From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6

Category:Chitral castes

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Empty Editor2020 ( talk) 22:28, 6 November 2017 (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:Medabots

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Another trivial WP:SMALLCAT created by an editor who so far refuse to engage in discussion about the mass creation of these types of categories, even after previous admin action. There are only three articles in the category which are already interlinked and no further likelihood of more articles. — Farix ( t |  c) 13:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete There is only one article about the Medabots franchise. It covers several mostly obscure video games, two short-lived anime series (91 episodes in total), and one short-lived manga adaptation (4 volumes). There is not much to cover in this topic, and we are unlikely to give individual articles to the various incarnations of the franchise. Dimadick ( talk) 17:59, 6 November 2017 (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:Indigenous Aryanists

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: keep. ℯ xplicit 05:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not all in the category have defined themselves as "Indigenous Aryanists" (most are unsourced, some may have been called such by others, and some would define themselves by another name such as Out-of-India theory resarcher or critic of the the Aryan Invasion theory). For example, B. R. Ambedkar wrote books questioning the prevalent theories, but he never defined himself as an "Indigenous Aryanist", he would have rather defined himself as a critic of the Aryan Invasion theory. Fails WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:OCASSOC. By WP:OPINIONCAT people should not be categorized by their opinions. Similar categories are named as "Category:Analysts of X" or "Category:Writers about X" (i.e. they are not named by their opinions, but more neutrally about the subject they write).
I propose to rename it to either
Writers (or Analysts of) about the Out of India theory,
Writers (or Analysts of) about the Indigenous Aryans theory,
Writers (or Analysts of) about the Indo-Aryan migration theory
or Writers (or Analysts of) about Indo-Aryan migrations.
I would prefer a term like Out of India theory, because the term Aryan may also be outdated and controversial and should not be overused. 178.192.35.238 ( talk) 12:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The main article of the topic is called Indigenous Aryans and concerns a specific theory about the origins of the Indo-Aryan languages and their speakers. There is no article called "Out of India". And the term Aryan is (or at least was) the preferred self-designation for the Indo-Iranians. It is neither outdated, nor particularly controversial. Dimadick ( talk) 18:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That is because Out of India redirects to Indigenous Aryans. I am not sure which name would be the best for the category, that is why I have proposed several alternatives. How about "Writers (or Analysts of) about the Indigenous Aryans theory"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.16.60 ( talk) 10:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose As per Dimadick. If certain pages have been wrongly categorised, they should be removed. But I see no reason to fiddle with the category itself. (Only those people that push Indigenous Aryans theory as a principal vocation should be categorised here.) By the way "Out of India" is just one flavour of the Indigenous Aryans theory. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You have just removed the category from the B. R. Ambedkar article, even though Ambekar is famous for and quite often quoted about his opposition to the Aryan invasion theory (Ambdekar is discussed in relation to Indigenous Aryanism in Edwin Bryant's book "Quest for the Origins"). I cannot understand why you removed the category from Ambedkar but others who have written much much less about this issue like Golwalkar were just categorized by you at the same time?
You say "only those people that push Indigenous Aryans theory as a principal vocation should be categorised", but no one in the category has the theory as his principal vocation. They are all known for other issues much more. For example, most of B.B. Lal's, Shaffer's and Rao's archaeological research did not concern this theory, probably only about 5 percent of their research was related to it.
The category categorizes people by opinion, which should not be done by WP:OPINIONCAT. The term Indigenous Aryanist seems not to be used as a self designation by any of the people in the category. Can you name one single person in the category who was self-designating himself as an "Indigenous Aryanist"? How is it then sourced? This could also be a WP:BLP issue.
Edwin Bryant writes in his "Quest" about the categorization of IA: "Categorization is a tricky business. Where do American archaeologists such as Shaffer and Kenoyer (who are neither typical Indigenous Aryanists nor, certainly, Aryan Migrationists; who have no emotional, spiritual, cultural, or ideological bone of contention to pick with any of this; but who have also departed from previous assumptions that have hitherto been used to interpret the archaeological record) fit into the scheme of things? 4This all goes to show that ideological analysis, while indispensable in a historiographical study such as this, must refrain from straitjacketing individuals intoconvenient and easily identified stereotypes or groupings. Indeed, many other publica-tions from India, of varying worth, can be situated in the Indigenous Aryan camp but reveal no obvious motive whatsoever. There is no Hindutva undertone, no mention of colonial or missionary bias, no reference to Dravidian separatism, no apparent episte-mological tension. They are not acrimonious, biased, angry, or ideological; nor, indeed,do they reveal any pressing concerns whatsoever. They appear, for all intents and purposes, simply to be interested in examining the evidence utilized in the construction of ancient Indian history and offering interpretations that differ with those that are generally promoted in the textbooks. How are these to be categorized?". It would be much clearer to categorize these people as Writers about the theory, then no problem about people categorized by their opinions against WP:OPINIONCAT -- 83.77.16.60 ( talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I also think that Kautilya3 should reinsert the category on B.R. Ambedkar, @ VictoriaGrayson: can also have opinion who originally brought the information to the article (regarding Ambedkar's views on theory). Capitals00 ( talk) 03:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Ambedkar has written a whole book arguing against the Aryan invasion theory. See this book in which Ambedkar is arguing against the theory that the "Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India" and argues that the "Aryan race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago". By contrast, Golwalkar's discusses the the Aryan invasion theory [1] only in 1-2 pages in his book Bunch of thoughts, where he concludes that "whatever diversity of race we may have had in this country to begin with was obliterated long by time and the processes of history." The rest of Golwakar's book is concerned with more recent and modern Indian history.
It makes no sense at all to delete Ambedkar from the category, who wrote a famous book on the subject [2], and to add at the same time Golwalkar, who wrote 1-2 pages about it. This proves that there is no clear understanding how people should be categorized with this category which adds to the conclusion that the category should better be renamed. -- 83.77.16.60 ( talk) 10:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Whether any particular page should belong to the category or not is best done on the corresponding article talk page. In the case of B. R. Ambedkar, there are scholarly analyses of his views, which can be consulted. I am ok to use the alternative title Proponents of Indigenous Aryanism, if it is more neutral, but writers is not enough. Pinging Joshua Jonathan and Vanamonde93. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The scholarly analysis about views of Indigenous Aryanism is Edwin Bryant's "Quest", which does discuss Ambedkar (also Bryant's later book "IA controversy" discusses Amedkar). You have not explained the rationale for removing Ambedkar (and at the same time adding Golwakar). Proponents of Indigenous Aryanism would have the same problem with WP:OPINIONCAT and it would not be consistent with other wikipedia categories. There is no other wikipedia category named Proponents of X but there are categories named writers or analysts .
  • Oppose. I'm not sure what the nominator is trying to do here. The category as currently defined is clearly about supporters of the Indigenous Aryan Theory. The new title would have a much broader scope, and would include everyone who has discussed it, including critics of the theory. I see no reason for such a redefinition. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If the category kept as is, there is still the opportunity to add critics of this theory to the parent Category:Indigenous Aryanism insofar their criticism is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:53, 8 November 2017 (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:Saint tail

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 11:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no potential for expanding articles in this category. Series concluded a while ago, and related media (musical, soundtrack) do not require separate articles. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (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:Ojarumaru

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 12:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There aren't enough separate articles to warrant such a split, and it's not a huge franchise either. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:13, 7 November 2017 (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:Toriko

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 12:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Series has ended but has 43 manga volumes and 147 episodes. It may be borderline useful if some of those articles are split, but would need lots of development before then. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:40, 7 November 2017 (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:Sket Dance

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked to the main article, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 12:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete series has ended with no plans to make more sequels and franchises. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:43, 7 November 2017 (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:The Disastrous Life of Saiki K.

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 12:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There aren't enough separate articles to warrant such a split, and it's not a huge franchise either. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (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:Beelzebub (manga)

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only five articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 12:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete series has ended with 28 volumes and 60 episodes. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:44, 7 November 2017 (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:World Trigger

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 12:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too few articles to warrant splitting AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- A main article and three satellites are not enough for a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:23, 10 November 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_6&oldid=1088119953"