Cloachland 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating categories with the expectation that they might be useful in the future? Hmm, I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. --Andrés C. 23:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this category is useful now. There is a massive backlog of categorization work, with most topics incompletely sorted, so we should concentrate on improving the system, which means keeping marginal cases, rather than wasting time deleting categories which would certainly be recreated in the future. Cloachland 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Osomec. --Mais oui! 14:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no minimum category size. Piccadilly 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This type of category exists for every nation on the planet AFAIK, so it will no doubt be recreated as soon as somebody notices it missing on the list. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful piece of the jigsaw. Casper Claiborne 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Legends of New York City Nightlife

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, but highly NPOV, so being bold and renaming to Category:New York City nightlife --Kbdank71 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legends of New York City Nightlife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, Describing individuals as "legends" is inherently POV. The criteria for inclusion in this category is not objective at all. Wickethewok 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, Completely unmaintainable. Violates NPOV.

Rename, to "People involved with NYC nightlife." Ckessler 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I think the name is an excellent alternative to bring the the dispute to an end.--XLR8TION 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first is ludicrously POV, and the second merely provincial. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. Hawkestone 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something sensible like New York City nightclub culture. --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, Dhartung's title is good and quite neutral. The list will include people and venues. I think this an agreeable title. Regarding provincial, there are many lists on this site that only pertain to specific groups such as gay actors, Australian athletes, etc.., what makes this list less worthy than those?----XLR8TION 11:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that "involvement" within a club scene is not very objective. It seems like most bands/DJs/etc who ever played in NY could possibly be on this list. Or is this category more for individuals whose primary notability is through NY performances? Wickethewok 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Not every DJ that ever spinned in NYC will be on list. Only those whose careers have started in NYC or who used the city to catapult them to bigger things. Natives like Victor Calderone and Danny Tenaglia all started to NYC and went off to play in Ibiza, while non-natives such as Madonna (Michigan), Peter Rauhofer (Austria), and Kevin Aviance (Virginia) all came to New York for the much needed boost to their careers. Any joe that plays in a hole in the wall bar/club will not automatically qualify on the list. Only those who have major notability. Hope that answer your question. --XLR8TION 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Dhartung. --BrownHairedGirl 11:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we start making categories like this some DJs could end up in categories for dozens of cities. Merchbow 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Well, I would hope that this would not be limited to DJs, but include those who were known for their nightlife in the 1930s, 1940s,1950s at such clubs as El Morocco, Stork Club, 21 Club etc. Doc 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wickethewok. Dhartung's alternative sounds good when in the context of this discussion, but any number of other non-music topics could be fairly included in a category "New York City nightclub culture", such as Club Kids, casual sex, Bowery Ballroom or any number of other things that we already have sorted into sub-categories of Category:New York City culture. -/- Warren 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' ~~Delete~~ per nom. The rename alternative is squirrelly worded: "involved with NYC nightlife" includes the guy who drives the Michelob truck that pulls up to a few nightclubs. Eeeeeek! Carlossuarez46 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my entry above. Only people and venues that have a significant impact will be included. The comment about the Micehlob truck is clearly ignorant. --XLR8TION 19:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- XLR8TION's comments border on a personal attack, but his rationale only reinforces my view (now Strong Delete from Delete) that this category should go: "significant impact" is inherently POV as much as any other formulation. As significant licensure issues relate to the nightclub biz, nearly any police commissioner, mayor, NY politician, etc. easily fits XLR8TION's proposed criteria.

Carlossuarez46 23:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - RENAME. Once again, some character here has displayed IGNORANCE. Please read the article on the Bill of Rights when it comes to free speech, but that is just plain ignorance. Do I need to write it another language because apparently someone here is not able to comprehend English. Once again, ARTISTS, VENUES, PROMOTERS are on this list. Not TRUCK DRIVERS, POLICE OFFICERS, CIGARETTE GIRLS. New York City is known world-wide for it's nightlife and the famous people who have trekked to Manhattan to become a star in the scene. From the early 1900s to the present, they still arrive, and while many are not successful, I commend them for trying.--XLR8TION 05:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to Closing Admin You should take into account that XLR8TION has (1) modified my comments here without acknowledging that s/he did so; and has (2) engaged in racist personal attacks. Carlossuarez46 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - RENAME -Note to public: --XLR8TION is of Hispanic ancestry. How can I type anything that is denigrating to my own ethnicity. Once again, a simpleton has clearly shown ignorance and has personally used this forum as a vendetta against me, possibly for properly editing an article he has worked in the past. Please ignore such ludicrous accusations and stay focus on the main topic. Once again, for anyone joining this conversation, said catergory listing is for major artists, promoters, and venues that have significantly contributed to New York's nightlife. Staff, employees in the service industry, and all others who have not contributed to the city's nightlife will not be added to this list. --XLR8TION 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per any of the above. Most of these people are famous only because of the NYC club scene. And if you're researching music or urban youth culture, these are very big subjects, and you'll definitely want to use Wikipedia to get you started, so these are valid articles, too. --M @r ē ino 03:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:State Routes in New Jersey to Category:New Jersey state routes

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to follow form of most other entries in Category:State highways of the United States. Vegaswikian 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename to 'New Jersey state highways' to actually match the other articles in the supercategory. Count them. And to make things clear to the world reader of WP. 'Routes' is not clear' Thanks Hmains 05:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will gladly change the nomination if you can show me a source that says New Jersey lists them as state highways as their offical name. Otherwise, they should remain as state routes included in State highways for the purpose of grouping like things by whatever name is used by the state. See the discussions on transport and transportation for another flavor of this. Another good example of this is Category:State supreme courts. Vegaswikian 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current name is consistent with Category:County routes in New Jersey, Category:U.S. Highways in New Jersey and Category:Interstate Highways in New Jersey. I'm not sure why "route" is any less clear than highway, and there is no doubt that they are in fact called routes. -- NORTH ^talk 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The rename proposal keeps 'state route' in the name. The suggestion did not include changing it to highway. It just changes the name to follow the form that is common in the parent Category:State highways of the United States.

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

Category:State highways in Alaska to Category:Alaska state highways

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to follow form of most other entries in Category:State highways of the United States. Vegaswikian 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename to 'Alaska state highways' to actually match the other articles in the supercategory. Count them. And to make things clear to the world reader of WP. 'Routes' is not clear Thanks Hmains 05:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment on this and the nominations above. While I agree that it should be "Alaska...", I feel the renaming should wait until it's clarified whether they are "state highways" or "State Highways", as is suggested elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you support the propoal as an improvement? We don't know when or if the other discussions will reach consensus. Vegaswikian 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I can - it's just that some of the entries currently under "speedy renaming" make it look like the capital letters may eventually win the day. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maya ruins in Belize

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, to be consistent with the standard format for other Maya sites in <country> categories. cjllw | TALK 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Arabian Slaveholders

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Middle Eastern Slaveholders. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Middle Eastern slaveholders in line with the capitalisation policy. Hawkestone 10:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have mentioned that I have Category:Middle Eastern Slaveholders up for speedy rename. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both as per Hawkestone. --BrownHairedGirl 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per Hawkestone. David Kernow 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC), withdrawn 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Arabian" is wider than just "Middle Eastern". There were slaveholders in Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Lybia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauretania and a number of other African countries that were Arabian, but that are certainly not Middle Eastern. "Middle Eastern" is a geographical denominator, "Arabian" a cultural one. --LucVerhelst 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example : Sonni Ali is categorised under "Middle Eastern slaveholders", while he probably never in his life has been in the Middle East. He was a West African. --LucVerhelst 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both. If necessary, create Category:African slaveholders to contain people who are not middle-eastern. --tjstrf 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you read up on African history, you will notice that there was a significant slave trade by Arabians, enslaving native Africans. The word "Arabian" is important. --LucVerhelst 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ethnicity-based historical categories cause all sorts of problems, however, when someone comes along and says "but x wasn't arab, he was egyptian!" or worse still "but the egyptian nobility during the late period dynasties were a totally different ethnicity than those in the middle period!". It's far easier to stick with geographic criteria, as no one disagrees. --tjstrf 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply While a category "Arabian slaveholders" is historically relevant, "African slaveholders" or "Middle Eastern slaveholders" in my opinion has no relevancy. Why would you want to categorise on the latter two groups ? I understand a categorisation under "Arabian slaveholders" (or "Arabian slavetraders"), because this connects to the Arab slave trade (also keeping in mind the caveat in the intro of that article).--LucVerhelst 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per LucVerhelst; problems with ethnicity are usually more easily solved than those of nationality. The Egypt example is a good one, first we know that Egypt is now officially "The Arab Republic of Egypt" as the Arabs displaced or coopted or killed off the indigenous Egyptians. Therefore, we can easily distinguish one from another (usually by date of the Arab conquest), but otherwise if a guy spoke Arabic natively, he's Arabian (I'd prefer Arab); if he spoke Coptic or Ancient Egyptian natively, he's Egyptian, and if he spoke Greek or Latin (even earlier in history), he's Greek or perhaps "Roman". Carlossuarez46 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per LucVerhelst, but both categories should be changed to a lowercase "s" Move to: Category:Arabian slaveholders and Category:Middle Eastern slaveholders. Doc 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Arabians are not necessarily the same people as Middle-Easterners. As there was once a large Arabian slave trade, the category should be kept for future enlargement. (Note: Arabian is not an "racial" or perjorative term - the Arabs, however, were a large nation esp. during the Middle Ages, and this nation had a reach far beyond the Middle East - into North Africa and even Spain. --Tim4christ17 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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