< June 11 June 13 >

June 12

Category:British-Turkish people

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 speedy deletion G4 recreated content by Kungfuadam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Contains only one item, which is the user page of a British editor of Turkish descent. Osomec 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Russian orientalists to Category:Russian Orientalists

and

Category:Spanish orientalists to Category:Spanish Orientalists

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 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The O is captalized in Orientalism and in most usages on the internet. Chicheley 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Orientalism article shows 2 instances of lowercase "orientalist" and 1 instance of "Orientalist", so I'm not sure either. 131.107.0.73 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Osomec 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both. "Orient" should definitely be capitalized. Checked around a bit; "Orientalist" is capitalized at these two websites ([1],[2], top relevant Google responses), and also in this Library of Congress entry. Though, good question, David. I think that's a good enough answer for me. Luna Santin 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both -- Orient is capitalized, orientalist should not be capitalized. The LOC catalog entry is a book title, the Oxford entry uses lowercase "Institutions actively acquiring orientalist library materials". When in a book title, it would be capitalized, but it would not in discussion! --William Allen Simpson 11:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. Is it possible we're running into an American/British English issue, again? If that's what we're looking at, my inclination is to go with whatever matches current similar categories, for consistency's sake. That said, I haven't been around long enough to know what that would be. Good idea? Luna Santin 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per Edward Said's usage. - EurekaLott 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- An earlier preview of my response above had mentioned Said, but I eliminated it as pejorative. Yes, Said (and a couple of other authors critiquing him) usually capitalize 'Orientalism' (the name of his book), but that's not a good reason for doing it here. Many/most of these are historical writers before Said. And Said isn't all that well respected in the academic community (at least here at the local University), as certain parts of his work seem to be made up from whole cloth, including his own personal history. So, let's ignore the neologism, please. 'Orientalism' is a critique of orientalists, not the equivalent. --William Allen Simpson 12:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both Orient is a proper noun, so it follows that Orientalist should be capitalised. The subcategories of category:Egyptologists all have a capital "E". Athenaeum 16:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both I don't care too much about the issues, but consistency is important. CalJW 03:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Terrorist organizations and Category:Former terrorist organizations

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 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Th[ese] categor[ies are discouraged] according to is in violation of the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism, where it basically states that it's not ok to say "X is a terrorist organization" but it is ok to say that "X is recognized by the U.S. & Papua New Guinea and a terrorist organization". Therefore, if we can't call groups terrorist in the intro, should we be allowed to call them as such in categories? —Khoikhoi 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism is a style guide not a policy. Personally I would like to merge Category:Terrorist organizations and Category:Organizations accused of terrorism into a single Category:Designated terrorist organizations which covers only organisations that have been designated as terrorist by prominent supranational or national authorities. AndrewRT 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you try to create a Category:Designated terrorist organizations or something similar and see how it goes. For a while let "Organizations accused of terrorism" exist on its own. If the new designated category works and the seperate accusation category becomes superfluous then it can be deleted. Let's not conflate a few different actions into one -- it can make it harder to make progress. --Ben Houston 22:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Role-playing games to Category:Roleplaying games

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

The result of the debate was Keep, no consensus to rename --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction. Most gaming companies appear to use non-hyphenated version Dugwiki 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So "role-playing" and "role playing" appear to be variants that is currently being used more informally by players than by the actual games. I'm not completely discounting those spellings, but the spelling definitely is incorrect when referring to specific games that use the "roleplaying" spelling. For example, it would be incorrect to refer to the Wizards products as "d20 Modern Role-Playing Game", since that is not the spelling the company actually uses.
Anyway, bottom line, I suggest that the spelling in the gaming context should mimic the spelling preferred by most of the current roleplaying games. And the spelling of actual game titles should match the spelling used in the product itself. If someone cares to post some links to major gaming products that actually use the "role-playing" spelling, though, please feel free to put them up. Dugwiki 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Move Sub-cats per Percy Snoodle. As further comment, the main SJG GURPS page (possibly the biggest single system outside of AD&D/D20) says the game stands for "Generic Universal RolePlaying System". A bit of hunting shows they've used this since the early 3rd edition covers at least, which means it's not recent for them, either. --Rindis 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Move Sub-cats Per research on game developer's official web sites: WotC, Steve Jackson Games, White Wolf, Palladium Books, Chaosium, Pagaon Publishing, Arc Dream and Green Ronin all use Roleplaying not Role-Playing.—Asatruer 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. I'm actually for it (because I think the word's been around long enough to have evolved out of the hyphenate stage), but I'm really angry about the way Dugwiki is trying to rush this through. Michael Bauser 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm not sure where Dugwiki gets his information:
    1. I checked my AD&D 2nd edition, and it's always "role-playing". I'll check the original booklets (I've been playing since 1976) when I have the time.
    2. As to WotC, what else do you expect from a card game company bought by a toy company (Hasbro) -- you don't really think the marketing department actually plays the games, do you?
    3. GURPS, pretty consistent with RolePlaying (I checked my 3rd edition, too), clearly two words by Title capitalization, but that's not under consideration here.
      • I'll look for my original Car Wars baggy, but I'm pretty sure that role playing wasn't in the original rules.
    4. White Wolf EverQuest II Role-Playing Game is the title on the new 2006 cover!
      • Admittedly, my copy of Vampire: The Masquerade (1991) uses "roleplaying" quite consistently in the index.
    5. Palladium Books Role Playing Games Official Home Page
    6. Chaosium, original edition RuneQuest, Role-Playing in first section heading, and throughout.
    7. No matter how you slice it, MMORPG is an initialism including "on-line" (one initial) and "role-playing" (two initials).
    --William Allen Simpson 06:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (what again?): The only thing that will ever be truly clear-cut here is that usage varies. But, I'd say it's becoming clear that current industry usage has moved to a single word. Though, while all this title-quoting is nice, if you really want to check usage, you should check the internal text of the rules. A certain separation of the words will always exist, because it'll always be called RPG not RG (out of momentum, if nothing else). (And, for more confusion, I note that Guardians of Order is sticking with the hyphen in their text....) --Rindis 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've stayed out of this because I'm ridiculously biased. The only thing I can add is that Wizards uses roleplaying for D&D and the like, and has for nearly a decade. I'm not sure whether that means the category should, but it's useful data. (And William--the marketing department absolutely plays the game.)--Mike Selinker 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Science fiction series to Category:Science fiction book series

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 05:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to eliminate confusion with tv series (which has it's own category). I suggest "book series" instead of "novel series" or "fiction series" so the category will cover anthology series and nonfiction works about science fiction. MakeRocketGoNow 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Economy cars to Category:Subcompact cars

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 per nom, no clear consensus to rename to Category:Supermini cars. Conscious 05:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge and removal from Category:Compact cars. --Vossanova o< 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you seem to be correct. Both the subcompact and supermini articles confirm this. My impression is that these cars are actually far more popular in Europe than they are in North America, so I'm wondering if maybe we should just use supermini as the default, unless that runs afoul of some other naming convention. Either way, I agree there should be a note about the alternate use (regardless of which use we apply). Luna Santin 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there are separate articles for subcompact car and supermini car. By that logic, we should split off the European cars in Category:Subcompact cars into their own Category:Supermini cars category (there is already a Category:City cars, but I'm not sure if that's the same thing). Meanwhile, my original vote stands. --Vossanova o< 18:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedian editcountitis

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 Deleted as simply unnecessary and prone to becoming unmaintainable. --Cyde↔Weys 05:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the comma follows MOSNUM. This also prevents redundancy.

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

Category:Number one draft picks to Category:National Hockey League first overall draft picks

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 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category needs to be named for what it actually is. "Number one draft picks" could be anything from military to basketball. BoojiBoy 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Craters on Mercury

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been empty for several weeks now and is redundant. Only one crater/basin on Mercury really warrants its own article (Caloris Basin), and that's categorised in Category:Mercury. Worldtraveller 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pseudophysics

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

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my nomination below on Category:Fringe physics, I also nominate this category for similar reasons.

(1) I am unable to verify that "Pseudophysics" exists as a recognised topic, with no references (a) in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS Abstract service (b) a handful of vague references in Google Books (c) No mention in Gogle definitions (2) Consquently it is difficult to check the criteria for inclusion in this category objectively, which relies on the subjectivity of individual editors, which could be considered controversial, and hence Original Research.

I suggest that this topic fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and hence fails WP:NPOV. --Iantresman 12:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's just a subset of the respectable Category:Pseudoscience for those pseudosciences which try to deal with phenomena in the field of physics. Pseudoscience has oodles of books, references, etc. written about it. It is It is usually fairly clear whether a particular entry is related to physics, biology or whatever. Finally, the category is useful, with about 30 entries. Deuar 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks CH. I've appended a longer comment below. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:David Firth

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 --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only has two entries. Himself and Salad Fingers - Motor (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fringe physics

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

The result of the debate was Keep, partial merge to Category:Pseudophysics --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I am unable to verify that "Fringe physics" exists as a recognised topic, with no references (a) in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS Abstract service (b) nor in Google Books (2) Consquently it is difficult to check the criteria for inclusion in this category objectively, which relies on the subjectivity of individual editors, which could be considered controversial, and hence Original Research.

I suggest that this topic fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and hence fails WP:NPOV. The category also includes both people and subjects, which seems inconsistent. --Iantresman 10:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we verify what belongs in this category? --Iantresman 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I'd suggest putting everything in for now, then removing items from the list that aren't even pseudoscience. As for removal to scientific categories, I'd suggest that establishing if a topic has an ongoing presence in the scientific literature is a fairly objective measure. Does that help? --Plumbago 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing presence in the mainstream scientific literature does indeed seems to be an objective measure --Iantresman 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as described by User:Plumbago. --ScienceApologist 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Plumbago; but the requirement should be positive presence in the scientific literature. (If some journal starts a series of articles debunking various forms of fringe science, this (in itself) is no reason to remove them from the cat. Responding articles defending the subject would be.) Septentrionalis 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the category. While I acknowledge that "fringe science" does have a negative connotation, one could argue that even non-mainstream has a negative connotation, and we do need some category to collect a variety of fringe topics or controversial topics or non-mainstream topics in physics/astronomy. Of the various terms I have seen, fringe physics seemed to me least likely to be misunderstood, but I would be willing to discussing renaming the category. Regarding my judgement on this, please note that I am an experienced WP editor and I think my contribs establish my good faith. I have made 10000+edits in the year I have been at WP (if the edit counters are to be believed; this is probably an overestimation, however), almost all dealing with physics/math articles. On the basis of my WP experience and my knowledge of physics/astronomy, I feel that the category I created is valuable. I think it is relevant to point out that Ian Tresman failed to mention that he has been involved in a long-running edit war regarding Plasma cosmology, one of the topics which I wished to list in this category, where Ian is a passionate supporter of this controversial theory, not to mention Catastrophism and other pseudosicence topics. I feel Ian's nomination is part of this long running edit war and is not in good faith, or at least does not reflect sound judgement. Ironically, my recat moved it up from the subcat Category:Pseudophysics because I feel some aspects of plasma cosmology are less controversial than others and that overall fringe physics is a better designation than pseudophysics. ---CH 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Ah-ha. Now that's interesting. It would have been helpful to know about Iantresman's interest in catastrophism, etc., but I suppose I should have checked his contributions myself. Anyway, I can see the distinction that you're drawing between pseudo- and fringe-physics, so can see why it shouldn't be merged. At the moment, however, fringe physics contains several items which would be better off in pseudophysics (mostly creationist bunk). So, I reckon if fringe physics is to remain, it needs to be cleaned up. I should add though that I'm a little concerned that it might be difficult to objectively discern fringe from regular pseudophysics (i.e. fringe physics might wind up with only one or two examples we can all agree on; the rest being tranferred to pseudophysics). Either way, pseudophysics should remain. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you agree! Maybe you should replace your vote above to slash out the words or merge? Please feel free to recat the guys you think should be in Category:pseudophysics. ---CH 05:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have struck out my "merge" from above. Have also gone through Fringe Physics and removed topics that are Pseudophysics (well, re-categorised them). I'm still a little concerned that it may be difficult to separate them at all times however. --Plumbago 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Media of Cambodia

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 per creator's request. No need for apologies, we all make mistakes. ×Meegs 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I didn't follow the naming conventions. I moved all three pages to a new category, Category:Cambodian media, which I realize isn't how it should be done either. As I said, very sorry. Won't happen again. Wisekwai 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Philadelphia Blazers

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, unnecessary as no other WHA teams have their own categories. BoojiBoy 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12
No tags for this post.