< June 22	June 24 >

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 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly defined category. Some of the books also have little to do with Oxford. This seems a silly way to categorise books. I propose that the grouping is listified in user space and the Oxford references added to the Oxford article and the books articles as needed. Carcharoth 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I thought it might be for books published by the Oxford University Press, but it isn't. Chicheley 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category has no value and just confuses. --Bduke 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly rename to Category:Books associated with or featuring Oxford, England. David Kernow 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Out of courtesy, I have notified the creator of the category: User:Jpbowen. It might be an idea to wait and see if he wants to defend the category. Carcharoth 11:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename These are books with strong Oxford (and Oxford University) associations through their author or subject matter. As the proposer intimates above, this is not always obvious. As creator, I would be happy for the category to be renamed for clarification. Jonathan Bowen 12:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for responding to my note. I hope you won't mind if I explain why I think this is a bad precedent to set. Such associations are interesting, but would end up cluttering the category bit of book pages if extended to all books. Are books already categorised by where the action takes place? (acceptable) By the nationality of their author? (that should be restricted to the author pages only) By where they were written? (seems like over-categorising). By all means point out such associations another way (eg. by a list), but the category system should be more focused on the primary qualities of (in this case) books, not secondary characteristics. Carcharoth 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Carcharoth, but encourage creation of an article about Oxford's relationship with literature. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carcharoth Honbicot 07:10, 30 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.

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. the wub "?!" 22:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed name reads better. Vegaswikian 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I'm a university type myself. BoojiBoy 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename — "types" is indeed ambiguous when used at the end of the phrase. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all above. David Kernow 01:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all above. Athenaeum 11:15, 24 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.

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. the wub "?!" 22:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely needs a clearer name, but I'm not sure it is worthwhile. If fully used it will end up containing thousands of footballers, and many of them are in rather a lot of categories already. Chicheley 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete or rename, whichever is more popular. Chicheley 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, unless disambiguation between (American) football and soccer required...?  David Kernow 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this would contain way too many people and is pretty pointless. Recury 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Recury CalJW 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial. Qwghlm 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, While I don't know much about soccer, I am assuming good faith that being a left-footed footballer is just as relevant as being a left-handed boxer or pitcher, so deletion seems inappropriate. Specifying the sport is definitely a good idea, and since only soccer players are called "footballers" (there's no single word for American football players in common usage), the current rename is well chosen. --M@rēino 20:31, 26 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.

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 (has been merged already). the wub "?!" 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is entirely unencyclopedic and does not fit the intentions of Wikipedia. CobaltBlueTony 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; duplicate of Category:Fictional vegetarians -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reason ProveIt stated. TJ Spyke 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A perfectly good category, but it is a duplicate so merge/delete Honbicot 23:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (empty) per above. David Kernow 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It absolutely fits the intentions of Wikipedia, but I agree it should be merged to the lowercase version.--Mike Selinker 05:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Mike Selinker – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mike Selinker. Lady Aleena @ 07:07, 28 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.

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. the wub "?!" 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category does not contain articles about currencies; rather articles about various Euro related issues; alternatively it could be renamed back to Category:Euro which it was at previously. Tim! 19:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred option now Eurozone fiscal matters. Tim! 08:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming. Using only Category:Eurozone (the initial suggestion) broadens the meaning of the category from currency-related issues to those issues of any sort which affect the countries in the Eurozone. And Category:Euro is perhaps too narrow. I'd prefer something like Category:Currency in the Eurozone or even Category:Eurozone fiscal matters. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Eurozone fiscal matters as above. This is not an overall category for everything in the Eurozone. CalJW 07:06, 24 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.

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. the wub "?!" 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This was a category about British people who are Muslims. The word used should therefore be "Britons", for people, not "Britains", an imaginary word which if used would mean multiples of the country, Britain. Unfortunately I found the Category deletion documentation a bit jumbled, and found out about the method for proposing a speedy rename only after I'd created the new category (Muslim Britons) and adjusted the dozen-or-so articles within it. That work is done so I'm proposing a speedy deletion is inoffensive and linguistically correct. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete misspelled and empty. --William Allen Simpson 04:18, 24 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.

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. the wub "?!" 22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both to category:British Muslims which is the standard term (524,000 google hits to 641, a ratio of 817:1). Chicheley 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Caution over rename — please see the talk page for the category (either one, I've copied the salient point). I've said "caution" because I don't personally oppose the rename, nor indeed know much about the issues involved; but for the sake of this page, I'm going to state the point made by the user who created it. He explains, other categories in this subject area use "Muslim" ahead of "Country name" because to the diaspora in question, their religion may be more significant than their citizenship of a state. I see no reason why Wikipedia should redefine the importance of this relationship, especially since there are apparently other articles of this form. In Chicheley's example, Google is cited: it's been discussed in many other places, but Google is no measure of real-world usage, never mind accuracy. Did you search with or without quotes around the phrase, for example? I continue to suggest a quick delete and then a separate discussion of the renaming. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kieran: I can confirm that "British Muslims" is the standard British English usage. Chichely was merely using google to give additional evidence, and in this circumstance the google test is relevant (this disparity is indicative of usage) and seems to have been performed correctly (for instance, in this case, it has to be done with quotes: this really is a good kind of "head to head" where there are only two possible usages, no variations are at issue, none of the phrases has an alternative meaning we aren't interesting in, and the massive disparity underlines general usage). "Muslim Britons" is bizarre, and certainly non-standard. My problem with this category is whether we should be mixing religion and nationality categories in this way. Personally I would rather delete this kind of cross-over categories (although obviously deleting this one but keeping others would be undesirable). TheGrappler 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used quotes and only to back up what I already knew to be the main usage beyond any doubt. Quibbling with google results when they are close is one thing, but dismissing them out of hand in such a clear cut case is silly. The term "Britons" is not used in the category system and looks a little odd to me here. Chicheley 22:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I totally agree that using "Britons" looks odd, I just wanted to make sure the comments of the category's creator had been mentioned, since I dragged the category into this process. Duty done, I no longer care much either way, although I still shudder at the thought that Google has overtaken the OED as an arbiter of common usage. It's actually arrogant. There are still people out there who don't use the internet ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this crossover category. Most of these were recently created, and are subcategories of the recently created Category:Muslims by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and almost all were created by the same person. We now have both Category:Muslim Indians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Indian Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). We categorize people by nationality and occupation, and separately by religion. We don't need to cross-categorize the intersection of every possible combination of nationality and some other facet of life. --William Allen Simpson 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over a hundred religion by nationality categories. The system is well established and will grow. Religion is hardly just any random "facet". Since the by religion categories exist and will reach vast dimensions if not subdivided, it makes sense to subdivide them. The resulting subcategories can be put in useful places such as the religion by country categories. Chicheley 05:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:British Muslims as British categories should be named in British English just as surely as American categories are named in American English. CalJW 07:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 11:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 07:11, 30 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 no consensus. Conscious 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous (where do you get your membership card?), pretentious ("Members of Red Sox Nation" instead of "Red Sox Fans"), non-encyclopedic, and stupid. —Chowbok 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Harmless and encyclopedic. BoojiBoy 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Red Sox Nation is an an accepted term for Red Sox fans. I don't think it's much different than the category Category:Notable baseball fans. And this is coming from a Yankees fan. LOL MrBlondNYC 06:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perhaps better as a list or a note under an article about the Red Sox Nation, I'm not convinced this is suitable as a category. Also, why "Famous"? Is it people who are famous for being Bosox fans or famous people who are Bosox fans? In the latter case, what about notable people (who have WP articles) who are not "famous" in the celebrity sense? I kept, this certainly needs a rename. TheGrappler 15:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. --Anon 64 12:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's "famous" because Wikipedia can only cover notable people whose membership is verified. As Mr. Blond NYC correctly points out, Red Sox Nation is the common term for Red Sox supporters.--M@rēino 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's clearly not true - most biographies in Wikipedia are of extremely unfamous people, but who happen for some reason to be notable. Though I am making a fine distinction :-) The bottom line is that we hardly if ever have categories starting "Famous ..." because somebody's fame is quite a POV thing (when does somebody stop being merely notable and start being genuinely famous?). Far better to say "Notable..." or cut it out at all - the fact that it is being used to store people who have Wikipedia articles ought to make it clear that any members of the category are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles, so there's an argument that it's redundant from that point of view. TheGrappler 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, a category should never begin with words like "famous" or "notable". If kept, rename to Category:Members of Red Sox Nation. --Musicpvm 05:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support Rename per Musicpvm--M@rēino 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to rename to Category:Members of Red Sox Nation. Honbicot 07:14, 30 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.

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 no rename. the wub "?!" 22:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with all the other physician by nationality categories.--Peta 15:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose You mean apart from the other ten that use doctor? It absolutely has to be doctor for Commonwealth countries. Many Australian doctors could go to jail for pretending to be a "physician" when they are not any such thing, as the term is defined in Commonwealth countries. Chicheley 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This has been agreed on before and is noted on Category:Physicians by nationality. As this confusion has arisen several times perhaps we need to consider renaming all of them to "medical doctors". Honbicot 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is a redirect needed at Category:Australian physicians?  David Kernow 01:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons already stated. CalJW 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the category is used for all doctors, not just physicians. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment None of you is explaining what's going on. Do you mean that there are some medical doctors who are NOT physicians, or vice versa, or what? And what's this about Australian law?--M@rēino 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, according to the physician article, in most Commonwealth countries, "doctor is more common, as physician refers to specialists in internal medicine". --Musicpvm 05:31, 28 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 Category:People from Nuremberg, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence --William Allen Simpson 07:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is always Nuremberg in English, as in the article Nuremberg and category:Nuremberg. Chicheley 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as nom. Chicheley 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Nuremberg, since many people live in a place they were NOT born in. ProveIt ^(talk) 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Nuremberg per ProveIt (and recent CfDs, if I recall correctly...)  David Kernow 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per ProveIt and David Kernow – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Nuremberg Athenaeum 11:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nativity categorizes by place of birth. The suggestion by Provelt would result in articles having multiple categories about every place the individual happened to have lived in or visited for a time. User:Dimadick

Isn't living somewhere as an adult more significant than merely being born there? We need to define what we want the category to enable. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. JIP | Talk 09:53, 28 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 no consensus. Conscious 13:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other films by studio cats don't have the "Pictures" in their name, and Columbia shouldn't be an exception. CoolKatt number 99999 11:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The studio's article is at Columbia Pictures. Why should the category be named differently? - EurekaLott 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films by Columbia Pictures to (a) avoid awkward double plural; (b) place category's subject at start of name; and (c) follow any other "Films by Studio/company/etc" categories. David Kernow 12:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC), updated 11:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? All of the other categories are named like the nominated category. - EurekaLott 12:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, 'tis a bot-ty suggestion for them all. What you think?  Yours, David 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Put it this way. Films released by Paramount Pictures have Category:Paramount films, rather than Category:Paramount Pictures films. CoolKatt number 99999 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but there's no nation called "Paramount". Calling the category "Columbia films" is going to make some people think it's films made in Columbia (yes, that should be Columbian films, but it's still going to confuse people). —Chowbok 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no nation called "Columbia" either, unless you mean Colombia or are T. Herman Zweibel.- choster 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films by Columbia Pictures and we'll handle the others later. --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films by Columbia Pictures CalJW 07:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chowbok's reasoning.--M@rēino 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This category includes films produced by other companies but distributed by Columbia, so they are not films "by" Columbia Pictures. JW 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films made or distributed by Columbia Pictures (and then propose all similar categories use "Films made or distributed by..." format). Regards, David 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC), converted to vote 11:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David. -Lady Aleena @ 07:09, 28 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.

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 deleted by User:Pschemp. - EurekaLott 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...should be merged into Category:Soviet and Russian military aircraft. Yet more work from the now permanently banned User:Imthehappywanderer, this simply takes the aircraft by decade categories for 1920-1989 and moved them up into a subcategory, adding an extra level of categorisation for no basic purpose. Grutness...wha? 08:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 12:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge - All of this user's category work qualifies as vandalism pschemp | talk 12:38, 23 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.

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 merge pschemp | talk 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ...should be merged into Category:Political logos. Yet more work from the now permanently banned User:Imthehappywanderer, this one needs little further explanation. Grutness...wha? 08:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 12:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge - All of this user's category work qualifies as vandalism pschemp | talk 12:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) OK, I did the work but don't know what the templates are for closing this. pschemp | talk 12:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ok got it now I think pschemp | talk 12:52, 23 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Afro-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 0 articles, 1 subcategory
• Category:Austrian-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 1 article
• Category:British-Bengalis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 10 articles
• Category:Filipino-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 2 articles
• Category:Greek-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 26 articles
• Category:Lebanese-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 1article
• Category:Mozambican-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 1 article (same as above)
• Category:Norwegian-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 1 article
• Category:Trinidad and Tobago-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 4 articles

• Delete all: Yet another variant of hyphenated categories, most created by the same person, that have repeatedly been deleted in the past. See:
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 29#British people by ethnic or national origin
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 19#British "ethnic" categories - again

  --William Allen Simpson 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep British-Bengalis, it is a non-trivial sub-category.

First of all, British people of Bangladeshi origin form a distinctive subcategory of their own. Monica Ali has written a famous novel about them, their food has changed the eating habits of Britain, Zadie Smith discusses them to a large extent in White Teeth. To pretend that this is an artificial grouping is both false and misleading.

Secondly, the category is regularly updated with well-known members as they become prominent. The most two recent entries are Dr Bari (new president of the Muslim Council of Britain) and the magician Aladin or Eenasul Fateh. I'm sure there'll be more in years to come, as the group slowly enters the mainstream. Similarly Pakistani-Brits and Indian-Brits could conceivably form their own substantial subcategories, although that isn't my beat. The fact that Filipino-, Lebanese- or Norwegian- only have one member each should NOT bring prejudice upon British-Bengalis which is appropriately updated and has substantial content.

Finally, if Americans can have their own ethnic categories (passim), so can British people. Everyone here does not come from the same ethnic stock, and I don't see why that fact should be attempted to be denied. --Peripatetic 08:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Unlike many other communities, British Bengalis consciously self-identify themselves as such. They have their own organizations to this effect [1] and [2]. They have their own newspapers. The majority of them come from a specific part of Bangladesh, and live in a certain area of London. There are specific demographic reasons for this, but it remains true that British-Bengalis' sense of identification is much stronger than say Italian-British or Austrian-British (I've never heard of these either). I continue to oppose this deletion proposal. --Peripatetic 15:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like you might have a case for "English Bangladeshi", but not for British, unless you can show a strong presence in Scotland and Wales. Moreover, looking at those articles, so far I haven't found one that is notable for Bangladeshi activism, and therefore they don't belong in the category. We don't categorize people based on where they were born, or their non-notable grandparents originated. --William Allen Simpson 03:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No offence but I'm assuming you are unfamiliar with the usages/nuances of the terms "English", "Scottish", or "British" as used in the UK. English or Scottish specifically refers to the original indigenous Caucasian ethnic groups of these islands.

No African or Caribbean or Asian or Indian immigrant is referred to as "English", no matter how long they or their generations have lived here. English Bangladeshi is a non-existent term, an oxymoron, but British Bangladeshi or British Bengali is quite common usage.

John Cleese is English, Shakespeare is English, Gordon Brown is Scottish. But Linford Christie is referred to as British, and Eenasul Fateh is British as well. British is an all-inclusive term like American denoting nationality or citizenship. English is a narrower term denoting ethnicity.

As for not being notable for activism, that is a deficiency of the Wikipedia articles, not the people themselves. People like Baroness Uddin and Dr Bari have been working in the Bengali community for literally decades, and younger folks like Akram Khan or Konnie Huq very often given their time to community causes as well.

We don't categorize people based on where they were born, or their non-notable grandparents originated. Please see article British Asian. That is precisely how they are categorized in the real world. This is another example of a well-established category in the UK. Also see Category: British Asian - there's dozens of people in there and quite correctly so.

--Peripatetic 06:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As to use of English, Scottish, etc, Wikipedia and most of the world consider those countries, and the inhabitants get the appellation for that nationality. Your approach would require rewriting virtually all of the occupation and nationality categories.

  As to No African or Caribbean or Asian or Indian immigrant is referred to as "English", no matter how long they or their generations have lived here. That is contrary to that actual verifiable bibliography references. For example, "Shefali Chowdhury is a Welsh actress." Therefore, she is in Category:Welsh film actors. Likewise, Afshan Azad from Manchester is in Category:English child actors (and probably should be in English film actors, too).

  As to verifiability, you don't get to put people into categories unless it's verifiable in the articles. Saying the article is deficient but you still want the category doesn't make the grade.

  All in all, it appears that you have no expertise in demography, and you are advocating racism.

  --William Allen Simpson 07:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All in all, it appears.. you are advocating racism

All in all, it appears you are starting to talk a load of crap. With that ridiculous and offensive accusation, I withdraw from this moronic CfD. Why don't you be consistent and try deleting a really popular category like British-Asian? We'll soon see how far you get with that. --Peripatetic 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep British-Bengalis per Periapatetitc. --Ragib 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Athenaeum 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. This is more of an attempt to set an agenda than a reflection of a convention, and Wikipedia shouldn't set the agenda. Chicheley 15:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as before. CalJW 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Peripatetic. William Allen Simpson is reminding me of Woodrow Wilson's rant: "any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic." Wilson was wrong and so is Simpson.--M@rēino 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per nom --Smerus 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per nom Honbicot 07:13, 30 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.

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 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like them,
Sam-I-am.
I do not like
category spam. - EurekaLott 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now hear this; now hear this: We have a category spam alert; category spam alert. (Recommended setting: Rap.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Kernow (talk • contribs)
• Delete. This category arises from the use of the userbox - Template:User Name. I see no purpose in it. --Bduke 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is horrifying. Literally every Wikipedia user should be in this category, which means that it is perfectly coterminous with User space. --M@rēino 20:48, 26 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.

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 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I believe the items here are too diverse to be grouped together in the same category. Also there are plenty of things which can turn degenerate, I see no reason to create a category of such things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Degeneracy certainly has possibilities for grouping together even distantly related notions of something which is "not generic" for a certain notion of genericity (e.g., generically every square matrix is invertible). But I don't see that happening here. Anyway, I'm not even sure what the "forms" in the name is supposed to mean. So I guess this is a degenerate case of degeneracy... or something. Silly rabbit 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. and maybe delete or merge one or two of the articles in this rather degenerate category. I think that if we tried hard enough we could invent lots of similar 'categories' (like a category of mathematical ideas that involve the number 4). I don't believe this particular categor serves a useful purpose. Madmath789 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Honbicot 23:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:19, 28 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 13:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been set up half in jest, and it's an odd case. If it is to be kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Finnish royalty. Calsicol 00:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Calsicol 00:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 13:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename proposed I'm not sure what fits here, Category:Pretenders to the throne of Finland, perhaps, but none of these people are Finnish, and if this flourishes, it will include non-royalty. Septentrionalis 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The alternative suggestion by Septentrionalis is completely factually incorrect. For 90% of its history Finland had entirely genuine royal rulers, but they were rulers of neighbouring countries (Sweden or Russia) who rarely visted Finland. Chicheley 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Then they aren't "Finnish", an important culture with its own unique language. We don't categorize people by the countries they conquered or ruled (other than their own). For example, Germans that invaded/ruled Poland are not "Polish royalty". --William Allen Simpson 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename There was a king of Finland (Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse) and the Finland needs a category related to monarchy, but perhaps some of the content should be taken out, like the list of Russian grand dukes. CalJW 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Also this country's royalty cat is needed. Perhaps, heeding William Allen Simpson's concerns, the rename could be "Category:Royalty of Finland". New name may need further thought. But the category is needed. Of Russian grand dukes, several of them spent time in Finland, and had some tasks in the then autonomous country. Waimea 13:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC) - by the way, there exists [3] where today's British royal family is nicely listed, though I doubt they actually feel very Greek. Waimea 13:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC) - Would you consider whether actually "Category:Finnish monarchy" is a better title?Waimea 10:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per William Allen Simpson, and someone please clean up Greek_Diaspora_Royalty as Waimea requested. --M@rēino 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and adjust contents as appropriate. Honbicot 07:13, 30 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.