Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 13 |
== June 13 ==
=== ===
rename -- 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It s been misspelled. It should be Fictional ninja (sorry I forgot to sign it)-- 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Unsigned nomination, but I agree. Ninja is one of those 23:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) :I agree 07:47, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) *I don t object, but please double-check this [http://www.google.nl/searchq=ninjas+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official google search for Ninjas ] and fix the lot of them. 09:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 17:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rediculously trivial and unneeded. This takes up space that could be used better in several articles. -- 20:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Information best kept as a list; a category accomplishes nothing but clutter on the included articles. 23:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, should be a list. - 00:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) *Informative, but listify and add name of episode for each celeb. 08:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) *Listify as per 10:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Since a list exists, Delete. 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. And anyway, there s already an extensive list at 13:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Deletify, since a list already exists. -- 18:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, redundant. 08:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I have put a lot of effort adding people to this category. Also, although this info is also available in a list, how are you supposed to know that a celebrity has been in the Simpsons just by looking at their article without this category **You could add it to the article... Maybe even add a link to the list. -- 18:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***True, but then all of my work would be lost...more than 100 celebrities... ****You do realize this is just for the category We re not doing anything with the articles themselves -- 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. There is already a list. A category isn t needed. -- 14:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. The list is sufficient. 03:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
=== and others===
rename -- 17:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also:
Rename to 20:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
*Support, see 21:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Support. – 02:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Support, categories should be specific. -- 16:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Support - 07:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contest/survey nominees. Perhaps the contest is significant enough to have the winners in a cat, but just the nominees 16:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Technically, there would be only one greatest American, and that wouldn t make for a very good category. -- 17:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep, this is a useful list, and we have articles about similar shows in other countries. 17:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Well if it is a duplicate... 19:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, and I d delete the ones for the other countries as well. I think this is basically advertising for the show. ) 17:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, This category has already been deleted before with an overwelming consensus, see 17:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, use list form. -- 18:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I forgot this was already voted on and deleted. BTW, a list already exists for this. -- 19:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, frivolous use of categories. -- 19:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. IIRC, we deleted Greatest Canadians a while back. - 20:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, per reasons from original vote. 07:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, list at best. 08:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep, this category has received much media attention. Do not delete for now. See if people still care for this after the award has been given. -- 05:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 17:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Already covered by 16:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== and others===
rename -- 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also,
These category names use abbreviations, but the names of the related articles do not (e.g. 12:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Rename to United States Department of Foo . -- 13:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per BL. -- 15:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *(I think) I initially created all of these, and I used abbreviations out of a concern for overly-long category names. I have no problem with renaming, though U.S. and Dept. are clear and easy abbreviations to deal with. 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. U.S. Dept. is an unambiguous abbreviation, so we can allow an exception to the rule. Category names take up prime space (in most skins) at the top of articles which we should not squander gratuitously. — 20:15, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 16:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Same reasons as 07:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Strong delete as overcategorization. 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *::What will happen to the books in this category Will they be moved to a new category (maybe the parent) or will the collection be dispersed -- 13:55, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) *::*Those books are generally already in a useful category, such as Jane Austen novels , or Science fiction . 14:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) :::Generally, yes. But in reality many books will be lost. Where will those go, the ones without other categories-- 05:50, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) *Delete. -- 15:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Strong delete. We already have categories by genre, year, author, etc, and title is simply not a rational categorization scheme (i.e., books that start with the letter B have no greater relationship to each other than books that have red covers). 16:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete for reasons given above. -- 18:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *KEEP a valid categorization scheme, since many people organize their own books in such a manner, and it is a way people do search for books. 20:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) **If you re searching by title, you d want either 08:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) ::This is NO rule or policy against this overcategorization . You are just saying that YOU don t need this category. There are so many people who are not as intelligent as you are, who don t know wiki as well as you do, who can t do clever google searches, they are the ones that need this category. They are the ones who feel great joy just seeing a category filled with books. Why can t we be more user friendly Why can we have 05:50, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) ***Actually there is, see 07:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::There is nothing in this document on overcategorization. If anything it supports the creation of this category. -- 13:56, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) :::Actually, it does say, right up at the top, Not useful: Category:Musicians whose first name starts with M , which is very similar to Musicians by name , which is very similar to Books by title . It s just not useful. -- 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge -- 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Created on May 31, 2005 and quickly became subject of debate on 23:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) *keep I think this is a very useful category, and do not support its deletion. I hope there is a better reason for wanting to delete it than it is better accomplished on a list . The 01:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) *:I don t see the reason for it. As argued by myself and others on will show that operas by title is better achieved with a list. *:DrG had mentioned that the reason for creating the category was so people could easily see all operas on one page. Then why not use a list, which cuts down on server use while is a much more robust tool which can also have composer s names and dates of composition added to it. It could also have redlinks to significant operas which do not yet have articles on Wikipedia. If, as DrG mentions here, the list does not have 32 operas on it (which must have been added recently since I compiled the list from the category), then the simple solution is to add the operas to the list. Which I will do now. *:I went to the step of nominating this on CfD because I thought I saw consensus for it. 03:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ::Seeing all the operas at once is one good benefit. Another is ease of maintenance. The list is so easily out-dated, and harder to update. It is much easier to add to a category. Another is the formant of a category: three columns and no annotations. Server performance issues are non-issues. (The list is longer than a page of the category. There are many, many, larger categories.) This is the category that people who are new to opera will use. They won t know the composer, the language, or the genre, because they are still learning. Why prevent new learners from using categories -- 04:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) :::A category is actually more of a drain on the servers than a list is. Lack of annotations isn t really a mark in favor of categories (annotability is one of the major reasons for using a list instead of a category). - 07:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ::The list of operas has no annotations -- it s just a plain list. The only notation is what letter the title starts with. New opera entries are created or found all the time. This list now has to be maintained by hand -- Operas alphabetized by title. When pages are moved or are deleted even more work is required. This whole process is automated by the wikisoftware. Why can t we use that feature The opera group already has a policy of prefering lists that are either selective (like famous operas) or complete (verdi operas). This list is neither. What is wrong with having this category This is what categories are for -- grouping like things together. Will you support the deleting of 08:01, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) *Delete. - 07:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Strong delete as overcategorization. 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Over-categorisation; places load on servers; not difficult to maintain as asserted above; more than one list is acceptable (both comprehensive and selective lists which link eachother) so argument about inferior utility is misguided. 12:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::If operas are over-categorized, we would be better to delete other categories. Surely you can see that most users will be searching by title first. If a newcomer to opera wants to read about Masquerade how is he to find it using the remaining categories How would you find it Do you know the composer Do you know the langauge Do you know the genre New learners are trapped. You want to force them visit the 180 sub-categories to find it. Libraries file every opera under two entries: title and author. That s how people think of opera first. Why must we ingore that -- 14:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) ::*He would use the search option, which instantly leads to Masquerade (Nielsen) is an opera by Carl Nielsen. . That s how you find things by name. And that s why we don t need categories for anything by title. 14:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ::*The argument about over-categorisation is not about there being too many categories, but about this category being too specific, so it doesn t make sense to suggest that another category be deleted instead. May I ask you to stop, discard all other arguments, and then read the name of the category out loud Operas by name . Isn t it ridiculous! You may as well create another category called composers by name - surely we d rather just have a category called composers rather than composers by name . As I see it, the real issue here is that the subcategory operas by name was created in order to be able to comply with the rule that an article may not reside in both a category and a subcategory of the parent category after articles were added to the very useful categories such as baroque operas . ::::How can you claim it is too specific if it has over a 100 members. The by name or by title is just to help the users. Operas are sorted and index by title, composer, and langauge. No one complains about by composer . If I changed the name to Unindexed operas would that help I just used the by title name because that is what books on opera use. It is what most people are familiar with outside of wiki. -- 15:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) ::How about the following categorisation scheme: a category operas which is a comprehensive alphabetical list; then all other subcategories (which I view as useful) remain. I am aware of the rule that says an article shouldn t be a member of both a category and a further subcategory, but this is in fact a guideline - not a rule. I can t imagine that anyone would object to this double-categorisation in this particular case given the obvious and immediate utility gained from it. 11:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I agree totally! I would love that, and that s what I wanted all along, but you can t stop people from coming in and deleting all the operas out of that category, always citing that membership rule , always thinking they are helping. It happends all the time. That s why the by title category was added. So people would stop deleting. Ideally, if the wikisoftware was better, 15:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) ::::Glad you agree with me DrG; great news. How many other people think that this would be the ideal It s always struck me as completely counterintuitive that members of a subcategory aren t listed in the parent category automatically by the software. Would one not naturally expect an opera added to the category baroque operas to appear in the category operas It is an opera after all. I too think that the wiki software is inadequate (in my opinion that s the cause of disputes like this) but I m not sure being able to view by x as DrG suggests is the answer. I m no expert but it sounds to me like that either involves slow server-side database queries or evil client side javascript. I think the best thing to do is to push for a change to the wikisoftware so that members of subcategories are automatically added to the parent category. Arguments against this will include categories at the top of the tree being unbrowsable due to the large number of members, but then again that s the whole point of having subcategories. 15:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Ah, but we have such a comprehensive alphabetical list. It s called 14:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::No, we don t a comprehensive list. It is missing 23 operas, and includes 12 non-operas. -- 15:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) :::But it does have an edit this page link. -- 15:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::I just updated the list 2 days ago; the 23 operas DrG refers to above were new articles that he just created. Which is great, of course, but if someone doesn t add them to the list, they won t be there. (Seems somewhat 11:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Strong delete for above reasons. 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 16:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents already covered by 23:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Keep, and move philosopher listings down from 04:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::If that s ontologically wrong, please consider that not everyone associated with deconstruction is therefore a deconstructionist and that, for that matter, none of those who would be moved from one category to the other would refer to themselves as such (as far as I m aware, not have described themselves thus). I have similar reservations about claiming those who were in 09:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Hmm... Well, either the Philosophers by tradition structure is applicable to deconstruction, in which case there should be a Philosophers category under Deconstruction that can link to it... or it is not, in which case the PBT tag should be removed from 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Delete, the cat on deconstruction is small enough already that if all practitioners were moved out, both would become rather useless. 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Agree with Radiant! -- 15:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
see each category listing below -- 16:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Including
I m not an advocate of entrenching geo-philosophy, which tends to support a number of rather non-philosophical characterisations in the first instance, but I m more accepting when it fits into another existing schema of some generality (like professions by nationality), which does not indicate that there is something particularly unique about geographical divisions of philosophy that can be better conveyed by using continents as an intermediate grouping. I m putting all related categories up for deletion in support of the previous order. 02:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, I can see no clear criteria for some of these geographical divisions (all of which have been enumerated below), all of which have little to do with philosophical traditions. I am including them in the same deletion request. 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Keep. A philosopher is not only part of a philosophical tradition, but is also part of the cultural heritage of his or her homeland. These categories may not be of interest to most professional philosophers (although I know of some who would disagree), but they are certainly relevant to those who hail from the countries or regions in question. Categorizing philosophers by region is much less problematic than categorizing philosophy by region. The mere fact that it is commonly done is a strong indication that such categories can provide user value. Note: There are some capitalization issues with the category names, which should be addressed if they are kept. -- 04:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::You misunderstand. I ve not suggested abolishing philosophers by nationality (troublesome as the notion is) but deleting the intermediate regional hierarchy of nationalities (which is currently utterly irrational by geographic standards, creating an North Asia category to contain Russia and Slovenia, has a South Asia category that contains Japan, and has an Eastern category that contains Confuscius), which would seem to require additional justification that seems vexed at best from the start. Why should philosophy uniquely should have this hierarchy when it appears to follow any philosophical (and, for the moment, geographic) logic 08:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Ah, OK. Some of these categories are certainly less rational than others. However, I think that in principle a set continent/region-level categories can add (a small amount of) user value. For that reason, I continue to vote keep on the mother category 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Objection: the information people get isn t really anything more than a geography lession. There is no value I can discern as far as ease of navigation when there s no evidence that nationalities are too numerous to navigate in this case. 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Delete. People can get the same information from 07:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::As per above, this in an intermediate hierarchy, populated by subcategories but not articles. What I don t sense is an excess of nationality categories that requires this intermediation or additional attributes that might be ascribed to categories of this level of association. 08:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, go by nation rather than continent. 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep With the two exceptions indicated in my votes below, these are categories used in books, journals, and University courses (in fact I ve occasionally seen South asian used, but it s much less common; if anyone has strong views on it, I could be persuaded to change my vote). I can see no harm in the categories, and potential use for readers. I might add that, at least in the case of 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) **I d argue that thare no additional attributes that can be made against these intermediate categories other than geography, which adds no value. There is no unity of European philosophy vis-a-vis American philosophy vis-a-vis Australian philosophy or North asian [sic] philosophy vis-a-vis South asian [sic] philosophy as numerous philosophical traditions cross these borders, so there s no additional description to be offered for these categories. In fact, there s no attempt being made here to pass these off as traditions, which is what you seem to be saying. Textbooks and university courses are hardly canonical guides at this level of description, as one cannot immediately distinguish between provisional categories used for pedagogical expediency in a particular context (like drawing up a syllabus for a semester s or quarter s introductory instruction) and more rigourous distinctions about subject matter (e.g. whether the distinction between continental and analytic philosophy continues to have much more than polemical value or the period in which one can speak about the meaningful unity of an analytic tradition — I try to limit my use of these terms to rigourous application, but my concern here is not to indulgence further sloppiness rather than to roll back uses that may be questionable but have not yet been put up for discussion under terms that bring any clarity to matters). :At best, additional geographical distinctions may appear to simplify browsing, but that doesn t appear to be a problem in need of a solution (and if it is a solution, why is it not applied to where the problem is apparent or otherwise generalised). If you want to talk about geographical terms that have meaning for philosophy, about the only distinction that seems to obtain is a general division between Eastern and Western, although it may be hard to impute a general unity to at least the former (hence a distinction might be attempted between South Asian, which is probably an attempt to avoid the vexed term Indian, and other Asian philosophies with Confucian influences). 09:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***But this isn t true. African philosophy is the strongest example, but there are genuine differences between the ways in which philosophy is approached and done in different areas. There are also, of course, differences within regions, and influences between them, but that doesn t affect the general point. Anyone involved in philosophy will recognise the style of North American philosophy, much more influenced by the Pragmatists than philosophers in other regions, as opposed to Australia, with its very much more hardline materialism, and Europe, with Continental philosophy on the one hand and British philosophy on the other (a distinction, incidentally, that holds despite the supposed fragmentation of Anglo-American philosophy — a fragmentation that s always been there, in fact). 16:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:The African case can be far more muddled depending on how rigourously you want to examine it: what does one make of Alexandrian Hellenism or the respect paid to Augustine of Hippo by European philosophers If geography is a simple criteria, would these not be included How does adduce a reasonable set of attributes shared between these and contemporary philosophers in Africa In the course of skimming over all the complexities necessarily entailed by such a case you ve managed to confuse dominant and approximately contemporary tendencies (of the last century or so) with rigourously defined identities of larger historical scope that are useful for understanding what these traditions might mean — one should hesitate to entertain even what argument you ve made after a leap from subordinating intraregional differences which of course exist (if they exist of course, wouldn t they deserve more than perfunctory analysis of how it is that philosophy does or does not get around) to saying that the general point of geographical identities (in this case something vaguely like continents, a rather orthagonal criteria even to that of national traditions) is particularly illuminating to understanding several millenia of the history of philosophy. :In any case, we re talking about whether geography is a reasonable overlay for organising nationalities that are not overwhelmingly numerous rather than philosophical traditions, which is what you are explicitly making subcategories of categories which are currently utterly inconsistent geographic units. The ideas you re advocating have no clear need for the muddle already at hand. If you d like to argue elsewhere that geography should also be a subcategory of tradition or should mediate categories of tradition, please present the schema, but it s hard to imagine that you d want it based on the mess we re now in. 20:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Delete all, as long as by Nationality is being kept. -- 15:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) :No doubt. 16:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep—no reason this can t be used as a parent category to alternately organize the nationality-specific philosopher subcats, so that people would have the option of searching by country or by region... So long as they are never applied directly to articles in lieu of the nationality subcats, and so long as it is complementary to 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Except that there s no overpopulation problem in the list of nationalities that makes it difficult to navigate. If there is an automation available to offer this navigational aid where it is necessary, that s fine, but in the current case this look suspiciously like overcategorisation. 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Couldn t this be compared to 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::This logic has spurred the inclusion of 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this category and move the categories below into the Philsophers category. 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Keep, and make sure to distinguish between geographical and national categories. This and 21:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep, as I ve said below, a valid way to search for philosophers and geophilosophical traditions. -- 09:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
keep -- 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Keep . 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep, useful structure, especially if PBN is expanded. *Keep, per above 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep, but make sure it s not redundant with any national subcategories. - 21:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
no consensus (keep) -- 16:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
delete -- 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I m not sure about the others but this one definitely should go. Since when has Slovenia been in North Asia - 00:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Most of North Asia is Russia, is it not East Asian philosophers I could support. -- 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete pointless division 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
no consensus (keep) -- 16:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Delete (but see general comment above). 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. There might be a place for a South Asian philosophers cat, as our coverage continues to improve, but even then it will need to be renamed and refactored. Might as well rebuild from scratch. -- 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep , I imagine it will grow into a useful category 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Confused. How is North Asain pointless , but South Asain useful -- 19:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***South Asia(India,Nepal,Cambodia,Vietnam,Laos, Tibet, etc) has had loads of philosophers. While North Asia compromises;Siberia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan, and thats about it of which there are very few philosophers. Mongolia, and Siberia would fit into East Asia, while we should have a Middle East group which would include Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan because of its similarties. I just don t see apoint to North Asian. 19:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ****Still confusing. Having loads of them and making useful distinctions between them are entirely different problems. One immediate question is what commonalities they would have and in what historical periods did common traditions develop. And for that matter, wouldn t one expect Japan, for example, which has produced a reasonable lot of philosophers, to qualify as a North Asian country What I don t yet discern is a coherent set of criteria that would make reading through and maintaing the category reasonably clear. 19:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *****Japans philosophy is generally similar to East Asian IMHO and its geographically part of East Asia not North Asia according to wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Asia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia]. 00:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *******The choice implicit here is between North and South Asian. Having argument about geography and then attempting to impose philosophical sense on top of that is imposing an interminable and insoluble additional problem on top of others, which is why I tend to think that there is more confusion than value is combining orthogonal criteria to create categories. 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, I m not convinced that grouping by continent is useful, but grouping by an arbitrary subdivision thereof such as it s bottom half, is something I certainly consider not useful. 07:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. - 21:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep (renamed as category:South A sian philosophers) unless there is a category for grouping Indian, Pakistani, Nepali, Bhutani, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi philosophers, and philosophers of the region predate the establishment of these modern States. — 15:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, but correct to upper case. 22:41, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
==== ====
keep -- 16:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Useful structure for a neglected area. Somewhat idiosyncratic: currently contains a large number of individual articles, only one subcat. Thus even the general arguments against PBG don t seem to apply here. -- 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep per above 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep - agree with Visviva. 22:43, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
==== ====
keep -- 16:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Widely used term. -- 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep, per above 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep for philosophers of 03:57, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) *Keep. - 00:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
keep -- 16:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Australia is, of course, both a nation and a continent. -- 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep and add a link to the 08:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) *Keep its a country. I don t know of any other philosophers from elswhere in Oceania so the title is appropriate. 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. - 00:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This is a completely valid method of searching for notable philosophers, even if Australian philosophy is considered not unique (although I believe it is.) -- 08:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)|
|