The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete.
DoczillaSTOMP! 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Rationale for the category, by its author: "a bookshop made famous by the xploits (sic) of its colourful employees". Contains 2 articles. Does a small town bookshop deserve its own category? My village store could be a candidate in that case.
Enaidmawr (
talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Amazingly, both employees, if they are, are indeed notable.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; perhaps we can expand the cat by putting notable books on sale there in too. Just kidding.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films about torture
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete.
DoczillaSTOMP! 06:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too broad of a topic. Includes "torture porn" films like Hostel, as well as films such as Brazil and Resevoir Dogs. What constitutes a film being "about" torture? I mean, I'm not doubting that torture is apparent in all these films, but I think in most cases its POV to label a film as such.
CyberGhostface (
talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment -
Closet Land was about torture. Agree that depictions of torture is too broad, but not sure right now that there might not be a spot for "about X" -- will have to look at other film subject categories. --
Lquilter (
talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete suffers the same ills as almost all the "films about" categories: how much about the subject must the film be and what RS tells us that it's at least that much about it?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Images with permission confirmed
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hudson Valley politicians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete politicians by non-legally significant geographies is probably an unwise trend:
Category:Upstate politicians? because there seems to be no single board or legislature that governs the Hudson Valley separately than any other part of New York State.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Earthworm Jim characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All characters except Earthworm Jim are in a list. This category is too small to be useful and will not expand due to the list. Pagrashtak 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Japanese voiced video games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete: Seems like a trivial detail to organize articles that will probably only amount to unneeded strain of Wikipedia's servers. (
Guyinblack25talk 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC))reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brown v. board
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Match main article, more comprehensible. -
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom as below, or merge to
Category:United States racial desegregation case law. I'm not sure what links these other cases, rather misleadingly titled either way, and whether it is worth er segregating them like this from the main category.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:MR layout vehicles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank71 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Are you supporting merging both these categories into "Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles"? I am not opposed to that name.
swaq 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
That works since there is a redirect for
MR layout. I modified my vote above to reflect this.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Musical groups with siblings
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Too trivial to be a category. "The Kinks were an English pop group containing siblings"? I think not.
Flowerparty☀ 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment There was a complete BBC TV programme a couple of years ago featuring sibling rivalry in bands, particular emphasis on the Kinks (
Ray Davies v
Dave Davies - the latter had an individual hit early on - Death of a Clown - and the Kinks would never play it, all rather nasty). And
Oasis is another example where sibling rivalry has been marked. No doubt there are other examples where sibling harmony has been vital. So I wouldn't say it is necessarily trivial.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah? I missed that one, I'm afraid. Well, I'm not saying it's entirely trivial, just that it's too trivial to be a category. Having two brothers in a band is hardly a defining quality. (It's not just families that don't get on. There are plenty of rivalries that don't involve siblings, like Simon and Garfunkel.) Also, if this is converted into a list it will be possible to add notes saying who's related to who and whether it affected the music, and whatnot.
Flowerparty☀ 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Listify as a more generalized/specific familial musical groups70.55.85.177 (
talk) 06:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: Too trivial to be a category. If it must be kept, then rename as per above. This could also get confusing, I mean, what about the
Ramones...just kidding.
I feel like a tourist (
talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok, I also support deletion, if that's the way this is going.
Flowerparty☀ 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Princes of Belgium
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are already categories for both Belgian princes and princesses, so this one isn't necessary.
Morhange (
talk) 07:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Actually there is a case for this category, as a sub-cat to
Category:Belgian princes, which includes non-royal princes like the Arenbergs & de Ligne in sub-cats. All the articles in the main
Category:Belgian princes are I think royal, but merging them here and renaming this to
Category:Belgian royal princes or something, and making it a subcat would make sense, allowing more precise parent cats & so on.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Agreed :) Works for me!
Morhange (
talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually there don't seem to be any articles on non-royal princesses as yet, so I guess those can just go to the existing cat for now.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus.
Kbdank71 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic of any society, and so should be a list rather than a category.
gadfium 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Leaning to keep, but would be OK with list. I disagree that it's "not a defining characteristic of any society". Just a couple of examples:
Androphagi — the first part of the article states "Androphagi (Greek for 'man-eaters') was an ancient nation of cannibals north of Scythia ...".
Sawi: "The Sawi are a tribal people of Western New Guinea, Indonesia. They were known to be cannibalistic headhunters as recently as the 1950's. ..." I think it's clear that this is defining for some tribal societies, at least in the way that the western world defines them through means such as Wikipedia. That being said, I think a list could work for this probably just as well.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree with points made by Good Ol’f. Tendency to eat people is definitely defining. (Should it not be practised or this another US/UK thing?) Practice - noun, practise - verb (UK).
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per previous debate and those above. Spelling is a US (c) v UK (s) thing.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
List per Gadfium. This category tends to get imposed by the ignorant on the innocent
Kahuroa (
talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Just for the record I still feel this is not a defining aspect of societies any more than bayoneting, scalping, or bombing one's enemies. --
Lquilter (
talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
keep WP is for readers to find and read things. This helps them do so for a subject that often elicits human curiosity. WP is not for thoughtless adherence to some idea of what is defining or not.
Hmains (
talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This argument could apply to any category. We have
WP:CAT that specifies that categories are "defining", and we have significant precedent about what "defining" is. I have never seen any support for the idea that practice of cannibalism qualifies. --
Lquilter (
talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
keep but rename to
Category:Societies that have practiced cannibalism - This is a highly significant characteristic that is certainly a proper basis for categorization. Whether it is quote-unquote "defining" is a very subjective judgement -- as is the very notion of what is "defining". We should, however, drop the word "Tribal", a poorly understood, and often pejorative, term which introduces a subtle (or not-so subtle) suggestion of backwardness and inferiority -- and is not necessary in any event.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with that.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Listify. Gadfium is right, it isn't a defining characteristic. Or if it is, why is cannibalism only mentioned halfway down the page in most of these articles, if at all.
Flowerparty☀ 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete defining tribes (and people) by what the believe or used to practice near or far in the past isn't useful.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep Cannibalism was an important characteristic. Fortunately it is now almost unknown, but it was significant. REname as suggested by
Cgingold.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Kiribatian
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Despite getting almost 10,000 google hits, there really is no such adjective as "Kiribatian" — it's an invented word by people who don't know how to pronounce "Kiribati" and assume it's pronounced like it looks. Technically speaking, the adjective is "i-Kiribati", but I'm going to predict anyway that most editors will not support
Category:I-Kiribati law and
Category:I-Kiribati society, and just propose plain old "Kiribati", as currently used by
Category:Kiribati people and its subcategories. I would love to see a consensus to change these and the people categories to "i-Kiribati", but I'm suspecting that's outside of most users' comfort zones right now. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Support rename, it's a reasonable compromise between the theoretically correct name and the one that Westerners can recognise. In any event, the current name is just wrong.-
gadfium 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Kiribatian is not a word, Kiribati is used this way here in the South Pacific.
Kahuroa (
talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I have used the term i-Kiribati but agree that simply using Kiribati as the adjective is more user-friendly and perfectly natural usage. "Kiribatian" is as unnatural a term as "Unitedstatesian"
Grutness...wha? 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I would be willing to support i-Kiribati, personally (on the principle of "use a group's own term for itself whenever possible", I'm totally all about replacing
Ojibwe with
Anishinaabe these days, though I have to admit that even I'm not about to take on replacing
Squamish with
Sḵwxwú7mesh), but I agree that Kiribati is probably more user-friendly for most people.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete.
DoczillaSTOMP! 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Rationale for the category, by its author: "a bookshop made famous by the xploits (sic) of its colourful employees". Contains 2 articles. Does a small town bookshop deserve its own category? My village store could be a candidate in that case.
Enaidmawr (
talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Amazingly, both employees, if they are, are indeed notable.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; perhaps we can expand the cat by putting notable books on sale there in too. Just kidding.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films about torture
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete.
DoczillaSTOMP! 06:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too broad of a topic. Includes "torture porn" films like Hostel, as well as films such as Brazil and Resevoir Dogs. What constitutes a film being "about" torture? I mean, I'm not doubting that torture is apparent in all these films, but I think in most cases its POV to label a film as such.
CyberGhostface (
talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment -
Closet Land was about torture. Agree that depictions of torture is too broad, but not sure right now that there might not be a spot for "about X" -- will have to look at other film subject categories. --
Lquilter (
talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete suffers the same ills as almost all the "films about" categories: how much about the subject must the film be and what RS tells us that it's at least that much about it?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Images with permission confirmed
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hudson Valley politicians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete politicians by non-legally significant geographies is probably an unwise trend:
Category:Upstate politicians? because there seems to be no single board or legislature that governs the Hudson Valley separately than any other part of New York State.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Earthworm Jim characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All characters except Earthworm Jim are in a list. This category is too small to be useful and will not expand due to the list. Pagrashtak 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Japanese voiced video games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete: Seems like a trivial detail to organize articles that will probably only amount to unneeded strain of Wikipedia's servers. (
Guyinblack25talk 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC))reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brown v. board
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Match main article, more comprehensible. -
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom as below, or merge to
Category:United States racial desegregation case law. I'm not sure what links these other cases, rather misleadingly titled either way, and whether it is worth er segregating them like this from the main category.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:MR layout vehicles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank71 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Are you supporting merging both these categories into "Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles"? I am not opposed to that name.
swaq 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
That works since there is a redirect for
MR layout. I modified my vote above to reflect this.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Musical groups with siblings
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Too trivial to be a category. "The Kinks were an English pop group containing siblings"? I think not.
Flowerparty☀ 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment There was a complete BBC TV programme a couple of years ago featuring sibling rivalry in bands, particular emphasis on the Kinks (
Ray Davies v
Dave Davies - the latter had an individual hit early on - Death of a Clown - and the Kinks would never play it, all rather nasty). And
Oasis is another example where sibling rivalry has been marked. No doubt there are other examples where sibling harmony has been vital. So I wouldn't say it is necessarily trivial.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah? I missed that one, I'm afraid. Well, I'm not saying it's entirely trivial, just that it's too trivial to be a category. Having two brothers in a band is hardly a defining quality. (It's not just families that don't get on. There are plenty of rivalries that don't involve siblings, like Simon and Garfunkel.) Also, if this is converted into a list it will be possible to add notes saying who's related to who and whether it affected the music, and whatnot.
Flowerparty☀ 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Listify as a more generalized/specific familial musical groups70.55.85.177 (
talk) 06:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: Too trivial to be a category. If it must be kept, then rename as per above. This could also get confusing, I mean, what about the
Ramones...just kidding.
I feel like a tourist (
talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok, I also support deletion, if that's the way this is going.
Flowerparty☀ 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Princes of Belgium
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are already categories for both Belgian princes and princesses, so this one isn't necessary.
Morhange (
talk) 07:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Actually there is a case for this category, as a sub-cat to
Category:Belgian princes, which includes non-royal princes like the Arenbergs & de Ligne in sub-cats. All the articles in the main
Category:Belgian princes are I think royal, but merging them here and renaming this to
Category:Belgian royal princes or something, and making it a subcat would make sense, allowing more precise parent cats & so on.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Agreed :) Works for me!
Morhange (
talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually there don't seem to be any articles on non-royal princesses as yet, so I guess those can just go to the existing cat for now.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus.
Kbdank71 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic of any society, and so should be a list rather than a category.
gadfium 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Leaning to keep, but would be OK with list. I disagree that it's "not a defining characteristic of any society". Just a couple of examples:
Androphagi — the first part of the article states "Androphagi (Greek for 'man-eaters') was an ancient nation of cannibals north of Scythia ...".
Sawi: "The Sawi are a tribal people of Western New Guinea, Indonesia. They were known to be cannibalistic headhunters as recently as the 1950's. ..." I think it's clear that this is defining for some tribal societies, at least in the way that the western world defines them through means such as Wikipedia. That being said, I think a list could work for this probably just as well.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree with points made by Good Ol’f. Tendency to eat people is definitely defining. (Should it not be practised or this another US/UK thing?) Practice - noun, practise - verb (UK).
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per previous debate and those above. Spelling is a US (c) v UK (s) thing.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
List per Gadfium. This category tends to get imposed by the ignorant on the innocent
Kahuroa (
talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Just for the record I still feel this is not a defining aspect of societies any more than bayoneting, scalping, or bombing one's enemies. --
Lquilter (
talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
keep WP is for readers to find and read things. This helps them do so for a subject that often elicits human curiosity. WP is not for thoughtless adherence to some idea of what is defining or not.
Hmains (
talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This argument could apply to any category. We have
WP:CAT that specifies that categories are "defining", and we have significant precedent about what "defining" is. I have never seen any support for the idea that practice of cannibalism qualifies. --
Lquilter (
talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
keep but rename to
Category:Societies that have practiced cannibalism - This is a highly significant characteristic that is certainly a proper basis for categorization. Whether it is quote-unquote "defining" is a very subjective judgement -- as is the very notion of what is "defining". We should, however, drop the word "Tribal", a poorly understood, and often pejorative, term which introduces a subtle (or not-so subtle) suggestion of backwardness and inferiority -- and is not necessary in any event.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with that.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Listify. Gadfium is right, it isn't a defining characteristic. Or if it is, why is cannibalism only mentioned halfway down the page in most of these articles, if at all.
Flowerparty☀ 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete defining tribes (and people) by what the believe or used to practice near or far in the past isn't useful.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep Cannibalism was an important characteristic. Fortunately it is now almost unknown, but it was significant. REname as suggested by
Cgingold.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Kiribatian
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Despite getting almost 10,000 google hits, there really is no such adjective as "Kiribatian" — it's an invented word by people who don't know how to pronounce "Kiribati" and assume it's pronounced like it looks. Technically speaking, the adjective is "i-Kiribati", but I'm going to predict anyway that most editors will not support
Category:I-Kiribati law and
Category:I-Kiribati society, and just propose plain old "Kiribati", as currently used by
Category:Kiribati people and its subcategories. I would love to see a consensus to change these and the people categories to "i-Kiribati", but I'm suspecting that's outside of most users' comfort zones right now. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Support rename, it's a reasonable compromise between the theoretically correct name and the one that Westerners can recognise. In any event, the current name is just wrong.-
gadfium 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Kiribatian is not a word, Kiribati is used this way here in the South Pacific.
Kahuroa (
talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I have used the term i-Kiribati but agree that simply using Kiribati as the adjective is more user-friendly and perfectly natural usage. "Kiribatian" is as unnatural a term as "Unitedstatesian"
Grutness...wha? 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I would be willing to support i-Kiribati, personally (on the principle of "use a group's own term for itself whenever possible", I'm totally all about replacing
Ojibwe with
Anishinaabe these days, though I have to admit that even I'm not about to take on replacing
Squamish with
Sḵwxwú7mesh), but I agree that Kiribati is probably more user-friendly for most people.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.