Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 2 >

June 1

[edit]

Category:Lutherie

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Lutherie to Category:Luthiers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I think these two are really an overlap. One interesting aspect of this is that not all stringed instruments are made of wood. So if that is an issue, then maybe a rename to a form of disambiguation would be better. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (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:African American metal groups

[edit]
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. (Was already deleted as empty at close.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American metal groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization. See here thisisace (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (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:African American rock groups

[edit]
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. (Was already deleted as empty at close.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American rock groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization. See here thisisace (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (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:Composers for guitar

[edit]
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: rename. Kbdank71 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Composers for guitar to Category:Composers for the classical guitar
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on the introduction, this is not for all composers, but rather a specific subset. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks suspiciously like a Slippery Slope argument. Is there any evidence of any composers actually being placed in a plethora of such categories? (There would be more room for musical categories, eg the guitar one, for Michael Tippett if he were in fewer LGBT ones.) Occuli (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to better match description of category contents and to more effectively match the title of the corresponding List of composers for the classical guitar to allow the category and list to be developed synergistically and to allow readers to navigate more effectively based on title. There is no evidence that the much-dreaded slippery slope has any relevance here, nor that it should have any weight anywhere. Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has already been noted, one composer is already in four such categories. There is no reason to believe that he will not be placed in other similar categories, those that already exist and those that will likely be created should this categorization scheme continue. The idea that we can't think ahead to determine the possible (and, given the manner in which categories proliferate, probable) consequence of keeping a category because it's a "slippery slope" is nonsensical. As for evidence, there's no evidence that my argument is a "slippery slope" at all. Otto4711 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (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:Classical guitar

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Classical guitar to Category:Classical guitars
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Plural as is the norm. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (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:Ergo Proxy

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ergo Proxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category that contains only three articles and a navbox. The media article needs to be merged with the others, and the navbox is at TfD. ···「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk to Dinoguy1000 21:43, 1 June 2009 (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:Platense managers

[edit]
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: rename. Kbdank71 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Platense managers to Category:Club Atlético Platense managers
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Club Atlético Platense, and see related discussions. BencherliteTalk 21:43, 1 June 2009 (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:Platense

[edit]
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: rename. Kbdank71 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Platense to Category:Club Atlético Platense
Nominator's rationale: to match main article, which is Club Atlético Platense; see related discussion below. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support King of the North East 21:42, 1 June 2009 (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:Club Atlético Platense players

[edit]
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: merge both to Category:Club Atlético Platense footballers. Kbdank71 13:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Club Atlético Platense players to Category:Platense footballers
Nominator's rationale: At best the category pointlessly duplicates the pre-existing category, at worst it looks like some kind of hoax as the title claims that Club Atlético Platense are based in the Faroe Islands? King of the North East 21:25, 1 June 2009 (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.

Film acting awards

[edit]
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: rename. Kbdank71 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale:Rename per successful CfR of Category:Film awards for lead actor. There was a consensus that the use of the superlative "best" should be avoided -- since not all awards are for "best" in category -- as well as a need to respect WP:NCCAT guidelines for capitalization.
-- Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (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:Quebec cinema

[edit]
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: rename.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quebec cinema to Category:Cinema of Quebec
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unlike the nomination below, this is a place, and it has cinemas (plural) in this location, so it should be named in the same manner as other places. Its main article is Cinema of Quebec.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2009 (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.

cinema to film

[edit]
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: rename all--Aervanath (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent of "films" is "film".
Note that there are a growing number of category pairings, where the singular category (of related topics) and plural category (of its instances) both exist (for example, Category:Opera and Category:Operas). When categorizing articles, be careful to choose the correct variant.
  • Looking up the history for "Cinema" versus "Film" discussions, here's the gist of the prevailing argument (back in 2005-2006):
"Cinema" is the umbrella for "Cinemas", and "Film" is the umbrella for "Films".
  • Thus, "Cinema of ..." encompasses the film companies, and the theaters where they are shown, and the various conglomerates that traditionally own(ed) them both.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide the link to that discussion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I think. These categories—especially the African American one—cover more than just films, therefore "cinema" would seem to be more correct. PC78 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't think I can vote support or oppose on all the cats, since it's becoming clear that African American cinema does meet the "Cinema of ..." criteria William has cited above. Would you consider withdrawing that one? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, for a moment I was thinking: We lived without these categories for 8 years, they are new, and they are turning out to be hard to define; regular editors will have problems with them, we don't really need them, delete them. But then I remembered that only one person created both the categories and the African American outliers without researching the precedent. So, maybe it's fixable, and they can be defined in a clear and consistent manner. See my update above.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Many of the oppose votes would make sense if the nomination was to "Foo films" (plural). Yes, these contain more than just films, so "Foo films" is a bad rename. But "Foo film" (singular) is just fine. Film not only refers to the strip of material that is used for reproduction of images and sound, and to motion pictures, but the motion-picture industry as a whole. And as the nomination clearly states, there is a difference between "Cat:Opera" and "Cat:Operas". Same with "Cat:Film" and "Cat:Films". And that is also why the cfr of Cat:Cinema to Cat:Film makes sense. --Kbdank71 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. As the creator of many or all of these cats, I failed to fully understand the film/cinema usage in naming. And upon consideration, as William states here, adhering to some formula whereby an ethnic film cat moves up a notch to "cinema" if the category contains organizations, cinemas or the like is just going to cause confusion for editors. If we stick with cinema for geographic categories, then at least we have a clear policy, arbitrary as the split is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2009 (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:Khövsgöl

[edit]
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: rename.--Aervanath (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Khövsgöl to Category:Khövsgöl Province
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, and to eliminate ambiguity (all the names of Mongolian aimags also have other meanings). --Latebird (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (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:A380 ready Airports

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:A380 ready Airports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Silly category adds no value to airport article or to wikipedia. Involves a level of original research. No other aircraft type ready airport categories have been needed before. MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It shows the worlds largest, most modern airports. Wispanow (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that is a case for WP:OR and WP:POV issues. Just because an airport does not choose to support a particular aircraft does not mean that it is not among the largest or the most modern. At least one of the 20 busiest airports has made a decision to not support this aircraft. At the same time the airport has added new terminal space, totally replaced a concrete runway and is adding a new terminal building. So how can you say that the decision to not support one aircraft defines this airport as not among the largest or most modern? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its better than a list. And there is currently no list of the worlds largest airports. This could be a start.Wispanow (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are plenty of such lists: World's busiest airports by traffic movements, World's busiest airports by passenger traffic, World's busiest airports by cargo traffic, World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic. There is little, if any, correlation to whether they have proclaimed themselves "A380-ready". Jpatokal (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being A380-ready isn't the only criterion for an airport being called modern. The A380 just happens to be the world's largest commercial airliner at the moment. Making a list like this suggests that it is also valid to make lists for airports that are ready for other aircraft sizes. The A380 just happens to be the biggest at the moment. Elektrik Blue (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The A380 is currently the biggest challenge for airports. Look what the listed airports have done, others (not listed, because currently not able) will invest huge amounts for being A380 capable.
Huge weight, Double decks, extremly large passenger-capacity: This is a current, very important criterion for international airports. Wispanow (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The A380 may be the biggest, physically, but there are way other factors that are a challenge to airports, not just size. Besides, you have to show that huge weight, double decks are indeed very important criteria for international airports, otherwise, that is just a subjective statement. Elektrik Blue (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fundamentally OR, as A380s can use any airport rated for 747s, and being "ready" beyond the bare minimum of runway length is entirely up to the airport to decide. Jpatokal (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats wrong: "as A380s can use any airport rated for 747s". See what the airports in the category have done, and look at Megaproject#Airport_projects too. Wispanow (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2009 (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:Ecology of the British Isles

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ecology of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect use of the word ecology. Depopulate by moving contents to Category:Natural history of the United Kingdom and Category:Environment of the United Kingdom. For more info see Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment and subpages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:12, 1 June 2009 (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:Ecology of Africa

[edit]
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 and repopulate. Kbdank71 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ecology of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty, not likely to be populated and poor use of the word ecology. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:56, 1 June 2009 (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:Ecology of the United States by state

[edit]
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 and repopulate. Kbdank71 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ecology of the United States by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty cat and no chance of being populated. Ecology does not have political boundaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:12, 1 June 2009 (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:History of ideas

[edit]
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.--Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:History of ideas to Category:History of philosophy
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are synonymous. I am trying to generally organize and tighten up categories under philosophy. Philosophy is the academic study of the history of ideas. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep these are not synonyms. the history of ideas is not the history of philosophy, they are different stories and different audiences. --Buridan (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy is an academic discipline, so I would count that as a 'high card.' However, I am very open to clarifying the relationship between these two categories. Perhaps the history of philosophy category can focus on the philosophers and their story, and the ideas category can be a home for ideas which are considered obsolete or arcane --however that runs into clarification issues also. I am looking for good ways to organize ideas, concepts, theories, belief systems, etcetera in general.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well in terms of categories, it seems pretty clear to me that the history of philosophy is a subset of the history of ideas, one set of narratives amongst many sets. I don't think abstract objects are the same as abstract ideas, the latter are likely almost synonymous with concepts, the former are not. In terms of overarching categories such as 'theories' that .... is just likely a category to delete, as it is completely impossible to maintain, i mean if you are a solopsist, this whole thing we call life might be a theory.... and given that most things have theoretical content... given the relationships between language and objects.... well.... i'd say we have to only really allows theories that operate in clear fields (not even disciplines) --Buridan (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After considering the objections I hope my proposal is reconsidered. I cite the following A) Philosophy is the history of ideas. B) If this category was "history of numbers" it would be placed under mathematics, the academic department responsible for such things. I think that the same relationship holds between philosophy and ideas. Philosophy s "responsible" for ideas in the same way. In any case it is, and will continue to cause inconvenience in article categorization.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (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:Criticisms

[edit]
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: no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Criticisms to Category:Criticism
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Substantially the same concept. I am trying to generally tighten up and organize things under philosophy. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; better name needed, but this isn't it. "criticism" is all about criticism in the arts, whereas "criticisms" is all about politics, current affairs etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a historically grown coincidence to me. But even if this were on purpose, it does not seem a distinction that would justify keeping both categories. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it does if they are completely different things. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh John how would one be expected to discern this from the title? If there is a functional difference (other than quantity!), these should be renamed to reflect it. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying: "criticism" is ok, "criticisms should be renamed. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the easier to refine is Category:Criticism, for example to Critical writings, Aesthetic criticism or Arts criticism? But I'm aware that these stray into the terminology where Greg has been striving for exactitudes - Greg, any suggestion for a refined terminology? AllyD (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's the sticking things together that will create the impetus to pull them apart again? That seems like the long way round. Even temporarily, I cannot see Literary criticism and Dental amalgam controversy belonging together. As a typical Glaswegian, I have more than the average amalgam and will admit to reading Paul de Man in the dentist's waiting room, but that's as close as it gets and not enough to categorise these articles together. Better, in my opinion, to tidy the naming of the two categories. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that there is a natural evolution to the placement of articles in categories and the need to create new ones. If we have a chance to see an accumulation of a certain type of article in a category a new category will naturally and inevitably be formed. However, I am not forming any conclusion on that yet, as I would like to see what develops. If you have a vision beyond what I am choosing to focus on, then I would recommend you go ahead and make whatever category changes you see developing under such a new scheme. I however would merely like to get this step out of the way presently. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's mereging completely different trhings, and a big step backwards. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now rather than do nothing Just because it is criticism in differing fields is irrelevant to the fact that they are criticisms. To say they are completely different things really is over the top here Criticisms=>Criticism. Its completely the same, not completely different. We have the ability to use subcategories to further deal with the issues you are jumping ahead to be concerned with. To whatever degree articles do not fit the new scheme is exactly the degree that they do not deserve to be in it. You guys deal with a lot of categories, you should know better about how things evolve.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (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:Jewish bankers

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish bankers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Jewish isn't a nationality. This is a subcategory of Category:Bankers by nationality.
For a truly notable heritage, this should be divided into Category:Jewish-American bankers, etc. But most don't seem to meet the requirements:

The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant in my comment at #Category:Jewish_journalists. I just wasn't sure that this existed in English also. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (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:Jewish journalists

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Jewish isn't a nationality. This is a subcategory of Category:Journalists by nationality.
For a truly notable heritage, this should be divided into Category:Jewish-American journalists, etc. But most don't seem to meet the requirements:

The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rampant speculation. Please show examples.
    • The heritage of all of these that I've examined is not referenced, nor notable.
    • Such as Ted Koppel. The American viewing public has never known that he might be Jewish, based on his (unconfirmed) parental religion.
      1. Not one of the current 9 references contains any permutation of the word "Jew".
      2. There's no confirmation that he self-identifies as Jewish.
      3. We have nothing notable that his unconfirmed Jewishness was essential to his occupation.
      4. Therefore, that should be removed from his article immediately!  Done
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If the category is not appropriate, add {{Category unsourced}} or {{Category relevant?}}, or indeed remove it if you want to be bold. This is not an argument in discussion about the whole category though. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify what you'd like to see examples for. And please remain civil. No need to accuse other editors of "rampant speculation", as you put it. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I would oppose a CfD for Jewish writers -- coming from the hometown of Mordecai Richler may have something to do with it -- because I do believe that in some arts fields a "Jewish" sensibility can be "essential to the occupation," I do agree with William that the claim that "Jewishness of a journalist often has a noticable influence on his (area of) work" is too speculative. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the definition supplied by the nominator is satisfied by the category. Issues with particular entries should be addressed within the specific article in question. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Carlos. I would also add that this category is not nearly as absurd as Category:Jewish fashion designers, Category:Jewish astronauts, and Category:Jewish inventors (which has been deleted and recreated and then deleted and recreated again). Should simply be deleted permanently. These categories are nothing more than play-things for people who use wikipedia as a vehicle by which to satisfy some type of inner fancy for promoting Judaism at a near cult-like status. According to these categorizations, Judaism combines religion, ethnicity, and values in ways that other identities (nationality, race, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist identity) apparently do not. If you're a Christian and an astronaut, nobody cares. You don't get categorized in Category:Christian astronauts. If your great grandmother was black and you're an astronaut, nobody cares either. You don't get categorized into Category:African-American astronauts. But if your grandmother was Jewish, you don't follow the religion yourself, and you're an astronaut, you're automatically categorized into Jewish astronauts. It's a ridiculous system that just makes the encyclopedia look bogged down by identity promoters instead of editors. Bulldog123 05:56, 5 June 2009 (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:Jewish physicians

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish physicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the only other religious subcategory of Category:Physicians than Category:Christian medical missionaries. Pretty sure these aren't missionaries.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:African American physicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • recently recreated 2009-03-13 03:08:52 by Alansohn;
    • has been 3 times deleted in the past 2.5 years;
    • should be deleted again today.
    • Thank you for bringing it to everybody's attention!
  2. Jewish American physicians was also deleted in the same discussion:
  3. The only policy change was reducing should to may, and took place over many discussions here. The language is based on the language used during discussion over a period of 2 years, and the discussion links (and companion guidelines) are documented on the Talk page.
  4. Agreed that most recent (May) posts at the Talk page have been my notices of important relevant discussions, where there is plenty of participation.
That's how policy is maintained, and it's a long and arduous process ... updating policy seems a little too difficult! But I suppose that's as it should be, for the sake of stability.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (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:Jewish philologists

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish philologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Jewish isn't a language. There are Hebrew philologists.
Also, Jewish isn't a nationality, either. This is a subcategory of Category:Philologists by nationality.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2009 (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:Orange foods

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orange foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorization of food by colour doesn't strike me as a particular useful new structure (non-defining characteristic, perhaps) even if everyone can agree on what colour each food is. BencherliteTalk 00:34, 1 June 2009 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1&oldid=1219406578"