Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 4

903:

be avatars also are NOT considered to be 'Forms of Vishnu' (of which this category is a subcategory) -- for example the 16th century goatheard Khandoba considered by some to be an avatar of Shiva, or Shirdi Sai Baba, considered by some to be an avatar of Datatreya. I applaud the desire of the creating editor to start this argument -- I'm sure he meant well. But it is poorly defined and ambiguously named. I recommend deletion.--

2960:, there are dozens, possibly hundreds (the list surpasses the search limit) of schools with Crusaders as a mascot in the United States alone. I do agree that if a school attracted national attention over its mascot, a category called "Schools with controversial mascots" could be created. As is, there does not seem to be anything special about these mascots. In my view, keeping the category will necessitate creating at minimum 1901:

gives a reference for this quote. There is a difference between a Maha Avatara of Vishnu (like Krishna or Kalki) and an avatar of some more minor god or divine principle. In the category there is no room for giving such refined differences. In that sense it is not giivng an accurate picture. It is making it appear simpler than it is. The list page at least gives some scope for clarity. In that sense it is more accurate.

3575:

Glad you asked, GO. I don't know the answer to your 2nd question, but I have been wondering about that myself. I presume you're talking about putting some lines of code into the Wiki software that would literally prevent the creation of a new category absent the presence of at least one parent cat. I

1975:

I'm not so sure about that. Even Shruti14 who created the category only yesterday said above "I'm open to deletion if the list will stay, but I do think at least one should stay." There's hardly any keepers for this cat at least as it is. The only argument I've heard for keeping it is that there's no

1872:, not renaming. So saying that your proposed new and improved name provides an accuracy challenge is sufficient on its own. Your proposed name change will create a category with a whole collection of NEW and DIFFERENT problems. I'm all for the new and different, but I've had enough problem. As to the 1650:

to be God incarnate or an avatar of some sort. In any case, both the category and associated list are intended for religious figures "who are considered to be avatars of a deity or higher being by either themselves or their followers", as stated in the list and category. I'm open to deletion if the

1358:

has his avatars. Avatar = form of Vishnu, is wrong. Was Khandoba a "historical" person like the others in present cat, is unknown. Avatars of Vishnu like Krishna and Rama were gods in "human form", who were born and died. No myth talks about the death or human birth of Khandoba, so was he human? Also

3229:

the others. I'm unsure about all of these; I have an opinion, but it wouldn't be difficult to persuade me one way or the other. I think on balance, it's probably relatively safe to capitalize "Christian Universalists"; all forms of "Christian Universalism" are not the same, but neither are all types

1915:

I agree. Lists can do things, like provide shadings and qualifictions, that categories can not. For example, let's say we have a source saying that a person calls himself an avatar, but not any sources saying his followers call him that. That would be OK for the list but not for the renamed category

1631:

There's a category for persons who claimed to be god incarnate -- can't find it, but I've seen it. So I take it that this category will be reserved for persons who did NOT consider themselves to be avatar (avatāra), but whose FOLLOWERS consider them to be avatar (or avatāra). Is that the distinction

1381:

of Shiva, no? Vishnu's 10 avatars only include a minority of human forms. I've heard the Hanuman as Shiva avatar idea; also that Hanuman's tail was the avatar of Shiva (see the wonderful book "Hanuman's Tale" by Philip Lutgendorf -- there's a 20 dollar paperback; you don't need to buy the 100 dollar

902:

a Hindu. Also, Meher Baba mentions persons (such as Zoroaster and Mohammed) that HE considered to be avatars -- and those persons are not Hindu. Buddha and Jesus will also probably be included, then rv'd, then rvv'd, then rvvv'd, etc. It may also come as shock to some, but some persons considered to

3638:

without prejudice. I'm a believer in subcategories that differentiate based on cultural, historic, ethnic, literary, geographical, neighborhood and other factors, but this one would essentially include all of the United Kingdom but Northern Ireland. Maybe there is a reason to include just the three

1700:

The last couple comments bring up a very good point. On the list page itself (not the category) there is room to say who a claim is by, if it is disputed, references, what exactly the claim was (the avatara of Vishnu or avatar in some other qualified sense) and so forth. A category is thus far more

1900:

there is at least room for explaining what is meant by this. For example Adi Da says "By Avartarically revealing and confessing my Divine status to one and all, I am not indulging in self-appointment, or illusions of grandiose Divinity. I am not claiming the status of the Creator God." and then it

1190:

I agree let's stay on the subject of the categpry that this discussion is suppose to be about. The list is fine to me. As I pointed out there is a whole category for lists like this one. It is the category that is a new precedent, as it is a slippery slope to cats to mirror every one of the lists,

2068:

Best of all, we've been told that we're making too big a deal about this category, which only has nine associated pages. But apparently you think that this manifestly unused, ill-defined and contentious category is inherently valuable...only we must keep re-forming it, and re-re-forming it, until

917:

There no word Hindu in the category, the criteria for inclusion in category is the same as in the existing list, if people are dropped from the list by consensus they should be dropped from the category. It does not have to be static and some pages can be included and excluded and appropriate

1235:

as non-Hindu. Meher Baba, for example, said that Mohammed was the Avatar, not an "avatāra." Can I include Mohammed? Also Jesus, Zoroaster and Buddha? Also Shivaji? Also Judas Maccabes? I consider them all to be the Avatar, so I suppose I can -- but I have no idea if any one of them is an

1933:

Another example like the one Will Beback just gave is that the term "avatar", even in India, has broadly different uses. Some say they are "an avatar" but Meher Baba actually never once said this, but always said he was "the Avatar" and went into a lot of detail to not be mistaken.

1738:

I think keeping it vague is good, what precision do you need 10% or 90%? BTW Is there anyone here who is from the Swaminarayana group, since it was because of them that it all was started. There is a good chance that they will not want to use it this category for their page of

3576:

would think that could be done, but the only way to know for sure is to ask the question in the proper place (probably on the Village Pump). That would surely be the best solution, if it's available. Failing that, we could, I suppose, simply make an explicit statement in the

3202:: I'm not sure about "Christian universalists" and "X Christian universalists", but I strongly object to capitalizing the u in "Christian groups with universalist beliefs". This is a common usage of the word universalist, not a proper usage referring to a specific group. 1554:. "People who have been considered avatars by their followers" implies they are no longer considered avatars by their followers. I think 'considered' is more neutral and better counts for those people considered in the past and also present. But I still keep my vote for 2048:). The category definition as currently written apparently stands, even though the proposed new title contradicts it. The placement of the category as a subcategory of Hindu religious figures and Forms of Vishnu has will stand, although now we're supposed to accept a 1602:

I have the same concern as Nemonoman. I've noticed that small groups of 'followers' on Knowledge happily speak for the majority. There are also disputes among followers on this - including the very person that these new categories are trying to be created for,

1664:

Well, that broadens the collection a lot. Charles Manson, David Koresh. Anyone who CLAIMED to be god incarnate, even if no one believed him, and anyone some (unidentified) follower (wait followers -- must be at least 2) considered to be god incarnate. Now

2599:. This category is no exception. There is ample evidence in religious scolarship on the various religious communities that view their leader (prophet, guru, acharya ect.) as an avatar. Adding any article to this category would have to comply with 2649:. It's my impression from instructions that an admin closes the discussion, and I suppose, authorizes the rename. I'll contact one -- but if in the interim an admin can either do this, or instruct me further on final steps, I'd appreciate it. -- 1525:

I would consider a rename also, though just having the lists is also a good approach. This new version may be too long, but leaving in 'people' is important, since these aren't gods and goddesses we're talking about. It could be shortened to

1994:

This category, while notable, should be renamed. From reviewing this discussion, I can see that there is absolutely no consensus to delete. A discussion on how ways this category can be renamed should recieve serious discussion. Thanks.

2574:

I'd feel a lot more comfortable about keeping this category if somebody would define it in actual words. Who qualifies, who qualifies as 'followers', etc. Whether Dasavatara are includable or not. Jesus. Charles Manson. Haile Selassie.

2526:

as there are religious leaders who do not identify as Hindu, but whose followers still consider them an avatar. I think consensus on this issue can be achieved as there is clear support for keeping this category with a rename. Thanks.

2945:- There are currently only two schools in the category. I do agree that the category is over something trivial; however, is there anything notable about this category, such as a controversy over the mascot as a religious symbol? -- 1754:

If this category was created on the whim of one article's editor(s), and now we want to check with those persons before proceeding -- then I suggest that the category pretty weak gruel, and its orgins alone are reason enough to

2157:, I have removed Gautama Buddha from the category. That article clearly includes Buddha as one of Dashavatara. So anyway, now we're down to 8 pages. PS. Someone ought to change the category definition to say 'This 1226:

Like I said, the lists are news to me. I promise that I will review and address them separately based on the actions taken on my category deletion request. And by saying that the category is really associated with

2241:

shouldn't have been added, since not only is this not accepted by many Hindus, but also because many of the self-proclaimed "avatars" on the list do not claim to be a form of Vishnu. (That category was added by

1054:' - not that I am partial to the list. but In Buddhism, avatar is used but is often translated to English as embodiment. It is also used in new age related religions. The article avatara has a section on these 2116:

for the word. The subcategory "Forms of Vishnu" has been removed, as stated below. This category is mainly intended for those who are considered avatars by the Hindu concept, and may not necessarily contain

1586:

There isn't quite as much of a "gray" area as there was in the original title. A "follower" would be someone who accepts the teachings of the leader. Since in most cases the people listed have claimed to be

3262:

I think it definitely doesn't get capitalized. Just because we make it a bit more specific--a Christian universalist--I don't think it needs to be capitalized; it's not a proper name, it doesn't seem to me.

1173:"Based on decision here" includes at least one vote that says lists are better for this kind of information than categories. While I don't like the category I would object to deleting the list. 3584:

parent category will be subject to immediate deletion, without exception. I should think that would be an effective deterrent to anybody who, um, actually bothered to read the guidelines. :)

1935: 2412:

should either come up with an acceptable rename, and criteria for inclusion in the category, and please, soon. If an agreeable rename doesn't happen, the category should be deleted.

1632:

being suggested now? So, for example, Mohammed doesn't qualify -- or maybe he does?? Let's see an example of proper usage of this renamed category so I can wrap my head around it? --

3354:. The British cat has one guy in it, and only afew each in the English, Scottish, and Welsh subcats. This is why "by nationality" cats are a problem, especially in small topics. 1318:

in human form. An avatar -- maybe not THE Avatar, and maybe not an avatāra, and maybe not a form of Vishnu. But he fits the category (and the category under proposed renaming). --

1215:

So by the above you, Nemonoman, defeated Cotts argument. avatāra is just a Sanskrit word, so if you call one as such (for whatever reason) you should find them all in one place.

990:

There have been various permutations of this thing discussed. In order to be both NPOV and encyclopedic, it must have 'by their followers' added to the name of the category, thus

2642: 2480: 2431: 2203: 2187: 1527: 1451: 1333: 852: 42: 37: 3508:, among others. I don't think we need a third-layer category for those from Great Britain, since really that would just contain the Scotland, Wales, and England subcategories. 770: 1937: 794:

as housekeeping for the ones nom thinks should be deleted. When you have consensus for the WikiProject's main name to be changed, it pretty much trickles down to the rest. --

3790: 3335: 3231: 3222: 2728: 2724: 1112: 2055:

If you think renaming has any kind of consensus traction, think again. We've been told that we need to check with the editors of a particular article before we proceed.

3829: 882:"Considered"? By whom? Can't this category be applied to anyone? With the simple explanation -- "Hey, I consider him/her to be an avatar". The category text explains " 3105: 2272:

isn't. Nor is Adi Da, so far as I can tell -- but trying to figure out what he or his followers currently think about anything is a moving target and no mistake. --

1897: 1107: 1084: 1063: 1059: 1029: 1955:

I refuse to consider seriously the discussion with so many arguments, when we are talking about 9 pages in it:-) Honestly - its armchair philosophy, but clearly

2082:

Let's delete this category. Then, if you think you can create a useful category related to whatever it is this one is supposed to be categorizing, create it. --

898:. Then: Get ready for an argument. Also, the list is supposedly to be applied to HINDU figures -- yet Meher Baba (one of the first articles so categorized) is 1359:

Shiva and Parvati are also recorded in Puranas to have played games like dice and chess, does that make them human? This can be discussed in detail later.--

2552:, not only because many identify as "avatars" but not as Hindus, but also because many are not known, respected, or accepted as leaders within Hinduism. -- 2313: 1066:. But the lists are valid lists and not POV, since the only valid reason for category to be deleted is NPOV, it should be kept, even if we do not like it. 1855:

is not accurate, suggest another name then. If its accurate for the list (as you have confirmed to be kept), it is 'precisely' accurate for the category.

3371:

The nationality categories should really only be used if they diffuse a hugely populated one, and I'm nonplussed by the "British X" designation anyway. —

1415: 1264: 991: 2405:

group, however has NOT reached consensus on what to rename the category, or how the renamed category should be defined. Maybe I should say -- not yet.

1382:

hard-cover). Once you step away from Rama and Krishna, things get pretty murky for a dull old westerner. So to create a category based on people whose

3533:

per nom & merge as needed. As I've pointed out before, a lot of these redundant/duplicative categories wouldn't be created if new categories were

3125: 3110: 2956:

I can say from first hand experience that there hasn't been any controversy for Brother Martin. Indeed, most of New Orleans is Catholic. According to

1310:

what am I saying: Khandoba is clearly mentioned as Shiva (and other gods) incarnate as a person who played chess, kept goats, etc., etc., etc. He's a

3619:

but is a new editor and was unaware of the process. In any case, the categories as they are now are consistent with the category system as a whole.--

1701:

misleading as it clumps these together as if there are no points of controversy and shades of meaning. On considering these points I'm even more for

1386:

designate the coveted avatar designation seems very murky as well...although I suppose that the followers' designation at least can be documented. --

3120: 3115: 1939:

In the list this is made very clear, by use of quotes in certain cases. And this has room to be made even more explicit while it can't in the cat.

1143:

for each list. This has been tried in the past and it created arguments, and it becomes uneven. Nemonoman is right. Delete the mirroring category.

344: 3145: 2738: 722: 21: 3250:

makes it seem like a denomination with that as its proper name. Also, if we change this, we'd also, for consistency's sake, need to capitalize

1608: 1473: 686: 336: 3130: 714: 208: 678: 516: 310: 276: 242: 200: 114: 1472:- I have changed from keep to rename, as both amounts for the same thing (ie listing them in a separate category), I would keep it shorter. 508: 302: 268: 234: 174: 2965: 327: 166: 705: 618: 3806: 3794: 669: 610: 3714:

to UK category, then distribute contents to constituent countries where possible. This is the conventional category structure for UK.

2323:. Incidentally, Juthani took the this category off the Swaminarayas page, he explained it was a minority view in their religion anyhow. 1558:

as above for the reason of slippery slope for so many other categories like it, but of the alternative options this is best in my view.

652: 644: 380: 372: 191: 17: 499: 293: 259: 225: 874: 584: 576: 550: 542: 157: 2885: 1551: 474: 440: 406: 2893: 1917: 1819: 1294:

wrong, but the local goatherd who came to be regarded as a Shiva avatar IS documented. Give me a while and I'll dig up the reference

1174: 1033: 601: 482: 448: 414: 635: 363: 3612: 3608: 3541: 3493: 3464: 2398:

I see two relatively equally numbered groups: Those who support deletion, and a roughly equal-sized group that wishes to rename.

3080: 2925: 2496: 2263: 2247: 2214: 932: 567: 533: 3472: 2876: 465: 431: 397: 3283: 3135: 1159:

Those lists also deserve review. I had not run across them before. Based on decision here, I'll move to delete them as well. --

1117: 3165: 3160: 2028:

There have been a half-dozen attempts at offering different names and different definitions. There's no consensus on a title (

1572:

OK -- who qualifies as a follower? There is still a lot of gray area and wiggle room, and room for arugment in this rename. --

3616: 3455: 3150: 3140: 1797:

If it is vague, then it is ambiguous. Consensus seems to be strong that ambiguous categories need to be renamed or deleted.

132: 3170: 3155: 2977: 1868:

Let's take it in steps, please Wikidas. The List is 'avatars' not avatāra -- so there's that. Also, this a discussion about

1720:

All good points. I'm all for keeping the list and deleting the too-vague, misleading, and contentious categories like this.

884:

This list does not include the ten avatars of Vishnu as their religious status is widely accepted and fixed within Hinduism.

2973: 110: 3639:

constituent countries on the island of Great Britain, if that is what was intended, but none is given. Merge as needed. —

1490: 918:

consensus can be reached on the respective talk pages if needed. It is so for any category. Deletion is not the solution.

140: 3497: 3255: 2415:

I suggest waiting another four or five days for the renamers to do their best, and then final action should be taken. --

123: 3867: 3505: 2969: 1876:-- it's a separate issue, though related, and I think its clear that the category is a different animal from a list. -- 3380: 3299: 3185: 3084: 3501: 3287: 3874: 3858: 3841: 3818: 3782: 3723: 3706: 3688: 3670: 3648: 3630: 3593: 3566: 3562:

How would such a requirement be enforced? Can it actually be made impossible to create a category without a parent?

3553: 3523: 3447: 3388: 3363: 3342: 3326: 3307: 3272: 3238: 3212: 3193: 3070: 3011: 2992: 2951: 2937: 2870: 2811: 2792: 2776: 2757: 2716: 2658: 2630: 2612: 2584: 2556: 2536: 2514: 2487: 2471: 2457: 2440: 2424: 2380: 2366: 2346: 2329: 2301: 2281: 2254: 2228: 2174: 2137: 2091: 2004: 1985: 1965: 1948: 1926: 1910: 1885: 1861: 1843: 1828: 1806: 1785: 1764: 1749: 1731: 1714: 1678: 1657: 1641: 1626: 1597: 1581: 1567: 1541: 1517: 1460: 1437: 1395: 1368: 1345: 1327: 1281: 1249: 1221: 1200: 1183: 1168: 1152: 1072: 1042: 1016: 1005: 972: 948: 924: 912: 860: 798: 782: 761: 102: 3837: 3234:

should be an probably be an exception to this, since it seems to be using "universalism" in a more generic sense.

2600: 2596: 2500: 2287: 3890: 3763: 3739: 3428: 3404: 3051: 3027: 2851: 2827: 2697: 2673: 2499:

or any other Hindu category. Nemonoman rightly points out that some of the people in the category are not Hindu.

1136: 1127: 1102: 838: 814: 74: 3889:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3738:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3403:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3026:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2961: 2826:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2672:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

813:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3762:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3427:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3050:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2850:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2696:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2238: 2210: 1122: 936: 837:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3814: 1088: 2645:. On a personal note, I believe that this rename is so loose that it will create controversy, but one has to 3854: 3719: 3384: 3303: 3189: 894:

to see that the so called 'fixed' list is constantly being argued. Can Buddha be put in this category? Read

3625: 3097: 3093: 2806: 1591:, a follower would likely accept this teaching that his/her leader is an avatar as he/she claims to be. -- 1272:

is a local deity (not a person), whose cult dates atleast to 12th century, NOT a "16th century goatheard".

97: 3833: 2467: 2121:

figures. (In fact, one of the primary reasons for its creation was a discussion of the categorizing of

1923: 1825: 1802: 1364: 1341: 1277: 1180: 1039: 778: 757: 2928:, categorizes schools by a relatively trivial characteristic: coincidentally having the same mascot. -- 2357:

Maybe a plurality of followers is adequate? Or have we reached the point of diminishing returns yet? --

3230:

of Protestantism or Catholicism or Methodism, and we always capitalize those. I agree with Aleta that

1350:

Also Nemonoman is right Khandoba is not an avatar of Vishnu, but of Shiva. Another avatar of Shiva is

3664: 2608: 2532: 2453: 2000: 1740: 1604: 1513: 1478: 3810: 3779: 3563: 3520: 3515: 3268: 3251: 3235: 2867: 2713: 2654: 2580: 2420: 2376: 2362: 2335: 2277: 2170: 2087: 1881: 1760: 1674: 1637: 1577: 1391: 1323: 1301: 1245: 1164: 944: 908: 3850: 3715: 3644: 3589: 3549: 2916:

for overcategorization. Although I'm sure the cat was made in good faith, I have been working on

1916:(though I suppose we could have a second category: "People who considered themselves avatāra".) 748:, WikiProject Fictional series no longer exists, it was changed to WikiProject Media franchises. 2395:: There are a lot of comments here, and so I will attempt to review and clarify the consensus. 1607:. A list at least gives room for discussing alternate views. Otherwise we would have to make it 3702: 3620: 3359: 2801: 2595:

Articles that qualify for this category are not left up to the editors but must be based upon

2109: 1486: 94: 3849:

All other such categories are "(common name of university) (mascot name) football players".--

2981: 2957: 3656:, it's unnecessary and largely redundant given the presence of other similar categories. -- 3176:

In all cases, change the lower-case "universalist(s)" to the upper case "Universalist(s.)" —

2921: 2772: 2646: 2463: 2243: 1981: 1944: 1920: 1906: 1839: 1822: 1798: 1781: 1710: 1563: 1501: 1424: 1360: 1337: 1273: 1196: 1177: 1148: 1036: 1010:

I think a rename, rather than deletion, would probably be better for fixing that problem. --

774: 753: 2408:

My take on the current consensus is this: As named, this category should go. Therefore the

752:

the above listed children categories. I am not sure why it has taken so long to do this. -

3657: 3376: 3295: 3210: 3181: 2604: 2545: 2528: 2449: 2165:' throughout for consistency. PPS I can't believe that anyone is taking this seriously. -- 2105: 2069:

that magic moment when it emerges as something that has finally something to recommend it.

1996: 1509: 1240:

in the Sanskrit sense. I sort of doubt it. Which makes the category rather subjective. --

3264: 2988: 2933: 2917: 2650: 2623: 2576: 2549: 2523: 2507: 2434:

or shorter variations to Priyanath (who changed he view) and Shruti final words on it.

2416: 2372: 2358: 2294: 2273: 2221: 2166: 2083: 1877: 1756: 1724: 1670: 1633: 1619: 1573: 1534: 1447: 1428: 1420: 1387: 1319: 1297: 1241: 1160: 998: 965: 940: 904: 795: 3871: 3684: 3640: 3585: 3577: 3545: 3544:

and its sub-cats, and hopefully would have rethought his plans for the new category.

3444: 3339: 3323: 3067: 3008: 2947: 2789: 2754: 2627: 2553: 2484: 2371:

PS -- speaking of diminishing returns, this category has shrunk by 30% just today. --

2343: 2251: 2182:

Right now it appears that keeping this category is not viable. The only opinions are

2134: 1653: 1593: 1505: 1456: 1433: 1012: 857: 90: 877:

This category is an argument waiting to happen. It practically invites edit warring.

3698: 3355: 3351: 2741:. Plus, Finland is in Europe, so it only makes sense to use the European spelling. 2436: 2325: 2122: 1961: 1857: 1745: 1482: 1217: 1068: 920: 2194:, and it's split pretty evenly. For the sake of resolving this, I would change my 3317:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.

2785: 2768: 1977: 1940: 1902: 1835: 1777: 1706: 1559: 1192: 1144: 2015:

Come on. There is a very clear consensus that this category as named should go.

3372: 3291: 3203: 3177: 994:. Otherwise, this violates so many policies it's hard to know where to begin. 895: 891: 2603:. This standard is appropriate and will be useful for this category. Thanks. 3580:

guidelines to the effect that any new category created without at least one

2984: 2929: 1373:

It's not my tradition, and it's hard for me to get all the subtleties - but

3756:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories.

3421:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories.

3044:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories.

2844:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories.

2690:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories.

831:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories.

67:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories.

1231:

you may be negating your own argument about the new-age usage of the term

2742: 1269: 2130: 2118: 2101: 1355: 1351: 1091:

of the same list. There are numerous lists of this nature on Knowledge:

2354:"People who have a majority of followers that consider them avatars?" 2126: 2113: 1588: 887: 3611:

and other categories. I believe that the creator intended to rename

2317: 1834:

Well this is an encyclopedia so it's suppose to be pretty accurate.

1776:

Well this is an encyclopedia so it's suppose to be pretty precise.

1416:

Category:People who have been considered avatars by their followers

1265:

Category:People who have been considered avatars by their followers

992:

Category:People who have been considered avatars by their followers

3540:. More than likely, this category's creator would have discovered 3350:

all the nationality subcats that have <10 articles in them per

3100:, see also other subcategories.) Also the following subcategories: 2980:

and down the line. There are 137,000 schools in the United States

2320: 2125:, who is considered by some of his followers to be an avatar of 3064:

rename those with more than 10 articles, upmerge the remainder

2153:: based on this discussion, and on the cateogry definition: 3866:- as stated above, all related subcategories of the parent 2044:-- and persons who considered themselves to be avatar (or 1651:

list will stay, but I do think at least one should stay. --

957:

is an entirely Hindu concept, so even standing on its own,

3258:

and their related categories. If we say a person is just

2290:, or some other more universal category, would be better. 1609:

Category:People considered avatars by '''some''' followers

1474:

Category:People considered considered avatāra by followers

3883:

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

3732:

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

3397:

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

3338:

was closed as keep, the remainder were relisted here. --

3020:

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

2820:

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

2666:

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

807:

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

3828:

The category is within standard naming conventions, see

2246:.) I just removed it, so it is now currently only under 2112:, so the word avatar will be used, just as it is in the 1139:. But it is not customary on Knowledge to make a mirror 3480: 3476: 3468: 3460: 2901: 2897: 2889: 2881: 2339: 1135:

In fact there is a whole cateogry just for such lists:

730: 726: 718: 710: 694: 690: 682: 674: 660: 656: 648: 640: 626: 622: 614: 606: 592: 588: 580: 572: 558: 554: 546: 538: 524: 520: 512: 504: 490: 486: 478: 470: 456: 452: 444: 436: 422: 418: 410: 402: 388: 384: 376: 368: 352: 348: 340: 332: 318: 314: 306: 298: 284: 280: 272: 264: 250: 246: 238: 230: 216: 212: 204: 196: 182: 178: 170: 162: 148: 144: 136: 128: 2767:

for the reasons stated and to match sister categories.

2966:

Category:High Schools and secondary schools by mascot

2643: