Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11

Category:Windows compression software

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 Keep. ∞Who ?¿? 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_3#Category:Free_Linux_software and concurring votes at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_7#Category:Free_Mac_OS_software and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_10#Category:Free_Windows_software. - Centrx 21:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This feels slightly different to the others though, no? Previously, the argument rested on the fact that most free software was available on many/all platforms and didn't need to highlighted as only being available on one. Does the same apply to compression software? If yes, ~~delete~~, if no keep. -Splash 01:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The argument never rested on the availability of the particular software on many platforms; that availability was a specific collective example of problems that arise with such undifferentiated categorization, of which there are fewer individual examples in this case because the category is so small. - Centrx 20:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the argument? That there are not enough members of the category to merit it? If so, that seems wrong: the category now has nine members, which is larger than many categories. I would guess that there are potentially at least a few more software programs that could be included, but have not yet (ones just overlooked, ones w/o articles, ones not yet created, etc). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:20, 2005 September 13 (UTC)
Weak keep. Categorizing all free software, and yet limiting it by OS platform, is probably a bit off in terms of logical division. But compression software is a well-defined functional purpose, so a category makes a bit more sense. Much of the Windows software for compression is not available on other platforms, so it is a bit of a separate thing. (But probably multi-platform tools like info-zip should still be in this category too; unless it is renamed Category:Windows-only compression software. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:08, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

There already is a category for the well-defined functional purpose of Data compression software. If an application runs on many platforms it cannot reasonable be described as "Windows compression software". - Centrx 20:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I simply do not understand the argument made for category deletion. What do you mean by "overcategorization" here? I will not exactly care if the category is deleted, since I never run Windows, and thus it makes no difference to me what compresson software exists there. But defining function+OS seems like a pretty clear category to me (though as I comment "Windows-only" or "Windows-specific" might be more clear. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:14, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Keep. Winzip, WinRAR, WinACE, .CAB... siafu 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That there exist certain articles that could be placed in a category of this name is not a justification wherefore that category ought to reasonably exist in the categorization scheme. - Centrx 20:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Categorizing software articles by operating system and function doesn't seem too crazy to me, so long as there enough articles to warrant it (as there are here). This is not so much the same as the "Free XXXX software" categories, as these are actually rather OS-specific. siafu 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It strikes me that there existing certain articles that can be so categorized is an excellent reason for so categorizing them. Not always, and often not in the case of overcategorization, but I think this one is probably useful. -Splash^talk 22:53, 14 September 2005 (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.

Category:Political correctness

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. ∞Who ?¿? 00:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pretty random collection of vaguely leftwing topics that a anon considers to be examples or supporters of political correctness. I'm not really sure what topics like the anti-gun Brady Campaign, libertarian free migration, anti-AIDS AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, and the play The Vagina Monologues are doing lumped together in a single category. Moreover political correctness is quite a loaded term. - SimonP 21:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete SimonP 21:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:22, 2005 September 11 (UTC). Utterly silly category to push some POV about whatever User:4.249.60.55 doesn't like (or maybe what s/he does like, who knows). The list of things has nothing much in common, and no category membership criteria is even stated.
Delete; POV category tag, not useful except for POV-warriors. Antandrus (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV-loaded term, not explained, very random choice of subjects. Will be nothing but trouble, and impossible to fill or not to fill. -- AlexR 21:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters who modified the category page to add the vote for deletion, but it was User:SimonP who added the vote for deletion here. Are these two users the same person? 4.249.60.55

Not that it matters, but SimonP and I actually added the listing here simultaneously; I took my heading out and combined it with SimonP's. In the history of this page, the CfD item is briefly duplicated. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Delete. For pretty much the reasons already presented; the category was entirely created for the purpose of expressing the anonymous user's interpretation of, among others just as important, discussions of gender, sexuality, race and general thought as little more than efforts of PC which is, in and of itself, as stated, a loaded term. Completely ridiculous and inappropriate. Zeppocity 21:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV category tag. / Alarm 22:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Category appears to be used entirely for bad faith editorial POV purposes, none of which are grounded in substantial edits to the categorised articles and validated by any measure of consensus. If anon user demonstrates a more substantial interest in editing article bodies and can build consensus behind such edits, then perhaps this category might be shown to have merit yet. Buffyg 22:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per SimonP. A category is only useful if a user can figure out what might be in it. Nandesuka 22:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly good category could be put together just from the links in the political correctness article. CalJW 01:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with CalJW. I would also argue that categorising NPOV disputed articles is a good thing, and being able thus to navigate around, or identify a grouping of articles, is good regardless of whether it is disputed or not. Anyway, having it neatly categorised makes it easier to excise whole chunks of non-NPOV stuff later, or at least brush them under a carpet somewhere. Carcharoth 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NPOV disputes are already categorized at Category:NPOV disputes. -- Reinyday, 02:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There are over 1000 articles at Category:NPOV disputes and an appeal for people to categorise them, though maybe that is an automated appeal for an overpopulated category (not sure why anyone would want to subcategorise NPOV disputes). Anyway, that was a minor point. My main point was that the NPOV dispute is for the article. It should still be categorisable, even if it is also an NPOV dispute. More problematic is what should its parent categories be - it doesn't have any proper ones yet, as it is only a child of NPOV disputes. I also see that the category has now been depopulated except for political correctness. Carcharoth 03:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the keep votes got the wrong idea. The category was created and a large number of irrelevant articles were added to it (SimonP mentions a few above). The editors who watched all those various pages quickly removed the category (though it took a few reverts of User:4.249.60.55's vandalism in many cases). It doesn't look as pernicious once all the articles are removed, but it's hard to see any article that could ever be added back in a NPOV way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:20, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

I see your point that editors will remove this category tag if it is added to pages where they don't want it, but do they also do the same for their pages using the 'what links here' feature, and remove links to their articles from political correctness? More generally, that would imply that all NPOV disputed articles should not be categorised until the NPOV dispute tag is removed. As that will never happen for some articles, I don't see the point. Some pages will end up in this category, and it helps people organise around this concept of 'political correctness', which does exist. Carcharoth 03:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The concern about the category has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the political correctness article itself is NPOV. The categorization itself is just a way to characterize organization or concepts in a way that is inherently biased. For example, as well as those SimonP mentioned, diverse and unrelated articles like Frankfurt School, Critical race theory, Queer theory, and Heteronormativity were flagged (well, the last two are slightly related to each other, but not to "political correctness"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:43, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying. I'm also having trouble thinking what could go in Category:Political correctness without, as you say, being disputed, so I am beginning to change my mind. I did find a similar category that you might say should be deleted along the same lines Category:Pejorative political terms, but I found that category quite interesting to browse. Carcharoth 04:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like that Category:Pejorative political terms you mention. I hadn't know about it previously, but it seems quite useful. The difference is that the category at issue is itself a pejorative political term, which is a whole different level. The analogy here would be if someone were to propose, e.g., Category:Banana republic (another one of the pejorative terms). Even though the Banana republic article itself mentions countries so called (by others), it would be inappropriate for WP to so categorize the corresponding country articles. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:22, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Delete. I would appreciate if people left categories intact until after CfD votes. If the categories in question are depopulated, it becomes very difficult to understand the intent of the people who created and populated the category. All I have to go on is the few articles mentioned above. From those mentions I agree that this category is POV. What I cannot do is look at the list of articles and think about a possible NPOV title that would bind some or all of the articles together in a useful or meaningful way. -- Samuel Wantman 04:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were something like 30+ articles tagged by the same anon, right off the bat (in no cases with discussion on their talk pages)[1]. So probably 30 different editors took the category back out. Well, I happened to have two of the 30 on my watchlist, and in both cases took out the category; the anon put it back in, then some other editor took it back out again. Maybe repeat some more times. In any case, I hardly think you can ask all the editors of all the pages where the category is irrelevant to "leave the category intact." I doubt most of the editors knew or cared about the CfD, they just knew the category was misapplied to the article they are active in. It is slightly too bad that there's no way (that I know of) to see a history of what "used to be" included in a category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:11, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

While I don't think it the case here, not being able to see a categories history means that people can doctor categories to push their own agenda. I want everyone to get a fair hearing. -- Samuel Wantman 06:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with SamuelWantman in general; there is a trend to depopulate categories nominated here, and also to remove their categorization links, which I find makes this process more difficult. However, in this particular case, I'm sure Lulu is right, and that many people saw this category as offensive. I was surprised that anyone would categorize Disability rights movement under this category. However, disability etiquette would have made perfect sense to me. -- Reinyday, 06:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep - it's no less politically charged than the dozens of other categories out there on various political ideologies, feminism, gay rights, civil rights etc. A category of people and groups associated with the PC movement could be useful for navigating the forum. Unfortunately it looks as if many attempts to develop this category have been deleted almost immediately after their addition even while the CfD is still taking place - possibly for POV reasons and seemingly in a manner that doesn't even give this category a chance to be considered fairly. Rangerdude 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair treatment for categorisation means providing a rationale for categorisation; this rationale should be consistent with the state of the article bodies when the category is added. This has not been done in these cases; I have elsewhere referred to this as editorialisation by categorisation, which does not demonstrate any consensual basis for relevance. The point here is that, absent demonstration of a consensual editorial basis for this category, its usage is prone to abuse and therefore objectionable; I am tempted not even to designate this as POV-warring because justification of the POV is left implicit rather than simply unchallenged (i.e. it is not that counter-argument is suppressed; it is that merits of the side you are effectively endorsing are not argued in first instance and are in no way inherent). Perhaps it is possible to justify some of the categorisations: I am sceptical that the comment justifying a contested edit to add this category to the Frankfurt School article can be justified: "The Frankfurt School IS the core, factual definition of political correctness." This is what seems to me unfair.

I am similarly sceptical that it is reasonable to call poststructuralism or postmodernism politically correct at a meaningful level of description. In any case my position on categories remains that they are not justified hypothetically ("I see how this could be useful...") but by sound edits to articles that substantiate categorisation and demonstrate utility first to contributors and then to readers. Stubs are the only category type that should allow for an issue to be left without treatment in an article. As a corollary to this logic It would be inappropriate to allow categorisation to stand in the entries; arguing that the CfD should mitigate this would amount to gaming the system to make a point. Buffyg 12:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uppland 11:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Seth Mahoney 19:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The category seemed to be only a collection of topics and phenomenons that the right-wingers don't like. I feel that "politically correct" is a pejorative word, too. -Hapsiainen
Delete per nominator. --NormanEinstein 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Insta ntnood 18:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful, no objective criteria for inclusion, unencyclopedic. siafu 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriate for most of what it has been applied to and mostly POV for the rest. -Sean Curtin 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least I understand what all the articles listed in this category have in common. They're all based in academic theories that gained popularity from the 1970s on and are rooted in opposition to the values and identity of the white working class. That's what political correctness is, even if there are many who refuse to see it, or want to pretend that PC is only a term of derision coined by the right wing, or want to limit the meaning of PC to linguistic matters. Try to imagine what your average white working stiff in the 1950s would think of such concepts as "heteronormativity", "post-structuralism", "ableism", the Vagina Monologues, or the Million Mom March. They would find all of the above incomprehensible and absurd. So what has changed about society that such concepts are no longer absurd? PC is real and it deserves a category, preferably repopulated with the articles that were in it. Redblayd 15:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe half the things originally listed can kinda-sorta be characterized as Redblayd describes. But the category needs to be non-pejorative. Maybe "Oppositional academic theories". Or if you like "Things that white working stiffs in the 1950s wouldn't understand" (big category, that). Then again, I don't actually think any of the "keep" votes are made in good faith anyway, so I guess it's moot to propose an improvement. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment though I agree that categories should not be depopulated before or during a Cfd, it seems in this case, that the articles were reverted by multiple registered users added by the one anon user. It would still be much preferable in the future if the categories and articles were left, for the most part, not counting good faith edits, until the close of the CFd. ∞Who ?¿? 00:21, 19 September 2005 (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.

Swedish article rating categories

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 all. ∞Who ?¿? 00:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial article rating systems just won't do. Delete all. CalJW 06:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This just won't do unless and until we institute the grading system wiki-wide. Are there are any more of these groups out there? -Splash 01:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, though they did make me laugh. -- Reinyday, 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. As for finding any more of these rating systems, I could only find Category:Wikipedia featured articles :-) The featured article category is not useful for browsing, as the links are to the talk pages. The featured article archive is better for browsing. I guess they are categorised for other reasons. Carcharoth 02:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot as inherently POV. — JIP | Talk 06:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually created these, but refrain from voting... :-) I have also created a draft for a rating process, but that shouldn't matter I guess. Fred-Chess 12:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:32, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

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.

Category:Railing styles

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. ∞Who ?¿? 00:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Ddespie@san.rr.com for some dubious articles. Unlikely to ever be seriously used. tregoweth 06:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Empty, and I can't work out what would go in it so, unless I'm stupid or it's very specialised it's also vaguely named. -Splash 01:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash. Is this for different rail gauges or soemthing? siafu 21:39, 12 September 2005 (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.

Categories using 'Historic'

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 Categories not tagged (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 00:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: There are about 138 categories whose titles start with 'Historic' or 'Historical' or 'Historically'. This link should show them [2]. Many are historic houses, and it looks like someone is creating a large scheme for those. Other examples of these 'historic' categories are no-longer-existing objects, like historical flags, and so forth. Though the lists at Category:Lists of historical animals is, um, interesting. Anyway, two in particular that I want to see changed are Category:Historic fires renamed to Category:Fires, and Category:Historic weather events to be manually depopulated and then deleted. But maybe this general 'historic' issue needs to be flagged for people to examine each example on a case by case basis? It would also be good to get the view of those who have experience categorising in the history sections. Carcharoth 02:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a case by case basis. Please don't nominate all 136 at once, but divide them into closely related groups or deal with them singly. Historic fires should be renamed, but I'm not sure about the other one, it is certainly worthwhile having a weather category that fits into history. CalJW 06:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, all events, personalities and products which are not current or recent have become, de facto, "historic". In the context here, the word is being used like "notable", which is to say as a POV device for inclusion or exclusion, or as an imposed ranking of "importance". Most definitely, rename to omit the "historic" adjectives. 12.73.198.3 13:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All things which have ever occurred are historical, but not all are historic. Still, I am inclined to agree that "historic" is a near-synonym of "notable" and thus superfluous. - choster 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historic would seem to be the kind of adjective that would normally need removing from cat/article titles. But sometimes it might be appropriate, particularly for defunct things when defunct isn't the right word. Nominate on a case-by-case basis is the only way, I think. -Splash 01:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had a closer look at the 138 'historic' categories, and have found the following usages of 'historic' so far - (1) 'Historic'as part of a proper name or term, as in Category:Historic civil engineering landmarks and Category:Historic houses and Category:Historic drama. That last one is a genre of opera, though that should specify opera in its title like most of the other opera genre categories. Otherwise these all seem fine. (2) 'Historic' as a synonym for 'notable', such as Category:Historic fires I'll throw these up individually for renaming votes. (3) 'Historic' in the names of stub categories, which I assume is OK. (4) 'Historic X' used instead of 'History of X', which seems to overlap with (5) 'Historic' incorrectly used as an adjective for history, instead of the correct term 'historical'. (6) 'Historic' and 'Historical' used for defunct or former objects ('historical' seems to be more correct than 'historic'), such as Category:Historic U.S. Executive Cabinet positions and Category:Historical Members of the Canadian Senate. This last use of 'Historic' and 'Historical' seems to overlap with categories named using the phrasing 'Former X' or 'Defunct X'. The U.S. Executive Cabinet positions one could be renamed 'Defunct...' and the members of the Canadian Senate one could be renamed 'Former...'. There are 71 categories using the phrasing 'Former...' [3] and 132 using the phrasing 'Defunct...' [4]. Is there a difference between 'Historical', 'Former' and 'Defunct', and are stylistic differences like this OK, or should standardisation be encouraged? Carcharoth 02:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think "historical" is fine, especially for large categories (meaning I think having a "historical foo" subcategory of "foo" is a helpful way of breaking up a large category). I can see renaming "Historic" in most cases, though I know that it is an official governmental designation for certain things here in California, like Historic Houses, and if the category is for such designated landmarks, it should not be renamed... -- Reinyday, 02:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Closing note the two categories mentioned by the nom, were not tagged, relisting them as new Cfd/Cfr. Any other cat mentioned in the discussion, should be tagged properly and listed either individually or with a very close similar umbrella. ∞Who ?¿? 00:33, 19 September 2005 (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.

Category:Grand Dukes of Luxembourg to Category:Dukes and Grand Dukes of Luxembourg

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 consensus (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested in a previous Cfd that this category be renamed to handle both current and past Dukes. ∞Who ?¿? 00:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category:Grand Dukes of Luxembourg has all post-1890 Grand Dukes - earlier ones were from other families and notable for being Kings or Emperors of somewhere else. At most the three Dutch King Williams could also be listed (i.e. from 1815). --Henrygb 23:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. There's no reason not to have an inclusive category for all the rulers of the duchy, as this is the way all other such groupings are handled. siafu 21:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones? -- User:Docu
Keep. Useful subset. -- User:Docu

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.

Category:Hellenic languages and dialects

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 Keep. ∞Who ?¿? 02:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find out or figure out how this category is supposed to be different from Category:Greek language, which at present is a subcategory of it. On July 6, I posted a question to both Category talk:Hellenic languages and dialects and Category talk:Greek language as to what the difference is supposed to be. I got no answer. On July 29, I made an RFC for the two categories, again asking what the difference is supposed to be; still no answer. After RFC got split up into different categories, the question was put into RFC/History and geography. On September 2, I moved it to RFC/Language and linguistics; still no answer to this question. If no one knows what the difference is supposed to be, I propose moving everything from Category:Hellenic languages and dialects to Category:Greek language, deleting the former, and making the latter a subcategory of Category:Indo-European languages.

Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It's not clear when an article would belong in one but not the other and when it might belong in both. -Splash 01:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Per the disambiguation page Hellenic, "Hellenic" languages would also include Ancient Greek language and Ancient Macedonian language in addition to Greek language. However, not only is this listed there as "hypothetical" and therefore not leaning very well on any linguistic grounds, it would also apparently contain only the above three articles, making it unnecessary (though it could theoretically contain other articles, like Linear B). siafu 22:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've looked into this a little further and found also Mycenaean language, Koine Greek, Medieval Greek, Linear A, and Byzantine Greek. There is definitely a logic to grouping these with Ancient Macedonian language and Ionic dialect, both of which are languages from regions outside of modern Greece and spoken by peoples who were not necessarily "Greek". siafu 22:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting I once made this template, now featuring on most "Greek language"-related articles:

This template presently comes without a cat attached; I had made a non-categorising link to the "hellenic languages and dialects" category which is visible on the second line of text of that template (well, probably I hadn't found another cat at the time). I suppose having two cats for basicly the same thing is senseless. Greek people alternatively tend to say it's all "one language" spanning more than two millenia, with the local variants not more than futile differences; or that there is no "single Greek language", that it's nothing but dialects loosely related. The template above was the nearest I got to cutting that Gordian knot. And some Greek wikipedians eventually even gave me a compliment that I had done well. So, all in all, I think the thing could maybe be solved by adding a built-in cat to the "History of the Greek language" template, link to that same cat from the second line in the template, and remove all other "language" cats from Greek language-related pages that have that template. Whether the single cat where all Greek language related articles would thus end up is named "Greek language" or "Hellenic languages etc" is indifferent to me. Other possibilities for the single cat name could include, for instance: category:Greek languages (plural); category:Greek language and dialects; or whatever... --Francis Schonken 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Francis Schonken and siafu. — Insta ntnood 18:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. there is a comment here that say "as this CFD day has concluded" (?) where is "the current day page"? can someone explain the comment (to my talk page) --Lucinos 09:43, 18 September 2005 (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.