Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:33, 11 June 2009

< June 9	June 11 >

June 10

Category:Repurposed shopping malls in the United States

Suggest merging Category:Repurposed shopping malls in the United States to Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Very few shopping malls are ever converted to non-retail, in my findings. One of the ones in this category is a true repurpose, and the other appears to have been stalled since 2007 without any progress. I know of one or two stray malls that have been truly converted to non-retail uses, but such occurrences are usually to non-notable malls, and the instances are so few and far between that the "defunct" category suffices. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an important classifier. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atheist and agnostic politicians

Delete:

Nominator's rationale: Category appears to be of little if any value, and appears to have been created as a negative equity rather than a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete Seems an irrelevant intersection. Unless the articles would show how their atheism or agnostism shapes their political views and actions. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I admit my opinion's a bit muzzy on this, but at least in the US it's damn near impossible to get elected if you don't espouse a belief in a god of some sort or another, and even then it had best be the "right" god. I suspect the same applies in many other countries, especially those in the Middle East and Latin and South America. This may mean that the intersection of "atheist" and "politician" rises to the level of defining characteristic even if other intersections of religion and "politician" don't. Otto4711 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well populated category which is of particular interest to many in the increasingly secular or "post-religious" West. --Wassermann (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cinderella

Propose renaming Category:Cinderella to Category:Cinderella (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main, dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I can't believe this wasn't named that way already. It's not like the band is the only thing with that name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Cinderella (band). 2 (at least) of its 3 subcats are also ambiguous and should follow suit. Occuli (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree strongly. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish economists

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: Speedily deleted G4. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish economists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Without opining on the legitimacy of the Category:Economists by nationality category, I would point out that this one is not a nationality, and is fundamentally racist. There is no category for other races or religions, nor ought there to be. The intersection of "Jewish" and Economist is not a matter of encyclopaedic interest. There is no encyclopaedic relationship between Judaism and practising economics.94.193.244.105 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An excellent point. We don't have a category for "Christian economists" or "Black economists". Shii (tock) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Another "Jewish" category of irrelevant intersection. Why not nominate all of them together. Mind you, just the irrelevant ones. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nominated -- recent (May) re-creation of previously deleted material:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10#Category:Jewish Economists.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion - as a recreated category. No indication that consensus has changed regarding this category in light of the deletion of several other Jews by occupation categories recently. If speedy is declined, delete as there is, as noted in the previous CFD, no "Jewish way to do economics". Otto4711 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Jews (whether ethnic or religious or both) of course have a very long, illustrious, and well-documented history of being involved in the study and practice of economics...and I'm quite sure that all of you who voted to delete this category fully know this to be true. Yet still you all voted en masse to delete it like a bunch of censorious automatons, seemingly blinded by your own POV which seeks to censor/delete any and all information dealing with Jews on Wikipedia. And also, just wondering...you all wouldn't happen to be tag-teaming or engaging in any kind of cabal-esque behavior in your quest to delete/censor all of the Jewish categories found on Wikipedia, would you? Because lately it sure seems like something is going on collaboratively behind-the-scenes regarding all of these Jewish categories... --Wassermann (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2009 (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:Soviet Union canoeist stubs

Propose renaming Category:Soviet Union canoeist stubs to Category:Soviet canoeists stubs

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other professions from people who lived in the former Soviet Union. Chris (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close and move to WP:SFD. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quebecois cuisine

Propose renaming Category:Quebecois cuisine to ~~Category:Québécois cuisine~~ Category:Quebec cuisine

Nominator's rationale: Not sure about this one, created by an anon IP back in 2004. Québécois is a French word, with the accents. What we have now is a corrupted anglicized word. However, I generally don't like using non-English accented words in categories because I think it's harder for many users with standard English keyboards. While it looks like a noun, we do in fact at times use "Quebec" as an adjective in English -- i.e. "Quebec politics" -- and I have revised this nom to suggest this as the best route. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are there any adjectival (I think this is correct) forms of Quebec being used? If not, then should this be a simple exception to the general rule? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one thing I realized is that we do use Quebec as an adjective. For example, we say "Quebec politics" whereas we would not say "Canada politics." I'll modify my nom right now to reflect that, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It does not have accents in English always. Further, Quebecois is used to indicate ethnic Quebecois cuisine. So should be split in two (Cuisine in Quebec .vs. Quebecois cuisine) 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic travel writers

Category:Islamic travel writers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with Jewish travel writers below, there's no evidence on the record that this religion "is essential to the occupation."

Also, there's no evidence in the existing articles that each "subject's beliefs are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 17#Category:Muslim travel writers.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the last debate. Nom's comment is ludicrous, frankly! Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – ludicrous is putting it mildly. I take it that WAS has read eg Ibn Battuta. Occuli (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry to disagree with so many outspoken fellow editors here and in the previous discussion, but I completely agree with the nominators rationale, and the arguments I have seen here and in the previous discussion have not convinced me otherwise. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WASimpson: why do you keep using so called "policies" you (or one of your close Wiki-associates) recently revised or rewrote to justify the continued deletion of dozens of perfectly valid, factual, and encyclopedic categories? Doesn't revising or rewriting certain "policies," and then immediately turning around and using those same changed "policies" you just rewrote or revised to justify the deletion of categories, qualify as a conflict of interest (at best) or outright manipulation of policies to suit your wishes (at worst)? --Wassermann (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film awards for Best Animated Feature

Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Animated Feature to Category:Awards for best animated feature film
Nominator's rationale: Once again, renaming per capitalization guidelines in WP:NCCAT and the fact that all awards in this category are not literally for Best Animated Feature. I was originally going to suggest that we rename as "Animated feature film awards," along the lines of Category:Documentary film awards. But my concern is that this could be misconstrued as a category for awards for animated features that are not for best in category, such as the Annie Award for Music in an Animated Feature Production. So I've used the recently renamed Category:Awards for best film as the model. This could then become a sub-cat of that category, too. Also, there's nothing stopping us from creating Category:Animated feature film awards as a top-level category for all long form animation awards -- best film and craft awards -- itself a subcat of Category:Animation awards, if needed, at a later date.  Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. What, another one? Gah... Good comments by nom, though. I agree Category:Awards for best film should be used as a model. If the best film one ever changes, which it might, this one could also follow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical forms

Propose renaming Category:Musical forms to Category:Arabic musical forms
Nominator's rationale: Category:Musical form holds musical forms. This plural category has been managed to keep only Arabic musical forms. Either major restructure or else rename Musical forms to Arabic musical forms. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and reparent per nom. It's doubtful if Yürük semai should remain in the cat in that case. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGREE that something needs to be done - as it stands this has caused confusion between form, style and genre. But also agree some forms in there are Turkish. Suggest Form in Asian music as the most useful missing category. Then Indian and Chinese forms can be added - it is not too many articles and it will be good to have them within Category:Musical form. Strongly recommend that the word "formS" be strenuously avoided. Thanks IC - good idea, very glad you mentioned it. Redheylin (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split to Category:Arabic musical forms and Category:Turkish musical forms, both of which should be subcats of Category:Muscial form.  A few of the articles belong in both the Arabic and Turkish subcats, the others only in one or the other.--Aervanath (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diet food writers

Category:Diet food writers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Moved its only article to more appropriate category. We already have Category:Food writers and Category:Health and wellness writers which are well-used and linked in. thisisace (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate whatever you removed. See the procedures. How can we consider a category that has been emptied?  There may well be a case for a category (with a better name) with both of these as parents. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. thisisace (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Diet writers or Category:Writers on diet. can very easily be populated from the parents, & a useful sub-category of these. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyone who writes about food is writing about diet. If this is intended to capture people who have written books about specific diets - meaning weight loss plans - then the category is becoming too specific. Categorizing authors based on the subject matter of their books (as opposed to genre) is cutting things too fine. Otto4711 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most food writers just address one dish or meal at a time. I'm open to different phrasing, but diet books are clearly a very different genre from cookery books, and recognised and placed as such in completely different sections (often not even in the food section) on the shelves of bookshops and elsewhere in the book trade. We have many far more minute distinctions than this in writer categories that have been upheld here.  Obviously not all diet writing is about weight loss. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Consider Rename There are people who write about cooking from an aesthetic standpoint and there are those who write about from a dieting standpoint, where the goal is to eat foods to reach some state of improved health. Irma S. Rombauer, author of The Joy of Cooking, was not writing about dieting, and most cookbook authors don't. Category:Health and wellness writers includes writers who address issues other than food as a means towards wellness. I would fully support a rename, but this category appears to capture a defining characteristic that would be eliminated by deletion or renaming. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street films

Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street films - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An unnecessary category. We already have Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street, which contains anything and everything connected to the series. We also have Template:Nightmareseries, which has a link to all of the major articles (including the films). We don't need an overly specific category just for the films when we have the template and a general Nightmare category.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and parent the article on the franchise in Category:Film series if it's not there already. There is no need to maintain two separate categories and the template for this material. Otto4711 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator and Otto4711, which are in basic accord. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing here that isn't already served by Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street. Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haroon albums


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:  Close so it can be deleted via C1 as empty. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Haroon albums - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: empty category about deleted non-notable musician, see Haroon (music producer). Hekerui (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Google cache reveals a deleted album (by Haroon, not produced by H), a deleted song and a deleted article for Haroon (whose first album was entitled 'Gloom', but sadly there seems to have been no article). I have no idea whether these deletions were sound. Occuli (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close - if the album category remains empty for four days it can be tagged for speedy deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Otto4711. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (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:Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement

Propose renaming Category:Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement to Category:Mormonism and polygamy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Renaming to match main article Mormonism and polygamy. As discussed when the article was renamed, the proposed name actually reflects the contents a bit better, since polygamy has a lot to do with Mormonism but not a lot to do with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement. (The article name has bounced around a bit lately, and I've just been renaming the category to follow it each time. Originally it was Category:Plural marriage, then it went to what it is now, now we're changing it again.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main article is now called "Mormonism and polygamy", but of all the other articles in this category, none have "Mormonism" in their title.  "Latter Day Saint movement" is present in part of titles. On one hand the category name should be close to the main article's name, but we shouldn't forget about the other articles of the category. Especially when, as the nominator has mentioned, the main article is being renamed frequently. Since the present name is more inclusive (Mormonism being a part of the Latter Day Saint movement), I'd prefer to keep the more inclusive name. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – but it is (allegedly) a subcat of Category:Mormonism and women. If there are articles about non-Mormon LDS polygamy/polygamists, perhaps there is a case for keeping the present one with a subcat of Category:Mormonism and polygamy. Occuli (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification and comments (nom). The perceived problem with the current name is that outside of "Mormonism" (i.e., the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalists), there is not really any history of polygamy whatsoever in the Latter Day Saint movement. The non-Mormonism strands of the movement are mainly the Community of Christ, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and some other small groups. None of the members of these groups ever practiced polygamy and the churches have never taught the doctrine of plural marriage. Debresser's point should be considered, though. The single article that now links the phrases "LDS movement" and "polygamy" is Current state of polygamy in the Latter Day Saint movement. For the non-Mormonism groups, this article basically says, "never has taught it and adherents never practiced it and actively opposes it." This may be enough to keep the name broader rather than Mormonism, I'm not sure. In light of this and Occuli's comment, which is also relevant, I'm a bit unsure of what to do. It is a close call; ultimately either will be acceptable to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles by class

Category:Articles by class - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am unsure whether this should be just deleted (assuming there is another core way of navigating basic subject areas) or if this should be renamed. If renamed I couldn't quite think of an appropriate alternative, just this doesn't quite fit this title. To illustrate when I put a note on the category talk page questioning the category, someone left this on my talk. "'articles by class' refers to whether an article is stub-class, Start-class, B-, A, Good, Featured, etc"; which if it was the nature of the category I would understand. But it isn't it's purpose. So ideas please! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was surpised to see that the nominator is correct. If I wouldn't have checked, I would have made the same mistake as that editor answering on the nominators talkpage. The way it is, I see no rationale in having this category. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this category (courtesy of RK) is just 2 days old and should be deleted before it develops. Category:Articles, and above it Category:Contents, both also created by RK, already have some rather mysterious subcat schemes. I note that Category:Contents is the ultimate category, with no parent. Occuli (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename & relocate Most of the scheme - Categories, Articles etc has been in place for 2yrs & has some very experienced editors in the histories. But this one is clearly misleadingly named. I always struggle a bit to see the use of such grand schemes, but that's just me. I think this category would be better renamed to Category:Categories for things and relocated to Category:Categories.  Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename iff someone can think of a more appropriate name. (Disclosure: I created this category.) First of all this category has indeed nothing to do with article quality class system. It is one possible scheme of categorising articles, such as Category:Main topic classifications or Category:Fundamental, which have existed for several years. The intent of this scheme is to start with the type of object the article is about, similar to de:Kategorie:Objekt on the German Wikipedia. Class (as in class (philosophy) or class (computer science)) seemed to be a more concise term than type of object but it may indeed be confusing. —Ruud 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish travel writers

Suggest merging Category:Jewish travel writers to Category:Travel writers
Nominator's rationale: Merge overcategorization by religion and/or ethnicity. There is no encyclopedic relationship between "Jewish" and "travel writer". Otto4711 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. No encyclopedic relationship. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Medieval Jewish travel writers, dropping the last 2 who are modern. The medieval Jewish perspective on their world is very distinct and highly encyclopedic & worth keeping.  Nb Category:Islamic travel writers was kept after a discussion, rightly. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the previous discussion on Category:Islamic travel writers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Islamic category, had the name change not been involved, would have been closed as "no consensus". The closer felt that the arguments for deletion were superior but didn't have consensus. The category was renamed because no one made the case for the intersection of religion (Muslim) and occupation (travel writer) being defining. If the assertion that the perspective of Middle Ages Jews is "very distinct and highly encyclopedic" then an article covering the topic would better serve the project than a bare alphabetical category, which can tell us nothing of this distinct perspective. Otto4711 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article would not replace the category, though it would certainly be a good idea. That is a novel and strange idea - usually the existence of a main article is cited here as strengthening the case for a category, not the reverse. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither novel nor strange. Not every topic that has an article on Wikipedia warrants a category that covers the topic. If that were the case every WP article would be eligible for its own category. I've made this argument before repeatedly. Where a lead article usually strengthens a CFD case is in selecting a rename for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, Sean. I've included it in the nomination above. And Otto is correct, an article is better.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of both policy and guidelines, cited above. Merge as nominated would be OK for selected articles, after checking whether they are already in nationality occupation categories.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod. Benjamin of Tudela for one is evidently a legitimate member of the category. Occuli (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka

Suggest merging Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka to Category:Tamil Sri Lankans
or rename Category:Tamil Sri Lankan as umbrella topic category

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two nearly identically named ethnic subcategories for the same island, populated only by a few different subcategories. The later name matches the form of Category:Tamil Indians, Category:Tamil Singaporeans, Category:Tamil South Africans, etc.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep This nomination is confused.  Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka contains subcats on culture, politics, history and the like while Category:Tamil Sri Lankans contains subcats and articles on individuals.   Not identical at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 
Rename Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka to Category:Tamil Sri Lanka to make the distinction in content more evident. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Debresser. This (as set up) is a topic category, subcat of Category:Tamil and parent cat of the people cat Category:Tamil Sri Lankans. Occuli (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Debresser - doesn't WAS look at the categories he nominates at all? The rename is clearer. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of course, I checked every subcategory. As noted in the nomination, I also checked other Tamil societies in several countries, where this category has no parallel.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then didn't it occur to you that merging a general category into a people category was not a good idea? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As to the reflexive hostility and counter-rename, naming conventions would require Category:Tamil Sri Lankan for the topic category – note the trailing 'n' – singular topic, plural set (of people). Added to the nomination.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand this last argument and proposal. IMHO Category:Tamil Sri Lanka is correct. Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are refering to and why. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 *'''Keep''' – ludicrous is putting it mildly. I take it that WAS has read eg [[Ibn Battuta]]. [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' I am sorry to disagree with so many outspoken fellow editors here and in the previous discussion, but I completely agree with the nominators rationale, and the arguments I have seen here and in the previous discussion have not convinced me otherwise. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' - WASimpson: why do you keep using so called "policies" you (or one of your close Wiki-associates) recently revised or rewrote to justify the continued deletion of dozens of perfectly valid, factual, and encyclopedic categories? Doesn't revising or rewriting certain "policies," and then immediately turning around and using those same changed "policies" you just rewrote or revised to justify the deletion of categories, qualify as a conflict of interest (at best) or outright manipulation of policies to suit your wishes (at worst)? --[[User:Wassermann|Wassermann]] ([[User talk:Wassermann|talk]]) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Film awards for Best Animated Feature ====