Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7



Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * geography of the palestinian territories


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * I believe there will be consensus to get rid of 2 of the categories. I believe the geography category should be kept. I think it is disingenuous on your part to insist "Palestinian territories" is not a geographical name. The geographical meaning of the name is by far the most common meaning for the name. Especially in the mainstream media.--Timeshifter 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The mainstream media use the name "Palestinian territories" frequently in spite of the infighting between Hamas and Fatah. That is precisely because the media are using the term geographically and not politically. See:
 * http://news.google.com/news?q=palestinian+territories
 * Everyone in the media and the public who has been paying the least bit of attention to the region knows of the settlements in those Palestinian territories, and knows that most of those settlements near the Green Line, and especially around Jerusalem, will probably end up as part of Israel, and will be traded for other land or compensation or something. That was the status at the end of the last negotiations at the Taba Summit.
 * The news media seems to understand this. They are not making political claims by using the term "Palestinian territories." Why do some wikipedians not understand this, or act like they don't understand this? The main reason is that it is part of the well-known POV pushing that occurs on all sides concerning this topic in wikipedia. Oh well... --Timeshifter 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Topics related to the general region are to use the term "Palestinian territories", and "Topics related to one of the two main regional divisions, West Bank and the Gaza Strip, should make use of those restricted regional terms". Clearly, the sub-cats follow the second case, but these cats the first. It would seem ridiculous to me to have only the Gaza and West Bank cats. Just because we have categories for US states, or England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, does not mean that US or British parent cats are "non-functional" and should be deleted.  And in the Palestinean case there is not even a formal constitutional divide between the two areas, whatever the current situation on the ground. Johnbod 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't participate (or even look at) the previous debate, but having now read that and the project discussion, I agree with User:Timeshifter that the last nomination (and hence this one) misrepresented the project discussion, with which these categories seem perfectly in accord to me. The project proposal, which generally met with consensus, was that:


 * Keeping this is analogous to creating a USSR category to overarch the 15 independent places, because it used to be related or categories for German Empire and put in whatever is now in another country that belonged to that entity, or variious categories related to former, future (mindful of WP:CRYSTAL) or hoped-for "countries": Kurdistan, Greater Armenia, Biafra, Confederate States of America, and a single unit called Palestine too. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How does that tie in to the Project concensus; they talk of "regional divisions"? I wasn't aware that the UN, US or anybody recognised two Palestinian states. Should articles about the geography of Alaska or Hawaii be kept outside the US categories? Johnbod 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are being confused by the "regional division" language, since the categories are already included on the basis of whether they relate to government, general society , and specific geographic entity .  Tewfik Talk 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * [For Carlossuarez46]: What is your motivation in all this? Is your goal to eliminate the name "Palestinian territories" from category names? It is a contemporary name for an area and a people. So your comparison to names for old historic areas such as the USSR or the German Empire is unfounded. Google "Palestinian territories" in Google News and see that it is a contemporary name: http://news.google.com/news?q=palestinian+territories - Even the Israeli media frequently use the term "Palestinian territories." They are using the term geographically, too. See also this July 17, 2007 BBC Country profile: ""Country profile: Israel and Palestinian territories". See the map there. Ask at WikiProject Palestine if people there think that "Palestinian territories" does not apply to the territories of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. --Timeshifter 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The motivation is simply to remove an unnecessary level of organizational structure, one that apparently may be an archaism as the unity of the territories is very much in doubt. Yes, many have the POV that the territories are unified (and others that those territories include land beyond the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Just like the BBC, UN, US, etc. will tell you that there is but one China as well, so should we chuck out our articles and categories about Taiwan? The NPOV facts are that point specific geographic places exist in either in the West Bank or in the Gaza Strip. Institutions such as aviation, transport, elections, governmental affairs, foreign relations, etc. do not and are properly categorized under the territories as a whole. Carlossuarez46 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Here is how CNN uses "the Palestinian territories":
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com+%22the+palestinian+territories%22 --Timeshifter 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please see Category:Kurdistan and all those territories inhabited mainly by Kurds. They also have internal squabbling, and they are under the rule of various governments. Palestinian territories is a similar territorial name. Palestinians have lots of internal squabbling, and they are also under the rule of various authorities. See the article Palestinian territories.


 * Encyclopædia Britannica: Kurdistan - traditional region, an extensive plateau and mountain area inhabited mainly by Kurds, including large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia.--Timeshifter 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, geography categories can contain some useful subcategories. Such as maps and satellite pictures. See Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and Category:Satellite pictures of the Palestinian territories. So the geography category is not just a "nonfunctional extra layer above the existent Gaza Strip and West Bank hierarchy". I am less concerned about keeping Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories and Category:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories. I will go with whatever the consensus is on those 2 categories.--Timeshifter 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider that particular category to be quite problematic. I strongly suggest you do not use "Kurdistan" as a rationale for the sake of avoiding flamewars. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very poor way to construct a rationale. -- Cat chi? 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you have a problem with Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Dictionary.com. Here are some more examples:


 * Columbia Encyclopedia: Kurds - a non-Arab Middle Eastern minority population that inhabits the region known as Kurdistan, an extensive plateau and mountain area in SW Asia (c.74,000 sq mi/191,660 sq km), including parts of E Turkey, NE Iraq, and NW Iran and smaller sections of NE Syria and Armenia.
 * Dictionary.com: Kurdistan - An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia.--Timeshifter 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have problems with this category. I won't be baited into discussing this Kurdistan thing here. I consider your attitude to be highly disturbing. -- Cat chi? 23:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Highly disturbing". Ominous music begins now... You insisted on arguing the point. I replied. --Timeshifter 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * comment Kurdistan is a terrible analogy. If this is is simply "where Palestinians live", then the cat would have to encompass historic Palestine (all of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, parts of Egypt) plus significant Palestinian populations in the gulf states etc. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the common meaning, not the fringe meanings of a name. Here is how CNN and the BBC uses this name: "the Palestinian territories".--Timeshifter 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the reasons which Carlos has articulated, and per Consistent Palestinian naming standards which I helped shape. The category only serves as a needless upper-level to and, which are actual geographic areas, and presumes a hypothetical Geography of the Palestinian territories, which is a disambiguation page, since Palestinian territories is more a political term than a geographic one.  Tewfik Talk  20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Shuki 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, TS asked for discussion - so here's the hook, line and sinker: 'Palestinian territories' is absolutely not, in any case around the world, ever used to describe areas tha Palestinians live in. If that were the case, then anything related to something in this cat: Category:Palestinian refugee camps would have to be added to Palestinian territories as well and this is not the case. TS and Tiamut, please correct me if I am wrong. If the cat stays, will Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt be added to 'Palestinian Territories'? You can at least start by adding this cat to Palestinian territories: Category:Palestinian refugee camps by that rationale. Palestinian territories is a disputed general political term and has nothing to do with geography except two articles; 'Gaza Strip' and an article on Area 'A' and Area 'B' which do not exist for some reason. --Shuki 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Wikipedia uses the common definition for the common name, Palestinian territories. Not the fringe POV definitions. Palestinian refugee camps are categorized in Category:Palestinian refugees.--Timeshifter 22:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete ditto. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Dittoheads" commonly means followers of a certain talk show host here in the USA. :) Note that this page is called "Categories for discussion." So what is YOUR reasoning? --Timeshifter 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral geographical names should be used not controversial political names. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Wikipedia uses the names in common use. "Palestinian territories" is the common name for the territories mainly inhabited by Palestinians. Imagine that. The news media is using the most logical name for the combination of those 2 territories, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. What is political about that for the average person? The majority inhabitants are Palestinians, are they not? They are territories, not sovereign states. Thus, "Palestinian territories". We use "Hawaii" for those pieces of land. We use "Bahamas" for those pieces of land. Those are the common names. Wikipedia does not make up names for them. --Timeshifter 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Palestinian Territories is the accepted geographic term for the West Bank and Gaza (why on earth would you want to completely seperate them?), whilst Palestinian National Authority is used for political categories. Number   5  7  08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Categorization: 8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. - when it comes to geography, the "Palestinian territories" is a controversial term because it is a political and not a geographic one, and is not self-evident because the territories in question are a subject of future negotiations or whatever happens in the future. See WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that some people have no problem with understanding what people are referring to geographically when the names West Bank and Gaza Strip are used. But when using the common term naming them together, "Palestinian territories", they automatically assume the whole world uses the term politically. That is ridiculous. Just like when people worldwide use the term "English Channel" they are not asserting a political term to malign the French. Get real! The worldwide media use the term simply to refer to the geographical combination of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. See for yourself how the media uses the term: http://news.google.com/news?q=palestinian+territories --Timeshifter 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have a West Bank and Gaza categories. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Armon. That linked page is not a category page. --Timeshifter 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike WP, news outlets don't have (or don't uphold) NPOV policy and often have political agenda. Argumentum ad googlum doesn't work, especially to push POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's funny coming from you, probably the most well-known POV-pushing admin in this topic area. Rule #1 for Naming conventions (events) states, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Please feel free to ignore this wikipedia guideline as you usually do in these naming discussions. --Timeshifter 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Personally, I don't really think the POV in the phrase "Palestinian territories" is all that objectionable, especially after Oslo, but I'm a settler would disagree.  I'm voting to delete simply because its redundant and unnecessary; like categorization simply for the sake of categorization.  --GHcool 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it redundant? Have you actually looked at what is categorized in the category?--Timeshifter 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Categorization: #8: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Media may use it. That would probably lead to a Palestinian territories, we do not create categories simply because media uses them. I think we should avoid trying to solve a problem the UN failed to solve by using categories. -- Cat chi? 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Using your logic we should delete the article Palestinian territories because YOU don't like the name. Even though it is a common name. Rule #1 for Naming conventions (events) states, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." You may think the name is controversial, but that does not allow you to delete it. And as for the items within the category there is nothing controversial about whether the items belong in Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. Map categories are commonly put in geography categories. By the way, the UN uses the name "Palestinian territories" too. Just like the media. It is the job of the closing admin to ignore post-and-run votes at deletion discussions. So all these people who are basically just posting their dislike of Palestinians, via the name "Palestinian" being used on wikipedia, are irrelevant to this discussion.  --Timeshifter 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to stay on topic. This is CFD - about a category and not about an article - so Naming conventions (events) is not applicable here. Unfortunately the UN has been a part of the conflict, and cannot be considered a neutral party. Intimidating opponents and violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NOT does not help your cause. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Continue to make it up as you go along, Humus. Then sprinkle in some intimidating guidelines. Names are names. Whether in article or category names. --Timeshifter 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles can have controversial titles (ideally they shouldn't but whatever). Palestine is more than a hazy area. It doesn't have solid borders. When you say "Palestinian territories" do you mean the historic are before Israel was formed (some Palestinians seek such a country), the original UN borders when Israel was first proposed and created (a good number of Palestinians seek this)? Current borders as Israel claims them? Or various other versions? When you can use non controversial names (something like Category:Gaza strip and west bank) why should you even insist on the controversial title? -- Cat chi? 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the article Palestinian territories to find out how the name is used, rather than making up your own definitions of the name. --Timeshifter 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I am the first person to use the terms "Gaza Strip" and "West Bank". -- Cat chi? 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And your point is...?--Timeshifter 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is ridiculous of the logic? It is an official guideline by the way not my logic. " CATEGORIES appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories" applies to CATEGORIES and not articles. -- Cat chi? 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a NAME. So naming guidelines apply. Not your biases, personal interpretations, etc.. --Timeshifter 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories" clearly applies to the categories name. Article naming guidelines apply neither to Mediawiki nor to Image nor to Template nor to Category namespace. -- Cat chi? 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? So then, it is YOUR personal choice of which wikipedia guidelines to apply? There are many controversial names used for categories. The same names used for articles. It is common. Names for wars, events, you-name-it. Wikipedia uses the common names.--Timeshifter 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorization applies to all categories. Wikipedia uses the common names for articles. Categories are a different story as explained in the guideline. Your insistence to the contrary does not void the existence of a guideline that is written explicitly for categorization. -- Cat chi? 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your insistence does not void the naming guidelines. They both apply. I have categorized many articles, categories, and images over a long time. I have had many discussions concerning categorization. On both wikipedia and the commons. --Timeshifter 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. "Palestinian territories" is a political, not geographic, term. For geographic features we have Category:Geography of the West Bank and Category: Geography of the Gaza Strip - using two well-defined geographic terms. -- uriber 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So when the mainstream news media uses the name "Palestinian territories", as they frequently do, you do not know that they are using the common shorthand to indicate the combination of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? I believe most of the delete votes here are the ones making this political. Not the mainstream media. Many of the delete votes are allowing their personal dislike of the term to be used to disregard following the wikipedia naming guidelines. --Timeshifter 22:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Tewfik, Humus sapiens and my general belief that all categories whose contents are controversial are more trouble than they are worth and therefore should be deleted, and the controversy covered in the appropriate articles. Specifically in this case, "Palestinian territories" is a political term, especially in terms of what area it covers.  6SJ7 02:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like we are getting many members of the crew who insist on politicizing this topic area. --Timeshifter 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Geography of the Palestinian territories" is the proper meta-category in which to place the sub-categories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the governorates of the Palestinian National Authority, among others. The reasons provided by the nominator for the deletion of this meta-category are uncompelling: Hamas being in control of Gaza and Fateh in control of the West Bank doesn't make these areas any less Palestinian, or any less connected to one another. It is completely mainstream to use the term "Palestinian territories" to refer to these geographic areas, as pointed out by Timeshifter above. There is no controversy in using the term; it is used by the United Nations and everyone from BBC to CNN. We should not give a fringe viewpoint that rejects this term as POV undue weight.  T i a m a t  15:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a solicited vote. It is unfortunate, but aside from appropriate postings to the Palestinian and Israeli noticeboards, Timeshifter has also solicited votes from a number of editors in agreement with him on related issues and on the talkpages for Jerusalem and House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where he has made further WP:AGF violating comments, including calling this CfD a POV-pushing campaign, and requesting users vote "keep". That is in addition referring on this page to POV pushing, saying that editors here are basically just posting their dislike of Palestinians, and that most of the delete votes here are the ones making this political...Many of the delete votes are allowing their personal dislike of the term. It goes without saying that this conduct is extremely inappropriate.  Tewfik Talk  02:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people feel that the motivation of many, not all, is POV-pushing. Humus, who is supporting you on this issue, accuses many people of POV-pushing. He is an admin. There have been many reports at WP:ANI from all sides documenting POV-pushing from all sides. Many, many admins believe this topic area is the most contentious one on wikipedia. It is allowed, according to the wikipedia guidelines, to notify a few people. I did not tell them how to vote. Also, I posted to several articles and noticeboards (from all sides) where I knew that editors from all sides were posting, and asked them to check out this latest (among many similar ones) deletion attempt. In some of those locations I pointed out some of the repetitious nature of these deletion attempts. Some people need encouragement to participate after so many previous deletion attempts on a broad scale. WP:AGF says that there is a point reached where one does not always have to assume good faith. Lots of caveats... --Timeshifter 14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Given it is less than two months since this was last up for deletion, I think it is quite appropriate to contact people like me who commented last time. It's a time of year when a lot of people are on holiday and they might not be watching some CFDs as closely as normal. I am grateful to Timeshifter for warning me that some people were not letting this issue rest. --Peter cohen 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination and various other points, including those made by Tewfik, Humus Sapiens, and others. Geographical categories requires precise boundaries that are either inherently geographic (e.g., a river, mountain range, etc.) or political. Neither applies to this, and what we are left with is a magnet for endless discussions that can't possibly be resolved on WP. --Leifern 05:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only a magnet for fringe viewpoints who ignore the mainstream media use of the term "Palestinian territories" to refer simply to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. --Timeshifter 14:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Timeshifter and Tiamut above, and I object strongly to the accusation that Timeshifter has solicited votes - he has simply informed interested editors that a debate is taking place. DuncanHill 09:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a solicited vote. Informing people on only one side of a debate is considered vote solicitation. Had he informed people on both sides, this would have been less of an issue.  Tewfik Talk 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not tell him how to vote. See Canvassing: "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Also, I posted notices at Notice board for Israel-related topics, WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.. --Timeshifter 16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Timeshifter and Tiamut. --Ian Pitchford 11:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - unnecessary upper cat to the existing geography of gaza and geography of west bank. i also agree with the comment made by User:6SJ7 above about a trouble causing category.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per 6SJ7 and Jaakobou. The West Bank and Gaza categories are sufficient. Beit Or 19:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - An unworkable cat with no scope. Baka man  20:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful, if not necessary. Bertilvidet 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a textbook definition of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.  Tewfik Talk 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it is useful or necessary is not sufficient to either keep or delete the category. The fact is that "Palestinian territories" is used often by the mainstream media. Search Google News to see. Mostly only fringe POVs want to politicize the name, and repeatedly waste time in deletion attempts. --Timeshifter 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As I said at 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC), during the last CFD for this category on This classification parallels that for other non-contiguous countries, such as Russia where the Kallinigrad enclave is covered by the Russian categories. At present the position is that there are two separate putative governments in different parts of Palestine, but they both claim to be the legitimate government for the whole country. Civil wars are a frequent phenomenon and classifying areas of, say, Somalia by who happens to be in control of which bit at which time would be ridiculously burdensome. Having sub-categories for each part would allow for the potential of a split becoming more permanent.---Peter cohen 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another solicited vote  Tewfik Talk 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Kindly do not treat the closing administrator as an idiot. I have mentioned up thread that I am grateful to Timeshifter for drawing my attention to this matter. The closing administrator will therefore already be factoring the fact that I was contacted into their consideration and there is no need for your posturing. --Peter cohen 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please can this discussion be kept open for several more days. I have just inform WP:Countries and WP:Geography. If the participants in those projects are given time to vote, then the discussion here can reflect how human geographers think about the issue not what a group of individuals with strong agendas think about the issue. I hope Tewfik will not claim that any members of those projects should have their votes ignored as solicited. --Peter cohen 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Aside from the crystal ball issues and redundancy -WP shouldn't be making judgments on what does and doesn't constitute "Palestinian territories". We're a tertiary source so unless there is unambiguous agreement among RSs, (and there isn't) we shouldn't be using cats like this at all. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. 71.202.97.61 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The other categories are sufficant for the topic. There is no need for duplicate categories.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. This category doesn't do a specific job and is only a not-working layer above the other geography categories. Geography of the Palestinian territories is not an article, so how can we have this kind of category? -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  10:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an article, too. There are attempts to delete it at times. This category is not a non-working layer. Look at it and see. --Timeshifter 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is very similar to geography in other countries/regions.Vice regent 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a redundant crystal ball POV category that doesn't even make sense. Amoruso 09:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment To whom do I complain about Tewfik's repeated lies about solicited votes? DuncanHill 09:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * cities, towns and villages in the palestinian territories


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Keep per my comments on the geography cat above. Johnbod 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonfunctional extra layer per the rationale articulated by Carlos.  Tewfik Talk 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Shuki 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the editor below, this cat only applies to the Gaza Strip and Areas A and B, not the entire WB. --Shuki 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Palestinian Territories is the accepted geographic term for the West Bank and Gaza (why on earth would you want to completely seperate them?), whilst Palestinian National Authority is used for political categories. Number   5  7  08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reasoning above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how this category serves any real purpose. It is just another layer. This vote is in contrast to my keep vote for Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories based on its usefulness as a geographic container category for subcategories of maps of the Palestinian territories, governorates (which include maps of the Palestinian territories), satellite pictures of the Palestinian territories, etc..--Timeshifter 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasoning as my vote for the deletion of Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. --GHcool 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Categorization: #8: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Media may use it. That would probably lead to a Palestinian territories, we do not create categories simply because media uses them. I think we should avoid trying to solve a problem the UN failed to solve by using categories. -- Cat chi? 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Palestinian territories exist. These articles should not be tossed out of the category system. Beorhtric 20:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary extra layer per Tewfik and Timeshifter. -- M P er el 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Political naming masquerading as geography. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reasoning as prior Cfd. 6SJ7 02:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - see my reasoning above. As for the West Bank and Gaza deserving one common category, that's a valid point but does not eliminate the problem that these are not unambiguous, uncontested categories. --Leifern 05:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment in the debate above and per Number57 DuncanHill 09:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a solicited vote.  Tewfik Talk 16:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not tell him how to vote. See Canvassing: "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Also, I posted notices at Notice board for Israel-related topics, WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.. And if you bothered to check my vote on this particular category, you would see that I voted to delete it. --Timeshifter 16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for an extra umbrella category. Beit Or 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As I said in the other CFD above, this classification parallels that for other non-contiguous countries, such as Russia where the Kallinigrad enclave is covered by the Russian categories. THis is part of a systematic classification system.--Peter cohen 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another solicited vote  Tewfik Talk 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Where is this particular discussion mentioned in Timeshifter's message to me? --Peter cohen 23:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sub cat of invalid cat -see above. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please can this discussion be kept open for several more days. I have just inform WP:Countries and WP:Geography. If the participants in those projects are given time to vote, then the discussion here can reflect how human geographers think about the issue not what a group of individuals with strong agendas think about the issue. I hope Tewfik will not claim that any members of those projects should have their votes ignored as solicited. --Peter cohen 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This should have gone to delrev. So often do afd debates close differently than the way they should.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above reasons. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above reasons.Vice regent 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - this sounds like a legitiamte category, but the name is too long. I suggest "places in the Palestinan territories" or "settlements in the Palestinian territories".  The Palestinian territories is a recognisable area, namely the area occupied by Israel in 1967 and not since returned to Egypt.  Peterkingiron 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a redundant crystal ball POV category that doesn't even make sense. Amoruso 09:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * buildings and structures in the palestinian territories


 * Nominator's rationale:

Delete per nom. Sub cat of invalid cat -see above. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments on the geography cat above. Johnbod 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonfunctional extra layer per the rationale articulated by Carlos.  Tewfik Talk 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Shuki 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Palestinian Territories is the accepted geographic term for the West Bank and Gaza, whilst Palestinian National Authority is used for political categories. Number   5  7  08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reasoning above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how this category serves any real purpose. It is just another layer. This vote is in contrast to my keep vote for Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories based on its usefulness as a geographic container category for subcategories of maps of the Palestinian territories, governorates (which include maps of the Palestinian territories), satellite pictures of the Palestinian territories, etc..--Timeshifter 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasoning as my vote for the deletion of Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. --GHcool 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Categorization: #8: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Media may use it. That would probably lead to a Palestinian territories, we do not create categories simply because media uses them. I think we should avoid trying to solve a problem the UN failed to solve by using categories. -- Cat chi? 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hacking the Palestinian categories to pieces does not look NPOV to me, it looks pro-Israel. Beorhtric 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A lack of a category is not a political message while the contrary can be. -- Cat chi? 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment on the previous discussion. Beorhtric 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete again, unnecessary extra layer per Tewfik and Timeshifter. -- M P er el 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per comment on categories above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuratowski's Ghost (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, same reasoning as prior Cfd. 6SJ7 02:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reasoning as two prior CFDs. In addition, buildings and structures should first be categorized in the smallest geographical entity (e.g., town, village, city), and this entity categorized in West Bank, Gaza, etc. --Leifern 05:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments in geography cat. Nonsense to say this is "attemting to solve a problem the UN couldn't", it is simply trying to keep a useful category that is readily understandable to the "man in the street" ie ordinary users of this encyclopedia. DuncanHill 09:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a solicited vote.  Tewfik Talk 16:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not tell him how to vote. See Canvassing: "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Also, I posted notices at Notice board for Israel-related topics, WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.. And if you bothered to check my vote on this particular category, you would see that I voted to delete it.--Timeshifter 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the same reasoning as in the above two discussions. Beit Or 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of a systematic classifucation by country. (And before Tewfik posts yet another complaint, Timeshifter brought my attention to one of the other CFDs from August 7 and I then looked to see what else was up.) --Peter cohen 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another solicited vote Canvassing: In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly frowned-upon by many editors to send mass talk messages to those who expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters. In this case messages were sent exclusively to editors who wanted to "keep" this last time around.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Tewfik. I only contacted a few individuals, and I did not tell them how to vote. See Canvassing: "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Also, I posted notices at Notice board for Israel-related topics, WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.. A variety of notice boards with posters of many persuasions. And if you bothered to check my vote on this particular category, you would see that I voted to delete it.--Timeshifter 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely spotted. And he totally ignored by statement in parentheses.--Peter cohen 14:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment For the above two discussions I have posted on two of the geography wikiproject pages. Should we treat the issue of whether the Palestinian Territories here constitute a country as another issue in human geography and contact those projects again for this discussion? And should be contact any other wikiprojects?--Peter cohen 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete these categories have serious naming problems. Buildings and structures would be an endless category.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above reasons. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above resaons.Vice regent 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a redundant crystal ball POV category that doesn't even make sense. Amoruso 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Primrose Hill Gang
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * primrose hill gang


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. Faded flowers. Johnbod 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Crockspot 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NEO,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Beorhtric 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As a UK resident who listens regularly to one of the main UK radio stations covering news including national politics throughout the day, it's not a term that I hear mentioned on a regular basis. In fact, I can't remember it being mentioned at all. I think nominator is therefore right that the term was short-lived--Peter cohen 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:United States History
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * united states history
 * Merge / Redirect into Category:History of the United States, convention of Category:History by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Johnbod 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete The articles in this category are already in their proper US categories.  This category is simply extraneous. Hmains 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per nom,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per nom. --GHcool 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Merge/Redirect per nom. --Peter cohen 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Chinese mythology in anime
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Chinese mythology in anime to Category:Chinese mythology in anime and manga
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * support can this be a speedy rename? 132.205.44.5 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per creator/nom. Johnbod 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename, speedy if possible, for consistency with almost all similar categories, to avoid the obvious nightmares referred to by nom, and because it's being requested by the creator. Seems obvious, reasonable and non-controversial, and if not speedied, perhaps an early close per WP:SNOW (or even WP:IAR) would be appropriate? Xtifr tälk 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per nom and relevant criteria. I would if I could :-)  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per nom. --GHcool 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy rename per all above. --Peter cohen 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Amphoe without coordinates
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was '''repurpose. I could remove the category from the template, but someone is going to manually add the category to all of the talk pages.''' --Kbdank71 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: An Amphoe is a sort of Thai district. This was a wanted category, populated by .  It seems to me that this is a WikiProject maintenance category and as such should be relegated to talk pages. -- Prove It (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To talk per nom. Johnbod 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Repurpose per nom,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 14:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * association of cricket statisticians and historians


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Keep This organisation is the leading authority on cricket statistics (and cricket is one of the world's largest sports and perhaps the most statistical). The work of the organisation is relevant to all cricket followers. The claim that the category cannot be expanded is extremely dubious in the present, and certainly wrong as to the future. Dominictimms 13:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment is not supposed to be in all bold, but there is a technical error. Dominictimms 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unbolding BlackJack's sig solved the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Firstly, my apologies for bolding the edit page. The Ledbetter AfD quoted above deleted numerous ACS-related articles because of non-notability.  Those articles had been created by someone in the ACS who claimed that being an ACS committee member confers notability but the consensus here, in line with WP:Notability guidelines, is that membership of a group is insufficient and subjects must be notable in their own right outside the group.  In fact there are only a handful of ACS members who are notable in their own right and so it is inconceivable that this category could expand by more than a couple of subjects.  The ACS is not the leading authority on cricket statistics: that is Wisden Cricketers' Almanack.  As BrownHairedGirl points out, the ACS has only 1000 members and yet cricket has arguably 1 billion fans worldwide: the ACS is really not that important and an article is surely sufficient coverage of it on Wikipedia.  --BlackJack | talk page 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians says "it has a worldwide membership of over 1000 and is open to anyone with a relevant interest", so membership is neither a defining attribute of those involved nor a guide to their importance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per BrownHairedGirl (whose arguments impressed me more than nom's). In response to the arguments raised by Dominictimms, I'd say: those would be great arguments at AfD for keeping articles on the topic, but I don't think they apply to a category.  The organization is clearly notable; individual memberships, however, are not.  Xtifr tälk 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per BHG and WP:OCAT,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Membership is a defining characteristic of the people in the category. Beorhtric 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is wrong.  The ACS is a club that is open to anyone with a relevant interest who is willing to pay the subscription.  The people currently in the category (apart from Baggett who is up for AfD) are all notable in their own right as published authors.  Their membership of the ACS is incidental and no more noteworthy than if they are members of their local gardening club.  --BlackJack | talk page 18:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and use a list of notable Historians in the main article.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Alphabet book series
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Alphabet book series to Category:Children's alphabet books
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to allow the inclusion of solitary books. ×Meegs 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and rescope per nom, though I question whether the category should exist at all.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It will lessen the load on and  considerably. Her Pegship <small style="color:green;"> (tis herself)  19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to such organisational rationale, though we haven't in the past treated such cases consistently.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per Tewfik. --GHcool 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Questions/Items/poeple that may have to do with the creation of the Universe
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c [talk] 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * questions/items/poeple that may have to do with the creation of the universe
 * Delete, as awkward/obtuse/misspelled. Or at the very least please think of a better name. -- Prove It (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this mess. Vague & meaningless "may have to do with". Wryspy 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusions. I gather from the articles categorized here that someone began at the letter A and never progressed; I would have thought that God might have been a good candidate for inclusion in such a category, but alas I forgot that God was not a question, item or people. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Pay attention, Carlos! According to this category, the correct spelling is poeple ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooops and God is a poeple! Good to see you back here. :-) Carlossuarez46 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless. – sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - now the Dr is not around, who will record these gems? Johnbod 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He left a link to his collection, so I was bold and added this. I don't believe he'll mind. :)  Xtifr tälk 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dominictimms 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above (and add to WP:BJAODN). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - sigh. How does something like this even survive long enough to make it to CfD? - Crockspot 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense, though I suppose we should be thankful for the amusement,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If kept, rename to Category:People, places, things, actions, attributes, concepts and speculation that may or may not have anything to do wth the creation of this or any other universe, and make it a category redirect to Category:Categories. :) Xtifr tälk 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - I can't bear the thought of snuffing out such a vital spark of creativity in its very infancy. Why, he's only up to letter 'A' at this point -- and it would be ever so much fun to see what else he'll come up with. Can't we take it out of the primary categories and move it over to Category:Wikipedia humor?? Cgingold 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sure that more than two articles fit under this category, but I cannot imagine anybody applying this category to anything of actual importance such as God or the Big Bang Theory.  --GHcool 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:NASCAR terms
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename NASCAR as nominated, auto racing to Motorsport terminology  --Kbdank71 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Auto racing terms to Category:Auto racing terminology
 * Propose renaming Category:NASCAR terms to Category:NASCAR terminology
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to proposed titles. – sebi 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology- or Category:Motorsport terminology per Royalbroil below (added) - and Category:NASCAR terminology respectively. Some global categories are still using the specifically-US term "Auto racing", while most have gone to the more neutral "Motor racing", which they all should do (unless US-only categories). Johnbod 11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology and Category:NASCAR terminology respectively per Johnbod]. [[User:Dominictimms|Dominictimms 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename both. I like the words "NASCAR terminology". "Terminology" is clearer than "Terms". As for the general category, I think it should be Category:Motorsport terminology to agree with the naming convention used with WikiProject Motorsport. Motorsport has a better world view than "auto racing" or "motor racing". I am a member of WP:MOTOR and WP:NASCAR, and I will note this CFD discussion on the talk page of each WikiProject. Royal broil  21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename. I am inclined to agree with my fellow WikiProject member. I would not have any reservations about these relatively minor and sensible changes. Quite logical.  Adrian  M. H.  22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Motorsport" is fine with me; I only saw "Motor racing" categories, so if this rename succeeds, we should maybe rename other categories to match the project. Johnbod 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename, I don't think there was a very clear consensus as to which to use when I created these, so I just picked one or the other. If there is now, I don't have any objections to renaming them to match that. Recury 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename, "terminology" is a clear improvement. As for what to call the first category, let me point out two things.  First of all, renaming to "motorsports" would include a number of sports that would not current be included in this category, most notably, the entire tree at Category:Motorcycle sport, which is currently a sibling category.  Also, not all motor sports involve racing, e.g. Tractor pulling or Freestyle Motocross.  All of which means: I'm not quite sure what the right name is, but we may need some cleanup later, depending.   In fact, browsing some of the related categories, I think we need some cleanup already, as several subcategories of Category:Racing sports are not, strictly, limited to racing. Xtifr tälk 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do not have a problem including the terminology in the borderline "motorsports" that you suggested too. All are sports competitions that involve motors, and there is some crossover terminology that applies to all. As to moving the categories around, it should be discussed at WikiProject Motorsport. Please start a discussion there if you want to change things. The purpose of WikiProject is to "organise and improve the common areas between different motorsport projects; and improve aspects of motorsport that are not covered by other projects". The WikiProject has a group of members from a wide variety of motorsports backgrounds. Royal broil  13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's all fine; I'm pretty happy with any of the options offered so far. I just wanted to make sure people realized that there may be side issues.  As for the Wikiproject, I don't think I'm enough of an expert to say much more than I've already said, but I'll willing to repost my comments over there, if nagged. :)  Xtifr tälk 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology and Category:NASCAR terminology. The greater breadth of "Motor racing" is an advantage of the category, not a weakness. Beorhtric 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Casualties of Battle of Karbala
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * casualties of battle of karbala
 * Rename to Category:Battle of Karbala killed in action, convention of Category:Killed in action by conflict. -- Prove It (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename or delete So far only 1 article, though a couple more could be added. Johnbod 11:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Rename per nom; this has already been populated with five categories, and it seems that there should be many more.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can still only see Hussein in the category? Johnbod 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was looking at . In hindsight, there are only 3-4 notable dead in the battle, and so we should instead delete.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename, as nominated to avoid ambiguity. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia to Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Move to proposed title. – sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Dominictimms 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per parent cat convention,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Renameper comments above. --Peter cohen 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Black and white village
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete and listify entry on main Black and white village article. --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 23:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * black and white village
 * Rename to Category:Black and white villages, or Delete as non-defining. -- Prove It (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotes a footpath in Hertfordshire. Thus far less than the name suggests, but it cannot be expanded to cover all villages with lots of these buildings, as there is no way to define which villages should be included. Abberley2 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Abberley. – sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete & add names (sorry, name) to article. Johnbod 11:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a defining characteristic and a very confusing name as a category. A list (as it were) at the main article, as suggested by Johnbod, is a far better approach.  Xtifr tälk 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per ample precedent,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.