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 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused category that doesn't seem necessary at all. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above.-- Greece666 00:11, 23 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:Filipino films. Conscious 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Filipino movies to Category:Philippine films, inline with naming conventions in Category:Films by country. -- Howard the Duck | talk, 15:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy after comment Syrthiss 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose It is a subcategory of category:Filipino culture. Hawkestone 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename "Filipino" is exclusive for people (Filipino basketball players, Filipino historians. "Philippine" is for other things, such as Philippine Stock Exchange, Philippine Basketball Association, etc. -- Howard the Duck | talk, 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. American Heritage Dictionary says Filipino can be used as an adjective, to mean "Of or relating to the Philippines or its peoples, languages, or cultures." However, per naming conventions, movies should be changed to films, thus Category:Filipino films. Her Pegship 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to * films - whatever the adjective, 'films' needs to be used to conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That reference says nothing about using 'movie' vs. 'film', it only talks about how to disambiguate if the movie/film happens to have the same title as something else. -- JeffW 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • True, but on the talk page you will find a discussion about the use of "film" vs "movie" which resulted in the page terminology. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There was a discussion where it was decided to use (film) instead of (movie) in the title of the page and in titles that need to be disambiguated. That's a long way from a consensus that all categories with 'movie' in the name should be changed to 'film'. -- JeffW 04:05, 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 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Improperly formatted category with one entry; apparently useless. Paul 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Osomec 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

fix acronym and capitalization. Paul 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Osomec 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Ships of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, otherwise "ships" too far from start of name. (Meanwhile, having second (fourth?) thoughts about expanding abbreviations in category names...)  Regards, David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

These two categories appear to cover the same territory, so I'm proposing a merge to the larger, more clearly named category. - EurekaLott 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Osomec 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Recently created duplicate. Merge CalJW 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge per nom. Osomec 10:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge then convert former to redirect as UK/Britain/etc prone to duplication. David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The plural of the current category is incorrect, and should ideally be moved. Low priority.-- Nema Fakei 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 all. Conscious 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Presidents of Cornell University to Category:Cornell University presidents
• Category:Presidents of Dartmouth College to Category:Dartmouth College presidents
• Category:Presidents of the University of Georgia to Category:University of Georgia presidents
• Category:Presidents of Harvard University to Category:Harvard University presidents
• Category:Presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology presidents
• Category:Presidents of the Naval War College to Category:Naval War College presidents
• Category:Presidents of New York University to Category:New York University presidents
• Category:Chancellors of the University of California, Berkeley to Category:University of California, Berkeley chancellors

Rename to match the other such subcategories of Category:American university presidents, and all similarly named categories (e.g., Category:Harvard University faculty, Category:Harvard University alumni).-- Mike Selinker 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename MatriX 11:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom to match parents and siblings. × Meegs 07:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom; I created the Berkeley category. Mike Dillon 06:04, 24 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 after cleanup -- William Allen Simpson 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This category was intended for Greeks living in Macedonia. The unnecessary nationalist struggle over Macedonia has now been extended to count all the articles about the inhabitants of the ancient Kingdom of Macedon as Greek Macedonians. This ignores the ancient Greek sources, which consistently distinguish between Greeks and Macedonians; it also fails to include the ancient Greeks who did in fact live in Macedon: Aristotle, Euripedes, Eumenes of Cardia. Classification as Greek is usually, and properly, unsupported by the articles. The best solution is to move the list to the neutral name for the category, and then strain out the handful who properly belong in the original cat. Septentrionalis 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• • The present (05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)) situation is satisfactory; thanks, everybody. Septentrionalis 05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - It is largely accepted that Ancient Macedonians were ancient Greeks, since they self-identified in multiple occasions as ancient Greeks. Their language (see Ancient Macedonian language) is largely accepted that it is either a sister or a daughter language of Ancient Greek language. The ancient Greek sources, like Herodotus, Strabo et.al. definitely classify Ancient Macedonians as Greeks. Anything else is an unorthodox accumulation of unduely weighted information which aims to de-hellenize the Ancient Macedonians by using double-standards (ie. present day Slavs can be called Macedonians since they self-identify as such, but Greek Macedonians who self-id as Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians who self-id'd as Greeks, cannot).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, which will make things much clearer for those of us not interested in this squabble. Ancient Greeks can be subdivided in the category system, in the same way as modern British people are subdivided into English, Scottish etc. Hawkestone 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. There were Macedonians, and there were Greeks. Simple logic: two different things. Simple as that. greier 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Partial Rename - contrary to the claims by both Pmanderson/Septentrionalis and NikoSilver, it is uncertain whether the ancient Macedonians were ethnically Greek or not ( Britannica confirms it). I suggest renaming the category, then moving all the modern names (e.g. Despina Vandi) back to Greek Macedonians and list the Argead dynasty in both categories, as it is known that they were Ancient Macedonians, however, they also claimed Greek descent. -- Telex 18:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Normally such a discussion shouldn't even exist, because everybody would agree that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. But, exactly because FYROM history revisionists have made their lifetime goal to disassociate Ancient Macedonia with Ancient Greece and seem to have partial success, this should serve as a reminder of simple, basic historical truth.--    Avg    18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose -- Asteraki 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Partial Rename - It's controversial to state as a certainty their ethnicity; also, and more important, to put in the same category Ancient Greeks and modern Greeks seems a bit too much to me. the Category:Ancient Macedonians would be a sub-category of both Category:Ancient Greeks and Category:Ancient Macedon. Always remember that saying they were ancient Macedonians in no way necessarily implies they were a different ethnicity. As for the moderen Macedonian Greeks, the name must be absolutely kept.-- Aldux 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep both categories No reason not to have both. - FrancisTyers 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Partial Rename - there could be different ways of doing this, but Aldux' proposal strikes me as particularly reasonable. In any case, do whatever it takes to separate the moderns from the ancients. Having Cleopatra I of Egypt and Despina Vandi together in one category is a bit like having Alfred the Great and Karl Liebknecht together in one category because they were both Saxons. Lukas ^{(T.| @)} 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: a) it might be confusing to have both categories b) if we need a greek macedonian category, then what about greek thracians, greeks from thessaly and so on? c)there is an ongoing debate on the national identity of Greek Macedonian and i think the most NPOV to do until the debate is resolved is to make an ancient macedonian category without any further descriptions (eg. Greek)-- Greece666 20:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• This category is not necessary for ancient Macedonians (before arrival of the Slavs), because there is no ambiguity. As for modern times, this category would only make sense if there were also categories for Greek Peloponnesians and the like, unless the regional identity of Greek Macedonians is regarded as unusually strong (maybe like that of Cretans). In that case, there should be an intorductary sentence that redirects the reader to the Ancient Macedonian category for persons living in antiquity. From comments above it appears that one motive for having this list is to promote the POV of the Greek identity of ancient Macedonians. This is a sensitive subject that has to be treated with care.   Andreas   ^(T) 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Andreas, please be aware of the following:

1. Modern Greek Macedonians are 2.5 million people, with a definite regional identity, sometimes even stronger than the (much fewer) Cretans, especially in matters of disambiguation from their (much fewer) Northern neighbours. The Greek Macedonians article is quite sourced on that, kindly read it.
2. The fact that there are no categories for Greek Peloponnesians and the like, doesn't mean that such categories mustn't be included in future, nor does it mean that this category should be deleted.
3. There is no ambiguity ofcourse, but only to those with a minimum of knowledge of history (like you). The vast majority of uninformed readers definitely confuses " Macedonians (ethnic group)" with Ancient Macedonians. A huge example of this, was yesterday on the French broadcast of the Eurovision, when both (otherwise well informed, educated and humorous) French speakers, welcomed Helena from fYRoM, as "the girl from the country of Alexander the Great, that will sing in English, rather than the language of the Ancient Kingdom". I saw it myself in nationwide "France3". How do you expect average readers to figure it out, if educated French speakers fail to do so? Especially with the WP policy of naming all ethnic groups and countries as their self-identifying term.
4. Speaking about self-identification, there are tons of historical self-identifications as Greek of the Ancient Macedonians. Further "sensitivities" on the matter border with inappropriate talks about genetic differentiation (ie discrimination) of people in the present, or the past.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Oppose-- makedonas 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose All historical evidence proves that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek. DRMAKA 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose another FYROMian attempt to alter the Hellenic past to a slavic one. Reaper7 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Rename - There is an ongoing debate whether the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or not, and this dates long before the Republic of Macedonia came into existence. -- FlavrSavr 00:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment:Wow! And to think that you're supposed to be an example of impartiality of our northern friends...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

NikoSilver: Per your last comment-- Greece666 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply to Greece666:You better keep that for your own reference. Ah, and per your name and your self-identification as Greek: see this comment in MK:WP which immediately (after 4 days) caused your contribs to suddently revive! (preceding strikethrough was intentionally made after a friends positively documented confirmation that you are who you say you are). A hell (666) of a coincidence, I must say, it even fooled me! Sorry Giorgo M., and welcome to en:wp...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply to NikoSilver: I have no problem if we have a category called "Greek Macedonians", but for those persons who are undoubtedly Greek, and undoubtedly from Macedonia. Wikipedia doesn't take sides in the disputes, so if it's disputed whether the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or not, it's simply contrary to basic Wikipedia principles to have Ancient Macedonians in the Greek Macedonians category. I believe that the majority of non-Greeks would agree with this, as evidenced by the ongoing trends in the poll. Basically, it's only Greeks who vote for the Oppose option, so I find your PA-like remarks ironic. -- FlavrSavr 00:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Ouch, I felt that ;-) -- Telex 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply to FlavrSavr: There is a debate about your country being called Macedonia also, but you seem to have selected the self-identification option there, rather than the description of the dispute. Please show me where the PA is, and I'll show you where the double standards are...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oh, and not to think I'm some kind of fundamentalist, I'm changing my vote to the more accurate Partial Rename one, which trully is the non-Greek ongoing trend (as Telex, Aldux and Lukas have pointed out above). This I am doing because I saw the latest additions to the category, but you better forget about the Argead dynasty not being in there, since they self-identified as Slavs (sorry, you even have me confused) Greeks...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Split (partial rename) as appropriate. -- William Allen Simpson 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose. Even if there is "such a huge" debate on whether the ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, there is no reasonable historian saying that they were slavs... but, quite surprisingly (!!!) those who are asking to rename etc, this article, do not ask the same for the respective article of people from FYROM (which does not include people like Alexander, but it has the name 'Macedonians')... the ancient Macedonians self-identified as Greeks (and there are dozens or historic records that someone can look at). and if someone says that the 2.5 millenia that exist between modern and ancient Greek Macedonians, is an obstacle in listing them together, they should also exclude William Shakespeare from the List of English people and Dante Alighieri from the List of Italians (cause of the c.800 and 500 years respectively that stand between their time and 2006). lets face it, the only reason that this category was proposed for deletion, is that some think that our northern neighbours have some sort of connection with the ancient macedonians (although History, Culture, etc seem to disagree with them:)...). -- Hectorian 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- it turns out that most of the pages in the category were recently added by over-categorization of the pages in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties. Since none of them were Ancient Greek (ends when Greece was conquered by Alexander of Macedon), nor Ancient Macedonian (likewise), nor Greek Macedonians (none born there), and it violates Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, I've removed those extra categories. It should be smaller and easier to split now. -- William Allen Simpson 07:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose. I wonder why you keep trying manipulating history, simply for the ethnic interests of FYROM. Fyrom community should try to defend the present ethnic situation instead of trying to change history. Slavs have never been in this area during archaic, classical or hellenistic period. Wikipedia is a data base for knowledge and should remain like that, or else has no reason of existence. Don't destroy knowledge, because you destroy Wikipedia and vice versa.-- Kalogeropoulos 07:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose- Ancient Macedonians identified themselves as Greek and this is clearly recorded. If we would allow the request for movement of this category, we would allow a distortion of historical perception.-- FocalPoint 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Not at all. Just make it a subcategory of category:Ancient Greeks. Almost everyone apart from Greeks and Macedonians will be totally confused by the current name. Osomec 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strongly oppose' The evidence that Macedonians were not Greek are ambiguous at best. Greeks were those that had the same blood, same religion and same language (ομαιμον, ομοθρησκον, ομογλωσσον). This definition is first given by Herodotus in the part were he explains exactly why Macedonians were Greeks. True, Demosthenes did call Phillip a barbarian 5 times, but he was politically motivated. His political enemies call Phillip a Greek. Strabo, the most reliable of survivng ancient geographers, calls several times Macedonia part of Greece, for example in the begining of his eight book (8.1.1). Pindar in his odes, which he wrote for the Dorians, says how the Dorians were once Makednoi living in Mt. Pindus. Arrian does talk twice of Alexander talking "in Macedonian voice", but that can easily be as speaking in the dialect, it is very unlikely that he would talk to his army before Issus or his bodyguards one night he got drunk and caused a mess in Athenian. Anyway the Pella Katadesmos is rather good evidence of Macedonian as a dialect of Greek rather than a separate language. As for religion they definitely believed in the 12 gods. They did have several unusual practices influenced by their neighbors and the people they conquered, but that can be said for the Ionian Greeks Ikokki 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed and put the category in category:Ancient Greeks. The current name is completely unclear as based on normal usage in wikipedia category naming it means "People of Greek Ethnicity who live in the Republic of Macedonia". Osomec 10:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - when an uninformed reader sees the category under the recent name, he would probably get confused. What are Greek Macedonians, are they Greeks or Macedonians, are they ancient or modern people etc. Actually, we have Ancient Macedonians with disputable relation with the Ancient Greeks, we have existing Macedonians living in the Republic of Macedonia and finally we have Greeks living in the Greek region of Macedonia. I would support renaming of this category to Ancient Macedonians (that is neutral and does not imply whether they were Greeks or not). MatriX 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strongly Oppose. Only Ancient?!? LOL Greek Macedonians include the current Prime Minister, Costas Karamanlis, former EU commissioner Anna Diamandopoulou, senior politicians Tsohadzopoulos, singer Dionysis Savvopoulos... And then we have the (self-labelled) Greek Macedonians across the centuries, especially 17th and 18th and 19th centuries. Wake up guys and stop pretending you represent the Makedonci. Politis 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - They are all Greeks. MatriX 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - they're also Macedonians. Greeks from Macedonia have been calling themselves Macedonians long before 1945 ;-) -- Telex 12:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - It would be good if you have some undisputable evidence for this (as Politis said from 17th, 18th and 19th centuries). MatriX 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• - MatriX, that is a reasonable request and I will try to satify it. Politis 12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Of course they are Greeks; they are not Peloponnesians or Chians or Corfiots, they are Macedonians. Sorry MatriX, but when the southern region of Yugoslavia was named YSR of Macedonia, that appelation had been used for centuries - by the Greeks and variable according to the (pre-nationalistic) Greek modus vivendi. Try something else. Politis 12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - see [1]. Now can you prove that the ethnic group in FYROM today which calls itself "Macedonian" isn't a product of the 20th century, with a non-partisan source? Look, even FYROM sources are admitting that Greek Macedonians exist now [2] ;-) -- Telex 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• I'm not intending to involve in another endless session (sorry, but this is discussed so many times before on the Macedonian talk pages). I will provide just one link (the Macedonian controversy is so hard and we cannot cover it all here, there we are supposed only to vote and give very short comments): [3]. MatriX 13:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• In other words you knew Greek Macedonians existed, but you pretended you didn't... hmm... I feel so secure to know that there are people who care for the neutrality of Wikipedia ;-) BTW that link of yours contains an inacurracy. Krste Misirkov uses the terms македонски словени (Macedonian Slavs) and македонци (Macedonians) interchangeably [4], and he was certainly no Greek. In the unlikely event that you find proof of a "Macedonian" ethnicity before the 20th century, please post the evidence to my talk page. Thanks. -- Telex 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Guess where he was born? That's right - Makedonia. ;-) Bomac 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Essential for clarity. This looks like a sorry example of a debate being skewed by a small interest group and I think the closer should take that into account. These rows about ethnic definitions should be of no relevance, as all the necessary categories can be created separately, but the name being used for this category is simply wrong as it does not match English-Wikipedia practice. The direct translation might mean something different in Greek, but that is irrelevant as this is the English-language Wikipedia. Bhoeble 13:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• OpposeThe proposed deletion not only does not serve clarity but, on the other side, it leads to unnecessary confusion of two distinctive nations and civilizations: 1) the ancient and contemporary Greek Macedonians and 2) the contemorary Slav "Macedonians" of FYROM. Therefore, this mischievous deletion (in fact, merger) leads to:
  

A) The intentional confusion between different national groups.
B) The paradoxe of considering contemporary Greek Macedonians, such as Costas Caramanlis etc., as ancient Macedonians!
I believe that in this way the scientific and encyclopaedic integrity, accuracy and credibility of Wikipedia gets undermined. No encyclopedia respecting itself fosters confusion, partiality and inaccuracy.-- Yannismarou 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment While we are all having this merry discussion the categories and articles of Category:Ethnic groups in Macedonia are not particurarly developed. I like the idea of Ancient Macedonians having their own category. Now can we forget them for a while and deal with the populations and history of Macedonia during and following the Roman conquest? By the way we don't have a category on Greek Peloponnessians because Category:Natives of Peloponnese has not warranted subcategories yet. User:Dimadick

• Comment: Thanks Dimadick, I redirected Greek Peloponnesians to the category for now...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't understand precisely what the nominator wants to see happen. They don't seem to be arguing that there should be no category by this name, they instead seem to be arguing that the wrong articles are in it. That's not a CfD problem. Jkelly 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)\ reply
• Comment. Category:Ancient Macedonians is now a subcategory of Category:Greek Macedonians. For those who contest the Greekness of Ancient Macedonians: The category Greek Macedonians will not appear on the articles. According to WP usage, only the smallest category is in the article, namely Ancient Macedonians. I hope that this will make everybody (more or less) happy.   Andreas   ^(T) 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I self-identify as NON- WP:DICK, so no objection from me...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Every serious organisation refer to those people as Ancient Macedonians, people of Macedon. The daily politics shouldn't intervene in the anthiquity. From anthiquity till now have passed lots and lots of years. The meaning of the things has changed. Bomac 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. sys < in 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose. "Greek Macedonians" refers to contemporary important people from the Greek Macedonian Administrative Region, while "Ancient Macedonians" to ancient people from the Kingdom of Macedonia, a kingdom with strong Greek ethnic and cultural historical evidence. Moreover, the whole issue with having Macedonians distinctively identified in Ancient Greek literature makes me laugh: we're talking about times where Atheneans considered themselves (and in fact were) a different state from Spartans. Dr. Manos 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment In the meantime, User:William_Allen_Simpson has removed] the Category:Greek Macedonians from all Ancient Macedonians. The request as is formulated above therefore has become pointless.   Andreas   ^(T) 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- not yet all, only those that were mistakenly put there recently by a user that didn't understand the categorization guidelines. Those that remain (at the moment) should be looked at individually. Those that are ancient belong in the Ancient category, those that are modern belong in the other. -- William Allen Simpson 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I guess that i am the user u are talking about... My point is that u did what u did (according to-as u say- Wikipedia's guidelines) only in specific articles (and, i'm sorry, but this seems far from been neutral). U may look at my comment above 'bout ancient or medieval or modern English or Italians if u wish. Pls, do the same thing there as well, and say that Shakespeare was not English, cause he was born 500 years ago, and leave a 'dispute' note that medieval Stratford-upon-Avoneans were not as English as the modern English... I will be delighted to see the reaction of the children of Albion-- Hectorian 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I've begun looking at the individuals, and am beginning to understand how the massive populating was done. Folks that are Category:People from Thessaloniki and Category:Natives of Central Macedonia are being added to this ( 2006-05-13) new Category:Greek Macedonians. Please, there's no need to add the parent categories; one child category is enough! Fixing. -- William Allen Simpson 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I guess that u have not understood one thing: that, i, myself, deleted "folks" that are in Category:People from Thessaloniki or Category:Natives of Central Macedonia, etc, cause they are not Greek Macedonians, but Pontian Greeks (those whose surname ends in -idis) or Thesalian Greeks or whatever (i am sure u know wikipedia quite well and that u can see my changes). This category has reasons to exist, many reasons (with a sense of bitterness, i expected u to come with a better excuse, unless u are not familiar with the regional differences of the Greeks-in this case, i take my sarcasm back...)-- Hectorian 03:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Something more (in case i did not make myself clear): people that are Natives of Thessaloniki or of Central/Eastern/Western Macedonia can be Greek Macedonians or not. if u are an American, u know what i mean (natives of LA can be German-Americans or NewYorkers as well...) -- Hectorian 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • All people from Thessaloniki belong in Category:People from Thessaloniki, even when they are Turkish or Inuit. We don't do ethnic cleansing here. The ethnicity would be handled by a "people by ethnicity" category. -- William Allen Simpson 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose -- xvvx 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Anc. and Modern Greek MAcedonians are the same!! Heraklios 14:18, 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. Vegaswikian 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Awkwardly named, besides Category:Prophets exists, which contains suitable subcategories, too. Dr Zak 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge/delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete MatriX 11:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- JeffW 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete (empty) per nom. David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant category. It was decided last year that individual contestants should not have individual articles unless they were already noteworthy. 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 with Derek being kept because of extra, political activities. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- scope is too narrow. - Longhair 04:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. -- 9cds ^(talk) 22:04, 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 rename. Conscious 09:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename: Similar in naming scheme to other such categories. Also, makes it clear that these are government agencies. (See also: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:United States federal boards, commissions, and committees.) — Markles 12:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as proposed, and merge the others as proposed. -- William Allen Simpson 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 17:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - however, two concerns: A) should it be "government" or "Government"? The U.S. Government is a proper noun, whereas "United States government" could refer to government in any sense within the United States (state, local, etc.) Also, care must be taken to use the category properly. For example, Cat:Independent Agencies of the United States government should be a subcat of this. In addition, a given agency should be categorised in the applicable executive department as well as here. The Surface Transportation Board should be under this one as well as Cat:U.S. Dept of Transportation. Defense Intelligence Agency should not be in this category, as it is already in Cat:U.S. Dept of Defense agencies, and that category should be a subcat of this one. Got all that? Paul 19:23, 21 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 09:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The result of the vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 9 was opposed to merging from "in" to "of", and in any event neither category was tagged. As the consensus seemed to be in favour of "in", merge from "of" to "in". Tim! 10:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Hawkestone 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- William Allen Simpson 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• This of/in business.... Arrg.... I don't know.... David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 09:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Contains only one sub-category, Category:Adelaide City players, which is already in Category:Football (soccer) players in Australia by club. It is not necessary to split Category:Football (soccer) players in Australia by club into A-League and NSL players by club, since the A-League took over from the NSL – it would be like splitting English Premiership players into English First Division players and FA Premier League players. Hope this makes sense. AlbinoMonkey ^{( Talk)} 10:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete or at least rename, as current name doesn't indicate Australia as the country involved. David Kernow 04:13, 23 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 09:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Obsolete due to category Category:Football (soccer) players in Australia by club, which follows the 'standard' set in Category:Footballers by club. Failed nomination once here, before aforementioned category was created. Furthermore, the A-League is essentially the only football/soccer competition in Australia which featured notable-enough players to have their own articles, so re-classifying them into 'division' is unnecessary. AlbinoMonkey ^{( Talk)} 10:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete or at least rename, as current name doesn't indicate Australia as the country involved. David Kernow 04:13, 23 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:Anti Iraq War activists. Conscious 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

At best this category should be a list. But in general it's pretty amateurish. Deletion was apparently proposed once before a while ago with no consensus. Presumably the hope being that the category would evolve. I would say it is still pretty clumsy and a hopelessly simplistic concept.-- 67.101.66.136 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't say it's amateurish. The category blurb is alot better than most categories, and gives fairly clear instructions as to what should be added to the categories (and it's children). It could turn into a mess, but at the moment it looks pretty good. I'd say keep, or possibly listify. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 03:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my opinion - see below. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 01:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, probably should be a list. Agree that the concept is rather clumsy. Lankiveil 05:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC). reply
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 07:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A list with any extra info why someone is anti-war seems to be better.-- Jusjih 14:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep What is needed here is a doublechecking to ensure that the category is supported by all the articles in it; at the moment it is doing fairly well at that. Septentrionalis 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Kind of clumsy. Dr Zak 21:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but Rename. It seems that naming it Category:Anti Iraq War activists would narrow the field and make it less "clumsy". SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that would be adequate.-- 67.101.69.33 15:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Osomec 10:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but Rename. Per SchuminWeb.-- JK the unwise 12:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Anti Iraq War activists was the emerging consensus last time this was nominated, I thought. I'm not sure why it was never done. But that seems to be much more manageable. Kalkin 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Rename but don't delete. 132.241.246.111 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete not meaningful list. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Suggest rename to Category:People against the Iraq War, to emphasize that the category contains articles about people...?  Regards, David Kernow 04:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Is that not similarly overly broad and simplistic? Unless you're talking about some specific vote, it's not very sophisticated to lump people into "for" and "against" buckets. Even if the category explanation contains more specific criteria, it doesn't fix the clumsy name. "Activists" is more specific.-- 67.101.66.5 12:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree it may be overly broad and simplistic, but I don't believe it's clumsy. I'd say there's a substantive distinction between activists and people (who have gone on record as being) against something. Thanks, though, for your thoughts. Regards, David Kernow 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that there's a substantive distinction, but I think 'activists' is a more appropriate category for Wikipedia than 'people' in something like this. Characterizing all people, not just those who have become notable as focused on some subject, by their political opinions is a huge can of worms. Kalkin 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Per this and SeventyThree below, I agree!  Regards, David Kernow 07:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Anti Iraq War activists. We should only categorise people by relevent categories. I'm sure there are several sportspeople (for instance) who are against the Iraq war, but they are notable for a different reason. If the rename happens, the header text needs to be changed to clarify the scope. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 01:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to activists: as it stands now the category is so broad/flux that it is rather meaningless- in addition it does not much information about a person to say that he was against the Iraq war- except if he is an activist. thus i think anti iraq war activists would be a useful idea.-- Greece666 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete since then we could theoretically have thousands of categories, like Category:Anti-War of Jenkin's Ear people. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{( T | C | @)} 00:32, 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.