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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only four pages in the cat, and those items are categorized just as well under the alcoholic drinks cat. MSJapan (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unworkable category. The category description sums up the problem: "Drinks that are illegal in certain countries." In some countries, all alcoholic drinks are prohibited. (In others, such as the US, they've been prohibited at some time in the past.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Shawn notes, you'd have to include all alcoholic beverages for this to make sense. Perhaps there is room for a category that would include lotoko, moonshine and tharra which are home-distilled? Pichpich (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is ungrammatical and ambiguous - it either refers to hiking trails in the Grand Canyon or hiking trails in Grand Canyon National Park. Seems the latter is more likely, given its header information. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This can probably be speedy-renamed. Neutralitytalk 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Empty but keep for historical purposes. Note it will be temporarily deleted by the bot automatically but I'll undo that ASAP. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was once used to keep pages away from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages,[1] which is now defunct. Perhaps we should give this category the same fate, as I can't think up any other use for it. While it's true that some userpages can be of of historical interest, I see no reason why we should label them as such. Cheers, theFace 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pathoschild, who created this category and who I notified, states that he has no objections to deletion. I personally think it would be better if it's preserved and left vacant, similar to its counter-part. Cheers, theFace 11:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Ill-defined category. It's not clear what "large" means in this context and I would argue that even "aerospace test facility" is somewhat open to interpretation. Facilities may be devoted to both aeronautical and astronautical research and the dividing line is not always perfectly clear. Option b) would be to rename this simply as Category:Aerospace test facilities or something along those lines. Pichpich (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a textbook case of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, which states cautions against "... any reference to size: large...", small or otherwise. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to articlespace List article masquerading as a category. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Support. Looking at the cat you referred to, I think you're right. Furthermore, a 'patient' is by definition "any recipient of medical attention, care, or treatment". Not everyone who has cancer may be a patient. Cheers, theFace 21:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:rename to "medieval Islam" format. There is a strong majority for renaming, but not clear agreement as to what to rename to. The phrase "medieval Islam" predominates in similar articles (e.g., Science in medieval Islam), so it makes sense to go with that. A followup nomination might produce a different result. Also, it is very possible that some of these articles are miscategorized, and so removal under those terms is endorsed by this close.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All categories were created since 31 March 2011 by User:Al-Andalusi (notified). The whole issue of naming these and other categories related to Islamic science is also discussed here.
Nominator's rationale:
1. The "Islamic Golden Age" is no widely accepted historical term. While some historians call a certain period of Near Eastern and North African (but also Central Asian?) history that way, too many others don't. A categorization along these lines would thus be approximating WP:SYN, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.
2. The lack of general acceptance of the term is also reflected by the lack of agreement about the date of its beginnings and ending. Among those few who use it, the Mongol sacking of Baghdad, the Abbasaid capital, in 1258 is conventionally regarded as endpoint. Other views which have been given preferential treatment in WP until recently extend the period however to the 16th century. There is also an analogous uncertainty about the date of its beginnings. Some favour 622 AD, the beginning of Islam. Others, taking account of an extended period of Muslim reception of Greek science, date its take-off to the 8th or rather 9th century AD. With such an unclear periodization and in view of most historians not even using the term, I don't see how such a category could be kept. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Foo in the medieval Islamic world" or "Foo in medieval Islamic civilization" Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Renaming would be a whole new discussion and, to be frank, I am not knowledgable enough to quickly produce out of my hat an alternative category which could cover such a wide range of fields. Nor it is even clear that there is a need for such a category. The above categories proposed for deletion are only 48 h old, that is for the largest time period WP has been doing well without them. Therefore, a deletion would not be disruptive by any means, but merely restoring the status quo ante. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm leaning towards "Delete without prejudice against recreation" but want to see more comments from other editors first. Renaming is a possibility, but will require more extensive discussion and (hopefully) some input from subject-matter experts. Part of the issue is that these titles were created by a single editor acting alone, in the middle of a larger ongoing discussion about "Islamic articles", Muslim scientists and mathematicians, and their history. The point is that the discussion really needs to come first, before the decision is made and action taken. I see this nomination as an extension of our normal WP:BRD cycle in the sense that User:Al-Andalusi Boldly created the new titles, but now User:Gun Powder Ma wants to Revert and Discuss, and that seems appropriate. One thing that I give Al-Andalusi credit for though: many titles now include the phrase "medieval Islam" (ie, Mathematics in medieval Islam) which is clearly erroneous; "medieval" is a term specific to European history and can't be applied to the history of Islam, or the Middle East. Thus, "Islamic Golden Age" would at least be an improvement over "medieval Islam", but as Gun Powder Ma points out, there are other issues as well. Doc Tropics 13:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why I split articles into mathematicians and mathematical works. It makes no sense to put both in the same category.Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, there is no limbo, as the new categories are only 48 h old, so the 'we cannot do without these categories' argumentation line does not hold water. Right now, we have a huge POV problem. Even if we accept the periodization "Islamic Golden Age" as such, dozens of Muslim scientists and topics from the 7th to 9th centuries and the 13th to 16th centuries AD are currently indiscriminately lumped together under this tag, even though the conventional time period refers only to the 9th-mid-13th centuries. That is as absurd as designating 12th and 13th or 18th and 19th century Western thinkers under Renaissance (where the core concept only is valid for the 15th to 17th centuries). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Al-Andalusi moved most of the biographies from Category:Islamic x to Category:Islamic x of the Islamic Age. The problem here is purely in the naming of the categories. The categorization itself is fine and consistent with classification of scientists in academic literature. I would propose we rename the categories to Category:Mathematicians in medieval Islam etc. instead, this is established terminology. —Ruud 15:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Medieval Islam" is a category just as contentious, since many argue that Middle Ages is periodization only relevant to Western history and that there was no medieval period in Islam. And, indeed, it strikes odd to name Islamic scientists from, say, the 7th-10th centuries AD, when Islam was still very young (founded in 622 AD), as middle-aged. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename, i notice these tags are only added to islam/muslim related articles. possibly rename to Muslim Alchemist of the Islamic Goldenage, Muslim Mathematicians of the Islamic Golden age, same format for all the rest to--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: I did not come up with this term to accuse my work of being WP:OR or WP:Synth. This term has been widely used in the literature (though others resorted to other terms such as "Islamic science" or "Arabic science") and I felt it was the most appropriate term to use for the new subcategories as it is race/religion neutral; it would appropriately describe and include scholars like Thabit ibn Qurra (a non-Muslim) and Al-Khwarizmi (a non-Arab). As for the WP:NPOV accusations, we have a number of articles on Wikipedia with "Golden Age" in their titles: Dutch Golden Age, Spanish Golden Age, Golden Age of Elizabeth.
While "Islamic Golden age" might not be the best term, I'm opposed to the deletion of any of the above categories, and it makes me wonder why Gun Powder Ma insists on deletion rather than renaming, if it's a naming issue as he claims. As one editor pointed out on the talk of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article after surveying the terms used in the literature:
" ["Islamic mathematics"]...together with "Arabic mathematics" by far the most frequently used term in academic literature in to refer to this period in the history of mathematics. Of these two Arabic mathematics is probably used the most, however "Islamic mathematics" is more common in recent literature."
So why isn't Gun Powder Ma suggesting renaming the categories to "Islamic mathematicians" or "Arabic mathematicians" ? They're academically accepted terms Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename, as these categories are useful to navigate through. "Mathematicians in medieval Islam", etc, seems like a good candidate for a new name, as work on many of these disciplines started before and went past the "Islamic Golden Age" (although I'm not sure if that phrase is unanimously thought to be confined to a certain time period). Wiqi(55) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As pointed out above, these categories are being used as umbrella categories for all medieval Islamic scholarship, making the term Golden Age inappropriate. For example, Ibn al-Shatir (1304 – 1375) is currently included in Category:Astronomers of the Islamic Golden Age, although by the most common definition the Islamic Golden Age ended in 1258, making him post-Golden Age. Spacepotato (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mathematicians in medieval Islam, Category:Mathematical works in medieval Islam, etc., as per the above remarks and Ruud Koot. As pointed out above, this is open to the objection that the term medieval is part of the periodization of European history and so shouldn't be used in a non-European context, but these terms have been used in academia and I think this is an acceptable alternative. Naming these articles and categories seems to be a problem for Wikipedia—the terms "Islamic mathematics" or "Arabic mathematics" are both open to objections (not all mathematicians of the time were Muslim, and neither did they all write in Arabic.) Another possibility would be to name the categories X in medieval Islamic civilization. Spacepotato (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. The only definition I have handy, that used in Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415966906), gives a time period of through the 17th century (p. xii), although they admit that this is "somewhat arbitrary". Spacepotato (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming to the format of Category:Mathematicians in medieval Islamic civilization. I had initially argued for the format Category:Mathematicians in the Abbasid Caliphate since that is a clearly historically and geographically defined space, as opposed to the somewhat contested scope of the Islamic Golden Age. The Medieval Islamic civilization wording at least gets helps clarify the fact that the context is cultural and not solely religious. Dialectric (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something I think "medieval" is ok here, & widely used. "Foo in medieval Islamic civilization" would be ok, though I'd prefer "Foo in the medieval Islamic world". Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "x in medieval islamic community". Kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Merge/Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matching parent Category:Romanesque architecture by country and most of its subcategories. Most of these categories were created in 2004 before the Romanesque architecture tree grew up around them. Even those with town names still are about the architectural style, and are in the architecture tree, so separate "sites" categories seem unneeded.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As for Scandinavia, we have a question whether Romanesque Scania is/was in Sweden or Denmark so we better group these together. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't want to try to tackle that historical distinction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Buddy Pepper does not have an article and does not a repertoire wide enough for the song. Wait until he has an article, if he ever does at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google test seems to point at some notability, but an almost empty category like this is not useful. Cheers, theFace 21:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Missouri-Rolla[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: This University underwent a name change in 2008 but somehow there is a separate category for both names of the same school. This should be fixed. Tavix | Talk 00:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Related remark: I think these "Wikipedians by alma mater: ..." categories are awkwardly named, especially because it adds a colon to a name which already contains a colon by default. Isn't there a better alternative? Perhaps "Wikipedian alma mater students [from ...]", which would put it in the vein of cats likethese. Cheers, theFace 22:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for articles use the term alumni. Why not "Category:Wikipedian Foo University alumni"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grutness (talk • contribs) at 08:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because some of the users in that category are not alumni as they currently attend the school. Tavix | Talk 21:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. "Category:Wikipedian Foo University alumni and students"? Grutness...wha? 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
