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.
rename per nom. Nominator correctly states the situation of the other related category names. And these names are more helpful to the reader. Hmains (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (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:People from Champawat, Category:People from Rudraprayag
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.
Delete per nom. Whoever created these categories appears to have mistakenly thought Jim Corbett came from one or both of these places, which is not the case; and it seems there are no other articles on Wikipedia which belong in them. An alternative approach would simply be to remove these categories from Jim Corbett (hunter); then, if no one else is added to them, after four days they can be speedy-deleted as empty categories (WP:CSD#C1). Terraxos (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2008 (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.
Comment:There are some bodies that are currently in the category CARICOM which are actual CARICOM bodies.... These are a list of actual organisations that are a part of CARICOM. (Sorry for using the Google Cache version here but their site is currently down at the time of writing this here.) P.S. you may need to scroll down a little bit. CaribDigita (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I too had misgivings about this proposal when I saw it earlier today. As CaribDigita says, it sounds too generic. I wasn't aware of the previous history (as outlined below), but I'm not surprised. It's true that in the great majority of cases we prefer the expanded form, especially in category names -- but there are exceptions. For instance I would strongly oppose renaming Category:UNESCO to Category:United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, because it's universally known as UNESCO -- whereas a lot of people would probably say, "Huh??" if they encountered the full name. CARICOM probably falls somewhere in between -- it's fairly well known, but certainly not on a par with UNESCO. So if no better alternative is suggested, I may well support the slightly unorthodox name proposed below by CaribDigita. Cgingold (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We've been down this road already. "Caribbean Community" becomes a repository for unrelated stuff like how someone just threw United States relations in there.. Which has NOTHING to do with CARICOM. CARICOM is an organisation. "US relations etc. belongs in Category:Caribbean" or Foreign relations in the Caribbean or something else. It has nothing to do with the organisation... Caribbean Community sounds too much like a repository for everything Caribbean related.... However anything in there should have something to do with the organisation. "Category:Caribbean Community (CARICOM)" would much better in keeping the category on topic so it doesn't have the same problem as before when it was named "Caribbean Community" I think... CaribDigita (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you want to take that road, then rename the main article. Caribbean Community is likely ambiguous especially if you misread it as Caribbean community. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2008 (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 Ambiguous category. We have categories for cosmology, categories for scientific cosmology (that is, physical cosmology). The point of having this category does not seem apparent. All of these subjects are either a part of cosmology in general or physical cosmology. The commonalities between the articles is almost impossible to see. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems so blindingly obvious to us that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun, but until the Copernican Revolution, this was how even the brightest minds among the ancients perceived it. This category usefully organizes variations of these cosmologies into a common category defined by these pre-Copernican imaginings. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both per Johnbod & Alansohn -- I think they've covered it. Why the nominator would want to eradicate a vitally important category like this is beyond me. Cgingold (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "scientific" is there to distinguish them from mythological ones etc. See the tree. I disagree with Peet Ern that "many" of these are not scientific, though obviously very early. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2008 (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:delete. While there is some desire to see this split, there is no direction in what to split to (or to how many). If I were to guess, I would say, based upon Alan's comment and already existing categories, Category:Archaeological artefacts and Category:Mythological places and possibly even Category:Mythological objects (and who knows what else, if any). Problem with that is none of those deal with "mysteries", and further, upon examination of several of the articles, they are already categorized as artifacts or mythological. If someone wants to be bold and recategorize the articles to these or to other new categories, I can provide a list of articles. Kbdank7118:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Clearly a POV designation. Mysteries to whom? To those who believe in Unsolved Mysteries type conspiracy theories about the ancient world. It's pseudohistory, fringe-theory pandering. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something of a ragbag, but many of these are actual objects which are indeed mysterious to scholars, like the Phaistos disk. The nominator has not really adressed the actual contents of the category, and so made a case for deletion, though I expect one could be made (or for renaming, or tightening the scope). Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category as it stands includes at least two distinct groupings of articles: Ancient artifacts that exist today (or are definitively known to have existed) but whose purpose is uncertain, such as the Antikythera mechanism, the Voynich manuscript or the abovementioned Phaistos Disc. It also includes places and things that are almost certainly mythological, such as Atlantis or the Holy Grail, which refer to conceptual locations and objects that may well not exist. If this category is to serve any useful purpose it would have to be split in at least two categories, and there are probably other groupings mixed in as well. Alansohn (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find it appropriate for such a category to exist. We also have Category:Forteana which is a parent to this category, and it seems neither pandering to superstition nor to conspiracy theorizing to categorize the many known unexplained subjects of ancient origin. I don't understand why labeling something unexplained and puzzling a mystery is claimed to be POV. __meco (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Split per Alansohn - his suggestion above seems the most sensible, given that this category includes both real objects and those that are clearly mythical. The current name doesn't seem entirely neutral, but I've no idea what appropriate names for these categories would be... Category:Things Indiana Jones has searched for, perhaps? :) Terraxos (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heterogenous contents of the category show that it is too vague to be useful. What do Camelot, the Ark of the Covenant, astrology, and the "starchild" skull have to do with each other? Only that they are from various time periods in the past and considered "mysterious" by some. Other existing categories (such as ones relating to mythologies and pseudosciences) are more clearly defined in much more useful ways. --Icarus(Hi!)23:47, 18 November 2008 (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.
Comments - This does seem to be something that could use explaining in an article somewhere. Does such an article exist? I'm looking at the two current members of the category, and I only see tangental reference to "non-printed electronics" (though I may indeed have missed it). Further information welcome. - jc3715:57, 20 November 2008 (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. Per several recent CFDs, rename and restrict to those musical groups that are specifically known as trios. As for the sibling trios subcat, the question is whether being a sibling group would qualify as a defined subcat under the broader concept of "musical trios". If so, rename. If not, delete. Noting that we do have Category:Family musical groups and we could merge the sibling groups there as well. Otto4711 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2008 (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:oy vey. There's not really a consensus for any specific action here, except maybe that a rename should occur now that the category is populated. For now, I'll rename to the relatively non-controversial Category:Scratchcard games, but please—future pruning and/or nominations for renaming to work this category tree out are more than encouraged. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete With only one entry and it being unlikely to have more, this to be seems like overcategorization. Midwest Millions can be upmerged to Loteries and this deleted. Wizardman01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why unlikely to have more? In fact there is Category:Lottery card games, but this in fact seems not about "lotteries" in the normal sense, & probably needs renaming. That has at least one other scratchcard article & I expect there are more. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that category is defined as "Articles about faro-like card games where the winner is determined by the random luck appearance of different cards." - which I don't think should be in category:Lotteries at all, & should probably be renamed. Certainly the scratchcards should not be mixed in there. Johnbod (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that since I was working from what appeared to be an unambiguous category name. Does faro have anything to do with lotteries? If not, then I'd say as part of the upmerge, we clean out the parent. Or we could do that today if no one raises an objection. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are games played with packs of normal cards where you win by getting dealt the right card(s) - but "lottery", though possibly technically correct, is certainly misleading here. I can't think of a better name for these. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2008 (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.
Speedy close - as neither category exists. This is a proposal to merge two articles, which has already been proposed at the articles themselves. Otto4711 (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2008 (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.
