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

The result of the debate was not a nomination. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments regarding a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) that would make "in country" the naming convention for Landform by country categories would be very appreciated prior to a cfru. Kurieeto 22:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep I find Landforms by country a useful category. I agree that I find the excessive use of 'of' a problem on the Wikipedia such as in Category:Landforms of the United States. What is a cfru ? Bejnar 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This isn't a proposal to delete Landforms by country. Calsicol 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks Calsicol, that's correct, this is not a proposal, just an invitation for comments at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Landforms_by_country prior to a potential collective renaming nomination, aka a cfru. Kurieeto 13:18, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

After the deletion of the Category:Anti-heroes [1], somebody created this Marvel Comics specific subcat. All the same reasons apply for it's deletion. CovenantD 21:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep DC Comics can have one, but Marvel can't? T-1000 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment The DC specific one should have been deleted when the entire Fictional anti-heroes category was. I'll put it up for deletion also. CovenantD 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as still subjective and in need of the sources that a list can have. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:51, 29 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was reverse merge. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

While the former name might be more accurate, the latter category is used much more extensively (I support merging to either one, as long as the automobiles all end up in the same category). Interiot 20:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• comment would planes fit into Category:Concept vehicles? -- Cat out 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well, it might be best to merge to Category:Concept automobiles. Although the name Category:Concept vehicles has been used for a while, the category is under Category:Automobiles, and as far as I can tell, almost all articles there are cars. -- Interiot 21:37, 30 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:17, 27 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is the second time this category has appeared. No criteria for inclusion other than POV. Anger22 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• delete. as per reason listed above. Anger22 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete too subjective. Dismas| ^(talk) 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete at warp speed... -- Cat out 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete and block recreation. Osomec 00:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per all above. David Kernow 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete per above -- Johnnyw 17:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete and block recreation. Preeeow. BoojiBoy 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• quoting Cool Cat ("Don't just stand there.... speedy delete"). Delete per nom and on grounds of silliness, ridiculous heights of subjectivity (and slap the creator) Antares33712 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Send this one down the bit bucket 216.141.226.190 02:44, 1 June 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.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge Different terminology for the same thing. Mais oui! 18:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge as requested. Twittenham 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Osomec 00:30, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Subjective criterion based on perceived attractiveness. Tim! 16:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Too subjective. Twittenham 19:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Twittenham. — Natha n ^{( talk)} 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Dismas| ^(talk) 21:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete silliness Antares33712 22:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Don't just stand there... Speedy delete...-- Cat out 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above. David Kernow 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as inherently POV. —  TKD:: Talk 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Are you kidding me? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Still here? WOW. Antares33712 13:39, 2 June 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Ill-defined category w/ only one article, Human condition, over its 6 months of existence. Moreover that article does not even have a clear focus on paradoxical issues, unlike numerous other articles in Category:Paradoxes and its subcategories. In conclusion, usefulness of category is highly suspect and has not been demonstrated.

If decision ends up being to keep, please also consider renaming (at a minimum, fix the capitalization so it's "Paradoxes of the human condition"). 24.16.39.33 15:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Looks as misplaced quote from some absurd comedy. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 21:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Humans had a condition? -- Cat out 23:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not an encyclopedic category, methinks. David Kernow 02:02, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Reason: Does not follow the correct form. Nathcer 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as above. Nathcer 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Water companies in the United Kingdom. Of implies UK owns the companies... -- Cat out 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. "Of" is used for companies. The comment about ownership, which the user has made in a different context below, is just wrong. Osomec 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom to Category:Water companies of the United Kingdom. I recongise Cat's thinking, but believe "of" can imply association as well as or instead of ownership. Regards, David Kernow 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom to Category:Water companies of the United Kingdom, which is the convention. Calsicol 11:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• By all means re-classify the category, but PLEASE leave a re-direct from the original!! I created the category for ease of access/reference, so please respect that. ( RM21 06:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC) ) reply
  • For what purpose? The abbreviation is generally not acceptable for a category. Vegaswikian 05:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps I should explain what I meant. Rename Category:UK Water companies to Category:Water companies of the United Kingdom - because that is the standard classification - but leave a re-direct from the original title. Otherwise, a user innocently typing UK Water companies will not find a corresponding article to what they are looking for. ( RM21 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC) ) reply
      • Deleting a category will not remove an article redirect. Honbicot 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Water companies of the United Kingdom. Honbicot 20:15, 3 June 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename "Right-wing books" or "Far-right books" SirIsaacBrock 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as Category:Far-right books only if the cat includes both books about the far right and books by far-right authors. Is there a "far-left" category anywhere? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. If necessary create a distinct category for Category:Far-right books that are actually written from a far-right point of view (though we'd have to be careful how that is defined). "About" is far clearer and there is a distinction to be drawn between books about and books by a subject (I know this is pushing the analogy, but we wouldn't keep "books about Hardy" and "books by Hardy" in the same category!). I suggest Her Pegship's vote should effectively be counted as a "keep"? TheGrappler 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, do keep. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename title rants unnecessarily. Category:Far-right books is more approporate. -- Cat out 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is less contentious to categorise by subject matter than by point of view. Calsicol 11:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Most of these are books about "far-right" politics. "Far-right books" implies that the books support "far-right" political positions. (On the whole I'd be minded to rename Category:Books about Fascism and re-cat those that are about other forms of "far-right" thought elsewhere, but certainly do not rename "Far-right books"!!). Valiantis 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but add condition to the cat that it is only for books fully dedicated to the topic, not every book about politics. Otherwise it gets yet another dump. Pavel Vozenilek 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ambiguous categorization. Intangible 01:25, 3 June 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.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

None of the articles are about "flora of shropshire" in the sense of native plants, they are about forests and suchlike. There is no need for such categories at English country level, and other counties don't have them. The articles are also in the "forests and woodlands" and "national nature reserves" categories as appropriate. Athenaeum 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge as above. Athenaeum 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as requested. It is rather unlikely that Shropshire has any unique flora. Twittenham 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:09, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 07:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a totally inappropriate use of the category system. "Destroyed" is perhaps not literally true in a single case, it is prone to POV pushing, and not a primary characteristic of the cities. The category system deals in black and white and should not touch issues which are all shades of grey. None of the articles relate primarily to this topic, but are rather general city articles which have perfectly good categories already. We really don't want to see cities categorised in umpteen ways, as they are currently reasonably free of the dreadful category clutter that afflicts biographical articles. The category system is not a substitute for a search engine or for subject articles.

• category:Cities destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in France destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in Germany destroyed during World War II (also nominated separately below)
• Category:Cities in Italy destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in Japan destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in the Soviet Union destroyed during World War II

Delete all Bhoeble 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom. Athenaeum 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. - Gilgamesh 13:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - "We really don't want to see cities categorised in umpteen ways, as they are currently reasonably free of the dreadful category clutter that afflicts biographical articles." Are you assuming bad faith on the part of how biographical and other articles are categorized? Who says we all don't want all those informative categories? Who says it's a bad thing? This is an issue of much wider debate than this—I don't think it's something we need be debating here, but only the appropriateness of a single category topic (rather than all of them). - Gilgamesh 14:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The accusation that I am assuming bad faith is completely without foundation. I am just saying that there is a lack of restraint which is harmful as it reduces clarity. I haven't made allegations that you have breached policy, and I don't see why you should feel free to make such allegations against me. I have just suggested that you have made a misjudgement in creating these categories, as is my right, which is why this page exists. Bhoeble 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, then if you think I merely misjudged, then I misjudged you as well. I'm sorry. - Gilgamesh 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • PS. You should really have disclosed that you are an interested party as you created these categories. Bhoeble 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • What do you mean? I don't understand "interested party" in this context. - Gilgamesh 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Please delete them all. This characterization taints the categories of these cities. In many cases, the cities weren't *destroyed*. They offer no insight, and this labeling is a remnant of Allied WWII propaganda. - GilliamJF 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't you mean Axis propaganda as well? Bhoeble 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - "Propaganda"??? I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. I suggest that User:GilliamJF actually reads something about the battles and air-raids that did indeed destroy large parts of several cities on both sides. This is not propaganda, but actual history. For what it is worth, when I read the category name, I immediately understood what the intention of the category was, because I knew something of the history. I think that many people voting here are focussing too much on the emotive word "destroyed" and not what the category was attempting to showcase. Carcharoth 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. To something along the lines of Cities devastated during World War II. Intangible 14:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify or at least rename to "devastated" format (few could have been said to be utterly destroyed). We could have "cities devastated by earthquakes", "cities devastated during World War I", "cities devastated by mutant reptiles" etc so it's not specifically a WWII thing. However, "devastation" is very much a matter of degree so a list would be substantially better than a category. TheGrappler 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete If not deleted change to "devastated", which is no less subjective, but slightly less emotive. Sumahoy 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The listed cities were badly damaged, but they survived. The destroyed cities (if any) should be listed in Category:Ghost towns, or in a separate subcategory. MapLover 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete useles cat as it is actually highly subjective. Most of Europe was destroyed... -- Cat out 23:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too crude, subjective and selective. Osomec 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename as per Intangible. Useful information - and no, it's not a matter of "most of Europe" having been destroyed anyway. We are talking about cities that either underwent heavy airraids (such as Coventry, Rotterdam or Dresden) or siege (such as Leningrad or Breslau). That's pretty real and well documented, and I strongly object to the allegations of propaganda, which I must say I find totally uncalled-for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is all too common to emphasise World War II/the Nazis/the Holocaust over all over aspects of history, and Wikipedia shouldn't be so skewed. If not deleted, then rename. Calsicol 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Cruft. Valiantis 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'll repeat my "modify" comment that I made below in another CfD. There are some articles about the actual destruction (and this did happen) of cities in WW2 - this seems to be what these categories were trying to gather together. It is entirely appropriate for there to be a category about the air-raids/bombings/other bombardments that devastated cities during WW2, reducing them to rubble. I will gather a list of such articles. I agree that categorising the cities themselves is not helpful, and is too crude, but I think many of the people voting in this CfD fail to see what these categories were trying to do, or at least what they could become. ie. I think that the category has been misnamed and mispopulated, but a suitable named category could cover this area of history. Carcharoth 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename and repopulate (see new suggestion below) with articles named in Template:WWII city bombing (lead article is Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II), plus any stray articles not included in that template, such as: Aerial_bombing_during_World_War_II; Aerial_bombing_of_cities; Note that some of these air-raids destroyed large parts of the cities they targeted, while others did less damage. Also, Category:World_War_II_strategic_bombing exists, which might be suitable for what the "Cities destroyed in WW2" category was attempting to do. There were also cities that were destroyed during battles for the cities, such as Battle of Bastogne; Battle_of_Berlin; Warsaw_Uprising - from that last example: "...after the end of hostilities [...] German forces acting on Hitler's orders burned the city systematically, block after block — an estimated 85% of the city was destroyed.". Anyway, given all this, is it possible to ask people to reconsider their votes above? Carcharoth 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, misleading name if meaning actual total destruction and not useful (by virtue of including thousands of entries) if meant to include every city damaged during the war. I'll also point out that a suggestion to "rename and repopulate" is meaningless here; if neither the name nor the contents of the category are to be retained, it's easier just to create a new one without needing to go through CFD. Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the category system is not meant to include "every city damaged during the war" - just the ones that we have articles on (and which survive AfD). Do you think a category for the articles in Template:WWII city bombing would be useful? Some are in Category:World War II strategic bombing, but some are not - a strange omission. Carcharoth 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Certainly such a category might be useful, if it were to include only the actual bombing articles, rather than the city articles themselves. AFD survival is not going to be an issue here, since RamBot demonstrated that any hundred-person town will easily be kept; if/when we finally get Rambot-Ru and Rambot-Cn going, we'll have tens of thousands of inclusion-worthy cities/towns/whatnot that were (often quite thoroughly) destroyed during the war. Kirill Lokshin 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Oh, I couldn't agree more. I said exactly that above. Categorising the cities is silly. A lot of what I've been doing on this CfD is finding the bombing articles - as opposed to the "delete - propaganda" style voting elsewhere in this CfD. Some others I found are Battle_of_Stalingrad and First_battle_of_Grozny and Operation_Phantom_Fury and Operation_Charnwood. What I'm thinking is are there any "city warfare" categories? I know much of modern warfare is city warfare, but it is this particular brand of fierce street-by-street, heavy destruction, warfare that sometimes stands out. Carcharoth 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Category:Urban warfare? It's not very used, though, since it was created quite recently. Kirill Lokshin 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I've now begun populating this category. Carcharoth 09:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and repair (vote changed to delete and I'm happy to integrate the destruction of cities in WW2 into the category system in a more appropriate way). Carcharoth 12:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)) - while I now agree that the category needs to be deleted (it is inappropriate to categorise city articles based on one part of their history - categorising the bombing articles is probably more appropriate), can I ask that the category not be deleted until a list is made to enable possible bombing/destruction/battle articles to be identified? Once the category is deleted, I think only admins, if even them, can see what used to be in a deleted category. Also, after a bit more ferretting around, most of the articles have lines such as "destroyed during WW2" (or similar), and only a few have actual articles about the battles/air-raids, hence a list might be the best option here. There is one place that was destroyed in WW2, but not quite the way you might think... San Sebastiano al Vesuvio! (added new comments) Carcharoth 22:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Update - a list and plan (of sorts) to gather appropriate articles in a more suitably named category now exists on a subpage of my user page here. Carcharoth 08:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I still want to see this deleted, without delay. All Carcharoth has to do to preserve a recored is to cut and paste the contents. No general city articles should be put in the urban warfare category, as it would be rather like classifying settlements with a football club under football (which has been done before now). Bhoeble 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • When you make multiple comments in a thread, could you please strike through the ones that no longer represent your opinion, especially the bolded words that no longer apply. The person who closes the thread will presumably discount the earlier ones, but in the meantime, for people who arrive at this thread now, your multiple comments give a misleading first glance impression of the amount of opposittion there is to the deletion proposal. Bhoeble 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • OK. Sorry about the multiple comments confusing things, though I would hope closing admins do more than go by first glance impressions. I would normally put lengthy comments on category talk pages, but I'm not sure if those talk pages get deleted with the category page. For the record, regarding your comments above: "All Carcharoth has to do to preserve a recored is to cut and paste the contents." - you said this in reply to a comment where I said I had done just that (preserved a copy), which I find a bit strange (by the way, with multiple subcategories, cut and paste has to be done several times). You also say: "No general city articles should be put in the urban warfare category" - which is presumably addressing the crowd, as I have made it clear that I also think that the event articles, rather than the city articles should be categorised by this type of event (WW2 bombing of cities). Sorry to go on at length again about this, but given the length of the debate, I wanted to keep those points clear. I also want to emphasise that I was shocked to see people voting delete without looking around, like I did, for a suitable category (in this case Category:World War II strategic bombing) that might already cover what this category was trying to cover. It was clear to me that there was potential here for a category, even if the name and articles chosen were both wrong. Carcharoth 12:20, 30 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Replace the category with two categories: one for lakes and one for rivers. bogdan 13:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I will create the two subcategories. Sumahoy 21:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Break category into two sub categories. One for the lakes and another for the rivers. -- Cat out 23:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It has been subcategorised. Calsicol 11:27, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is an American category. "Lawyers" would fit into the scheme of things better. Bhoeble 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as above. Bhoeble 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:10, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn pending larger scoped nomination. Kurieeto 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

44 of the 45 river by region sub-categories of Category:Rivers of England use the "in country" wording. This may reflect local usages, and is also more apt than "of" because rivers cross so many borders, and have existed prior to the borders even being formed as human concepts. Lastly, "rivers in England" [2] is more commonly used in the outside world than "rivers of England" [3] as per a Google comparison ("rivers in England -wikipedia", 23,400 hits, "rivers of England -wikipedia", 9,950 hits). Kurieeto 13:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Wikipedia uses "of" for natural features. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does so changing this one in breach of that is a no-no. Sumahoy 21:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Sub-country entities don't have to follow the by country naming conventions where appropriate, and I took Category:Rivers of the United Kingdom to be the country-level parent for this subject, leaving this cat open for potential change given its constituents. But your point is valid, so I'll withdraw the nomination pending a further, larger scoped proposal. Kurieeto 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom of implies ownership. United Kingdom "owns" the river while it happens to flow in England. -- Cat out 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "Of" does not necessarily or usually imply ownership. Osomec 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  True, but the rename would insure to evade confusion. -- Cat out 06:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just a note that discussions are being held at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Landforms_by_country in regard to the wider scoped nomination this proposal was withdrawn in favour of. Comments there are appreciated. Kurieeto 13:19, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, redundant to Category:Terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Conscious 11:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• delete. I dont like "terrorism" on article or category titles used like this.-- Cat out 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as empty/ied. David Kernow 02:12, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Cities planned by Walter Burley Griffin. Vegaswikian 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Grammar and capitalization. Conscious 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Alternative rename Category:Cities planned by Walter Burley Griffin to match the parent Category:Planned cities. Bhoeble 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• support nom. -- Cat out 23:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Cities planned by Walter Burley Griffin. "Designed" implies far more - in terms of designing buildings - than was actually the case. Osomec 00:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Cities planned by Walter Burley Griffin per Bhoeble and above. David Kernow 02:13, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Run and gun computer and video games. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

More descriptive title. -- Longhair 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename, but to something else if "run and gun" a neologism. (Rhetorical: Why not "gun and run"...?)  Regards, David Kernow 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why not nominate its parent category Category:Shoot 'em ups as well? -- JeffW 05:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• rename to Category:Run and gun computer and video games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Run and gun computer and video games -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 14:45, 1 June 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:17, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename although there are issues being debated surrounding how to split railways in the British Isles, see Template talk:British TOCs where there is a long running dispute over the inclusion of Northern Ireland. Perhaps this UK category should include 'Great Britain' and 'Northern Ireland' separately? Ian3055 23:39, 29 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete? only 5 articles. is a category really necessary. Besides one of he incidents happened in JAPAN. I do not think it is a good idea to sort Aviation incidents by country. How about sorting by company. Location is ambigious as the planes often end up crashing into international waters. -- Cat out 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename No doubt it will grow. Calsicol 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Quite pesimistic aren't you? I believe it might me nicer to listify maybe... A short explanation of the crashes are necessary since flight numbers are very confusing to say the least. -- Cat out 21:14, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete? Only 2 articles. Is a category really necessary? -- Cat out 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename -- Fast track 01:23, 30 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete only 4 articles (its not like famines happen in Ireland every day). A disambiguation page is more than adequate.... -- Cat out 23:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename 4 is enough to be worth grouping. Who would know the disambiguation page was there? Honbicot 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Irish famines? Perhaps a navigation template would be nicer. I just dont like categories being used to group very small number of articles. -- Cat out 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  a template already exists: {{ Irish famines}} -- Cat out 16:25, 1 June 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename... shouldn't it be at rather than in? Category:Tornadoes at Australia may be more aproporate... -- Cat out 23:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:20, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete, see also umbrella nomination above. Conscious 07:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Ehnocentric category. I lived in Germany for a couple years and can testify that there is much history in every one of these so-called "destroyed" cities. Although most of Germany's major cities was damaged, they were fixed after the war. This category is unuseful and unencyclopedic. - GilliamJF 07:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Modify - this is a useful subcategory of Category:Cities_destroyed_during_World_War_II. I think your issue is rather with the precise naming and use of the word "destroyed". Though looking more closely, the category structure is really tangled here - all the articles in Category:Hamburg are under this "Cities destroyed during World War II" category, which is ridiculous. I think the emphasis should rather be on this being a historical category, incorporating the bombing/firestorm articles found elsewhere, for example, Category:World War II strategic bombing and the ones listed at Firebombing. In other words, the cities themselves should not be listed in this category, but rather the articles about the destruction/firebombing. The others should be added to a list of cities destroyed in WWII, which can be put in the relevant category. Carcharoth 11:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) - I've asked User:Gilgamesh, who created parts of this category structure, to comment. Carcharoth 11:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Sure, let's find consensus. The definition of destruction should be clarified. I would say that a city is effectively destroyed when at least half of it is totally in ruins, or when the entire heart of the city (such as in the case of Coventry) is so. Destroyed cities can be rebuilt, but it should be clear that the built-up infrastructure is, for all intents and purposes, defaulted and must be rebuilt from the ground up. I didn't consider it necessary for a "destroyed city" to never have been rebuilt. - Gilgamesh 11:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I elaborated on existing categories by organizing them into neat and orderly subcategories. I never considered this an ethnocentric distinction—I simply listed cities that were de jure (internationally recognized) part of Germany during the war. Germany's borders changed after the war. I am well aware that many cities destroyed in Germany during the war had significant non-ethnic-German populations. That was not the factor here. Considering de jure sovereignty of the time seemed the most NPOV (rather than within the scope of ethnicity or modern political entities). - Gilgamesh 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Patently not NPOV. None of these cities were destroyed. This looks like a manifestation of the recent rise of the "we were victims of World War II" attitude in Germany. Bhoeble 13:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have now done a group nomination of the related categories. Bhoeble 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Note that I did not make the original category—I merely sorted and subcategorized what was already there. Also note that I'm not from Germany and have no connection with the politics of national victimhood. - Gilgamesh 14:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, task for detailed list-like article. Cat is not able to provide the context information and structuring. Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek Sumahoy 21:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Wikipedia:Category. Categories are navigation aids. It is very unlikely for someone to navigate cities using this category. An article on the other hand would be useful in explaining what percentage of cities were destroyed etc... -- Cat out 23:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A category is too crude for this purpose. Osomec 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Close this CfD as duplicating the group CfD above. The decision should be made for the whole group, there's no use singling out the German subcategory, which is no different from the rest. If not, I vote keep as in the group CfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as with the group nominated above. Calsicol 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Close this CfD as duplicating the group CfD above. Carcharoth 21:54, 29 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 07:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Extremely vague. No parameters for what is meant by "region" or "inhabited." For example, would a family living in a suburb of Seattle, WA qualify the Pacific Northwest as a Kurdish inhabited region? See this CfD for a similar category. CovenantD 06:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete The category is not specific.-- Hattusili 14:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per Category: Hispanic inhabited regions and Category: Palestinian inhabited regions and Category:Regions inhabited by ethnic groups in Greece-- Cretanforever

Comment I have moved your maps here; do not place them alongside my post such that it appears that I put them there. NB: I do not see their relevance. -- Moby 06:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

How conviniant.

1. How is "Hispanic regions of the United States" any different from "Kurdish regions of Turkey". There actualy is a difference. Unlike the "Kurdish regions of Turkey", "Hispanic regions of US" is verifiable and is based on factual data, a census. However even with reliable info people voted delete for the category for being useless mostly. There are even lesser grounds for a keep for this category.
2. The provinces of Turkey map shows how difficult it is to TAG with this category. Which of the 81 provinces are in, and which are not. We are tring to divide an area smaller than texas between ethnicities. I still don't see the grounds for such level of presicion. Notice how imprecise are Hispanic regions with a census, I can't imagine how imprecise will Kurdish regions be without a census.

-- Cat out 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per Hispanic ... This is topic for and article, not cat. Pavel Vozenilek 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - see reasons mentioned at previous CfD. — Khoikhoi 01:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Is the intention of this category to group Category:Regions with Kurdish majorities...?   David Kernow 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps that could be better. The problem is, the Turkish Census isn't based off of ethnicity, so there aren't official statistics. We just have news reports here and there. — Khoikhoi 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  So what you really mean is that we do not even know what articles would qualify to this category? The category is not defined sufficiently to be encyclopedic. -- Cat out 06:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have explained the reasons last time this category was nominated for deletion. -- Hectorian 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  after the recent attempt to delete Turkish Kurdistan, another nomination about an article related to the Kurds is also nominated... Am i paranoid that i see political motivations behind this action? --Hectorian 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC) hardly explains anything... unless you are accusing User:CovenantD for this political motivation you talk about. -- Cat out 06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Yes, Hectorian, you are :-) I actually found this because a search I did after seeing the CfD for Hispanic inhabited regions. The reasons for that one seemed sound so it was logical to find similar categories. If I'd found others I would have nominated them as being vague also. I'm also a bit embarassed to admit that I didn't check the talk page before nominating this, so I wasn't even aware that it had been through a CfD so recently. I still stand behind the idea that it's not able to be defined sufficiently to be encyclopedic. CovenantD 06:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• speedy keep as the previous CFD has been conducted so recently. -- Irpen 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  That was a no consensus vote. And a good number of keep votes were because I nominated it, this time I haven't even nominated it.-- Cat out 06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Good to see that high level of self confidence! Bertilvidet 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Do you have a point? Your opinions of me is quite irrelevant. Please focus on the mater at hand. -- Cat out 21:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Sorry. Bertilvidet 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Extremely vague category. What qualifies? -- Cat out 06:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Although I'd prefer, in order to keep it manageable, to really restrict it to the areas traditionally inhabited by autochthonous Kurdish populations. Remove Istanbul, or else there's really no reason not to include Berlin as well. (The other case mentioned above, "Hispanic-inhabited regions", seems different to me, because "Hispanic" (in the US context) refers by definition to a non-autochthonous group anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Origins of the kurds are disputed. Some suggest they are non-autochthonous as well... There are no traditionally inhabited regions with any kind of "common acceptance". Berlin qualifies as much as Hakkari. -- Cat out 13:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, in order to mark an extremely important characteristic of the included regions, and to facilitate the reader in finding articles on similar regions (I don't think the see also section could achieve that - it would be too large). -- Telex 08:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Extremely important characteristic? Like what? For being in the same region? Similar regions are not categorised by ethnicity. Detroit and New York are not under the same category because they have similar ethnicity and racial characteristics. -- Cat out 13:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Déjà vu. Bertilvidet 16:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Not a criteria for categories for deletion. I want an explanation which exlains why Mardin is in this kurdish inhabited region and Ankara or Berlin isn't? -- Cat out 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, you are right my friend, my motivation was far to concise and does not explain anything for people who have not been involved in editing of Kurdish related articles. It should be known that practically all categories, and several articles, related to Kurds have been proposed for deletion over the few last months. Several Turkish users have expressed bad feelings about cities in the Kurdish dominated areas of Turkey being put in Category:Kurdistan. In order to meet their concerns Category:Kurdish inhabited regions has been set up as a compromise, that user:coolcat even expressed their, however reluctant, support for [4]. Bertilvidet 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Still doesn't explain why Mardin is in this kurdish inhabited region and Ankara or Berlin isn't. -- Cat out 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Because the category was set up in order to meet your and other editors's sensitivities about labelling Mardin as a part of Kurdistan. Bertilvidet 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Our feelings are irrelevant. We were proposing that in the light of NPOV. However I now believe the compromise is actually compromising wikipedia policies. -- Cat out 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  I am User:Cool Cat btw. thats my former username. I am allowed to change my opinion about a category. I now believe the compromise I and Ed_Poor came up with is a compimise from wikipedias policies and guidelines. -- Cat out 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Of course you are allowed to change opinion, and I do respect that deeply. This is actually why we have debates here :) Bertilvidet 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  I am glad you approve, but so far we haven't discussed why Mardin is in this kurdish inhabited region and Ankara or Berlin isn't. -- Cat out 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment As the person who proposed this, I have to say that I wouldn't have IF there were criteria specified on the page itself. But there's nothing. Nada. Zip. Not even a sentence to explain what qualifies as Kurdish inhabited. If this category means so much to certain editors, then I suggest that you decide what criteria is warranted and include that on the page. CovenantD 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now. However I suggest changing the name to Kurdistan category, which includes historic and traditional homeland of the Kurds, i.e. areas in the Middle East that have been defined as such in the article Kurdistan. This way, cities like Istanbul and Berlin can not be included anymore. For more info. see Kurdistan. The present name is a bit misleading. Heja Helweda 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  What historic and traditional homeland are we talking about? Are there defined borders? No city I know is taged for historic reasons (we dont tag Pisa under roman empire or istanbul under ottoman empire, Byzantine etc).

  We need criteria much more solid than tradition. Kurdistan itself suggests that:

  • the exact borders of Kurdistan are hard to define.
  • According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Kurdistan is a mountainous region of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, inhabited predominantly by Kurds including 27-28 million people in a 190,000 km2 (74,000 sq. mi) area
  • Encyclopaedia of Islam, it includes a 390,000 km2 area.
  • Others estimate as many as 40 million Kurds live in Kurdistan, which covers an area as big as France.

  Two different sources estimate the area with a 200,000 km2 error margin. So by definition its definition is vaigue... Which of these sources am I supposed to accept as the traditional borders? I am sure I can draw a map of kurdistan that includes Florida and declare it the traditional borders... Your bet is as good as mine. This is exaclty the point of this nom.

  -- Cat out 20:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Withdrawal of vote. After reading through the debate once again I have decided to withdraw my keep vote. I find the argument that the category is extremely vague convincing, and user:coolcat has indeed a point in asking why Mardin, and not Berlin and Ankara, does qualify for this category. We have already category:Kurdistan, that recently survived a CfD vote, to organize articles about locations in traditional Kurdish dominated areas. I have only approved category:Kurdish inhabited regions in order to find a compromise with the editors who, despite being outvoted, had problems with category:Kurdistan. Talking about Kurdistan seems to be more precise and adequate, so I will not fight for this compromise. I will however not participate in the undermining of the compromise by supporting the deletion. I stand thus neutral. Bertilvidet 09:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no clear criteria for inclusion, certainly no clear criteria for making the binary "in or out" decision. I remain open to other suggestions on categorization of these articles though. I think the quotation from the Kurdistan article really sums it up for the moment. TheGrappler 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - There has been a long battle over whether or not to tag various countries (or parts of them) as "regions where many Kurds live". This is part of a POV push to assort that Kurdistan ought to become an independent country (carved out of Turkey, Iraq, etc.). The opposite POV push is to assert that Kurdistan should not get independence. I suspect that one motive for deleting the category is to push a point of view; but I do not think that keeping the category pushes a point of view.

  My only interest is in quickly finding articles about places where there are "some" Kurdish people living. How many? or what percent? is entirel negotiable. I live in the Upper West Side, a New York City neighborhood tagged with Category:Orthodox Jewish communities. The definition given on the category page is "Areas and locations where Orthodox Jews live in significant communities."

  I see no difference between Kurds and Jews having a category tag for places where they may be found. -- Uncle Ed 14:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  We are taging cities and provinces, not neighborhoods. While US data is based on census, data on Kurds is not.

  There is no reliable evidence that suggests that Mardin is predominantly kurdish. There might be a rumor maybe, but that is nothing reliable. Hence it is something we cant negotiate since we have nothing to base a negotiation.

  If people want a way to "quickly finding articles" a list would more than suffice rather than careless binary "in or out" decisions. A list would also allow an explanation why we consider that place a valid Kurdish region.

  -- Cat out 15:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Also Category:Orthodox Jewish communities do not include Israel aka Jewish homeland? -- Cat out 16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Neutral (or possibly merge with Category:Kurdistan). I support the use of this category as a way of categorising regions that have, and historically have had, majority Kurdish populations; i.e. Kurdistan. However, this category has been repeatedly used for places like New York and Stockholm and I feel that this is against the spirit of the compromise this category represents. If such misusages persist, I would support merging with Category:Kurdistan. -- Moby 10:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have changed my vote to neutral and will let others determine the fate of this category. -- Moby 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment If this category is deleted, we will still have Category:Kurdistan, which recently survived a CfD, in order to sort locations in Kurdish areas. Bertilvidet 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What would be the point of that? -- Cat out 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The point of categorization? Please see WP:CG. Bertilvidet 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No, the point of categorising random provinces, cities, etc.. which are not related politicaly under a category:Kurdistan which has undefined borders. -- Cat out 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We'll be on the same side if there will be any attempt to put random articles into any category! Cheers Bertilvidet 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

As User:Tony Sidaway said: Categorising an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia. diff -- Moby 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No doubt, I for one am not suggesting the deletion of Category:Kurds or Kurdish people. Category:Kurdistan however is a different story. For one it has no defined borders so any tagging is by default is random. -- Cat out 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Kurdish Inhabited Area — CIA
• Distribution of Kurdish People — GlobalSecurity.org

-- Moby 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The maps cover different areas. Thank you for pointing out the problem. The article Kurdistan also explains that Kurdistan lacks defined borders. Hence why binary categorisation is inaproporate. Kurdistan is an ambiguous region. -- Cat out 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment (attempt to briefly define the locus of the dispute) - the key problem is that categories are binary in nature and we are trying but struggling to distinguish between (1) "areas where Kurds happen to live" (which would include Istanbul, and the communities in Stockholm, Berlin, London) and (2) "areas where Kurds happen to live and which certain political groups claim are Kurdish native lands" (usually but not necessarily in connenction with claims for regional autonomy or independence). We also have (3) "lands where Kurds have historically lived" as well as the question of the (4) "significant minority/plurality/majority/vast majority of inhabitants being Kurds". These are all distinct questions, reinforced by the ambiguous nature of "Kurdistan". "Kurdish inhabited regions" naturally would mean (1), although adding "New York" would clearly be in bad faith. Adding an article about a Kurdish community in New York, though, would be fine. In truth, most people don't really want that because there is a natural tendency to seek to refine our approach towards (2) or (3) - indeed, I suspect that most people's acceptance of (1) is based on "its the best working definition we have for (2) or (3) that won't get bogged down in a POV dispute, so long as we remove odd-looking entries like NYC communities" - but perhaps the "Kurdistan" category is actually better than that. If we are taking an approach based on inhabitation, the ultimate refinement would likely be a system based on appreciating the differing level of inhabitation (as in that globalsecurity map). If we want to plough on with using "inhabited" as the key approach but still want to eliminate clearly non-Kurdistan entries, we could try subcategorizing by country e.g. "Kurdish communities in the United States", "Kurdish communities in Germany", "Kurdish communities in Iran", "Kurdish communities in Turkey" and this would leave the challenge of finding something else to distinguish between cases inside Iran, Turkey etc which are "clearly in an area known as Kurdistan", "depending on definition, within Kurdistan" and "essentially an emigrant Kurdish community living within Turkey/Iran". I'm not trying to propose any particular solution here, but I think it's worth thinking as a starting point about why we are having this dispute, why we are really using this "inhabited" approach at the moment, and why we are having difficulty with alternatives. TheGrappler 18:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  I actually agree with you to a certain level of degree. But all 4 sides you mentioned are ambigious.

  1. Every portion of Turkey can be considered a "Kurdish community" as kurds live there. Every corner is also Turkic inhabited. Categorising based on ethnicity may be more problematic than what it is worth. There would be no end to categorise.
  2. There is no consensus on the matter. Before the 2003 Iraq war, Kirkuk was outside "kurdish territory"
  3. There are no 'historically kurdish lands' in the sense that kurds were nomadic people, one of the many reasons why we know so little about their origin. They historcially occupied a large area (borders being ambigious). They could very well have migrated from soulth Africa as unlikely as that sounds. In other words, what we consider "historically kurdish" is a matter of opinion. Furthermore, we don't ever tag based on history. City of rome was the capital of the roman empier, but we dont categorise it accordingly as after a point categorisation gets silly. Category:Mongol invaded cities? Category:Cities pope have visited? Category:Places Jimbo Wales visited. etc. etc.
  4. Data of kurdish inhabitance can be better expresed with maps, why is that not the preferred option. After all kurdish inhabitance is not restricted to artificial borders and tagging provinces is a very crude and inefficient way to express that. Given we dont know anything about kurdish inhabitance (no census to base it).

  No one objects tagging of kurdish culture etc. But, I do not believe categorisation would not be aproporate no matter how much we work on it. Kurdish inhabitance is just too ambigious and it would be problematic even if it wasn't ambigious.

  -- Cat out 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep But it should only be used for the main Kurdish area in the Middle East. Honbicot 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  What makes you think the region is confined to the Middle East? Region is ambigious it can mean anything. -- Cat out 20:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Commment This really should be deleted as per Category:Hispanic inhabited regions... -- Cat out 12:56, 4 June 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Has no parent article, contains only three articles, all three are stubs, and two are proposed to be merged into an article not in the category. mastodon 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose deletion I agree that there is a problem here, but disagree that the solution is deletion of the category; instead it would be better, IMO, to address the problems constructively i.e. create a parent article, expand stubs, add other relevant articles. SP-KP 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

neutral I can see posible good uses for this kind of category. After all birds are a vast topic. -- Cat out 23:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose deletion I agree with SP-KP's stance that it would be better to create a parent article to build a structured category rather than delete it entirely. Dbertman 18:42, 28 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was listify (see list here). Conscious 07:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep & Rename. Dyl 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete & Listify I agree, it may spoil it. Not everyone want's to know if the book, movie, video game they're looking at has an unexpected ending. 12.73.195.35 has a great idea! Chipmunk01 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename "Twist ending" is simply ambigous. "Films with a twist ending" is much more precise if it's to be kept at all. Dismas| ^(talk) 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename I agree. Renaming this entry will bring the category into focus. Right now, this particular category applies to too many fields so this is a necessary change. Schwenkstar| ^(talk) 27 May 2006

• Delete - isn't this a sort of spoiler? And besides, is it really necessary to categorize films by type of ending, wouldn't a list be enough? Ajshm 12:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This has been deleted before I think. Bhoeble 13:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think this list is necessary. The "twist ending" is a merely a plot device and it would be interesting to see what films utilize this device. Also, I don't see it being any different than other categories here on Wikipedia. For example, Spirited Away has the category "Shapeshifting in fiction," Memento has the category "Fictional amnesiacs," and Angel Heart has "Films featuring the Devil." All these categories are citing elements within the film's narrative, which I see as being no different than citing the element of the "twist ending" within the film's narrative. If anything, the "twist ending" category is even more necessary than these other categories since it is citing a literary device; the others are citing either only a singular character (devil) or a singular event (shapeshifting). Schwenkstar| ^(talk) 27 May 2006
• Rename to Category:Films with a surprise ending; clearer description. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Dump category giving no clue to a reader. This is task for detailed list with internal structure and some context. Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename. Antares33712 22:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete. Do cliffhangers qualify? This is a very bad case of spoiling the show. Details regarding to the ending should not be even mentioned to minimise spoilage... -- Cat out 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps listify is a better choice. -- Cat out 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Hang on a minute lads - I've got a great idea.... (Well, it's an idea already mentioned but still) Delete and listify - that way a {{ spoiler}} can be put at the top, too. Grutness... wha? 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Spoilers. ( Ibaranoff24 09:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) reply
• Delete Too hard to define and just not very important. Calsicol 11:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify as List of Films with a Surprise Ending. Not category-worthy, but interesting as list trivia. Objections to it in any form make no sense, as identifying a film as having a "surprise ending" in itself gives away nothing specific while, conversely, reading the complete synopsis in the completed article on any film (an encyclopedic necessity) will necessarily reveal the ending, surprise or not. 12.73.195.35 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify This type of subject is best served by a list. -- Samuel Wantman 08:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Listify. Vegaswikian 05:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Most definitely Delete and Listify. Georgeslegloupier 13:36, 2 June 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.