Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 28

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 to rename to a particular scheme. In this discussion, people want some sort of change, but there is no agreement as to what. It is unclear that this level of specificity is needed, but if it is desired, then a previous discussion clearly preferred the extant form, and specifically did not endorse the nominated format. There is also no consensus to use two forms of the word "Jew" in each category name. A separate nomination can be started on the Persian/Iranian issue if the nominator desires.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:American people of Moroccan-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Moroccan descent
• Rename Category:American people of Algerian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Algerian descent
• Rename Category:American people of Egyptian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Egyptian descent
• Nominators rationale 1-All the entries in these three cats are Jews. The heading of Category:American people of Jewish descent says "Note: Listed are citizens of the United States with Jewish ancestry for whom reliable sources have not been found indicating self-identification as being Jewish (observant or nonobservant). For Americans who are Jews (observant or nonobservant) see Category:American Jews and the other subcategories listed below." which would suggest Y people of X Jewish descent should not be applied to Jews. 2- This would put these cats in line with their parent cat, Category:American Jews of North African descentJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename respectively to Category:American Jews of Moroccan-Jewish descent; Category:American Jews of Algerian-Jewish descent; and Category:American Jews of Egypian-Jewish descent. See discussion below.Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move two articles to appropriate cats in Category:American people of Tunisian-Jewish descent
• Nominators rationale The cat contains one non-Jew whose mother was a Jew from Tunisia (former US senator George Allen) and one guy with two Jewish parents who may be a Jew (Nick Valensi), one of whom came from Tunisia. It does not work as a subcat of Category:American Jews of North African descent, because Allen is not a Jew. We can put Valensi directly in that cat, put them both in Category:American people of Tunisian descent, and be not create any problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion - Rename instead, per other categories listed. By almost every criteria (see Who is a Jew?) George Allen would be considered Jewish. Accordingly, this category should not be deleted and should be renamed to a name similar to that ultimately agreed for all categories in this series. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allen is Presbyterian. Those who have adopted Christianity are denied the right to come to Israel under the law of return. It is also unclear that Allen ever was a practicing Jew or that he identified as a Jew. There is some debate whether those who convert to another religion remain Jews (although Christians are considered to be not Jews by some who would accept Buddhists as Jews. However it is unclear whether Allen's mother was still a practicioner of Judaism at the time of his birth, so it is even less clear he would be described as a Jew by others, and the current standard is we need evidence that the person himself self-described as a Jew, which we do not have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I note your comments. However, if this category is ultimately emptied on the basis that those currently listed do not qualify, then it is quite simple for the category to be speedily deleted as empty. However, if the category is not empty, it should be renamed in similar manner to the other categories in this series. I do not believe that this is the place for the discussion as to whether people qualify to be listed in the category. Davshul (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename to Category:American Jews of Tunisian-Jewish descent. See discussion below.Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Iraqi-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Iraqi descent
• Nominators rationale Every article in this cat is about someone who is Jewish. This will bring it into conformity with its parent cat Category:American Jews of Middle Eastern descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Iraqi-Jewish descent. See discussion below.Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American People of Ottoman-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Ottoman descent, also make it a sub-cat of Category:American Jews by national origin, not the Middle East sub-cat of that cat not the Balkans sub-cat of that cat.
• Nominators rationale Every article in this cat is about a Jew. Beyond this the two articles currently in this cat are both on people born in Thesalonika, which was under Ottoman control when they were born their, and in the case of one of them when he first moved out (both went elsewhere in Europe before eventually coming to the US). there were however also Jews in the parts of the Ottoman Empire that were clearly in Asia and Africa, so we can not make this a sub-cat of the Balkans cat, because it is unreasonable to assume it will always be limited to just those whose families originated in the Balkans. Actually while exploring this tree I found Marc D. Angel, who with a birth in the US in 1945 and with his ancestors being Sephardim from "Turkey and Rhodes", there is no clear indication he had ancestos in Turkey after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, so it seems he would fit better in this category, and make it best to not try to give it s supr-national alignment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Ottoman-Jewish descent. See discussion below. This category appears both under the Balkans and Middle East, which apperas logical. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Turkish-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Turkish descent
• Nominators rationale All the people in this cat are Jews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Turkey-Jewish descent. See discussion below Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Greek-Jewish descent to Category;American Jews of Greek descent
• Nominator's rational All the people in this cat are Jews. Will put it inline with parent cat Category:American Jews of Balkan descentJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Greek-Jewish descent. See discussion below Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Mexican descent
• Nominators rational All the contents of this category are Jews. Will also put it in line with its parent cat Category:American Jews of Latin American descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Mexican-Jewish descent. See the discussion below. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of British-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of British descent.
• Nominators rationale. All the articles in this category are about Jews. This will also make it conform to its parent cat Category:American Jews of European descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of British-Jewish descent. See the discussion below. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Slovak-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Slovak descent
• Nominators rationale All of the articles are on Jews. This will make it in line with its parent cat Category:American Jews of Slavic European descent. That cat has its own issues, which would lead to in some cases making this a direct cat of Category:American Jews of European descent, which would still lead to renaming this cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Slovak-Jewish descent. See the discussion below. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Czech-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Czech descent
• Nominators rationale. Every entry in this category is on a Jew. It also will make it inline with its parent cat Category:American Jews of Slavic European descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Czech-Jewish descent. See the discussion below. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Italian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Italian descent
• Nominators rationale. All entries in this category are Jews. Article will then match parent cat Category:American Jews of Latin European descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Italian-Jewish descent. See the discussion below. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American people of Swiss-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Swiss decent
• Nominators rationale. All people in this cat are Jews. It will put it in line with its parent cat Category:American Jews of European descent
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Swiss-Jewish descent. See the discussion below. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename' Category:American people of Persian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Iranian descent
• Nominators rationale 1-All the entries in this cat are Jews. 2- It will become in line with its parent cat, Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent. 3-We use the currently accepted name of the country, thus it will become in line with the cat Czech cat, where we use the current term Czech, not the historic term Bohemian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Persian-Jewish descent. See the discussion below. The ethnicity is Persian-Jewish. Jews whose origings are in Iran are generally referred to as Persian Jews Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wanted to nominate this whole cat at one goal, but I figured there needed to be inspection of and study of the use of each cat. As can be seen this is not a nomination for the same move to each cat, but studied application of cat specific issues. I will nominate the remaining cats as i see how best to treat them. A few may not really be justifiable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename as suggested to Category:Americans Jews of Iranian origin etc. instead 'Descent' suggests more ancestry, but what is intended is, basically, 'country of origin'. As a second choice, I support the nominator's suggested renames. (see my comments further below) Mayumashu (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really would not mind replacing "descent" with "origin". However the intent of these categories is to include Jews born in the US whose grandparents or such came from the country in question, as well as those American Jews born in these questions. It is also the general formation of various things. This would also leave them easily with their parent cats like Category:American people of Czech descent. I think if we want to change from "descent" to "origin" we should switch all the cats. However the point here is that we are including people born in the US who have ancestors from the countries in question, not just Jews who immigrated to the US from these countries. Even in cats where all the people currently are immigrants there is no reason to permanently limit it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, too, that 'origin' may imply having come directly from the previous place, and not by way of ancestors. So, in the end here, I support the nominated renamed. I think ultimately, if WP keeps its ancestry cats (and personally I think they are not maintainable as there are next to no reliable sources available), then it should be Category:American people of Zambian origin or descent etc. to more clearly cover both types of people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs)

• Need to centralize discussion There are currently at least four different discussions taking place regarding categories in this series. All discussion should be centralized. The other discussions are:

A Cfd commenced on July 26 to rename Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent

A Cfd commenced on July 29 to rename Category:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent

A Cfd commenced on July 29 to rename Category:American people of French-Jewish descent

As well as the general discussion below regarding the parent category Category:American people of Jewish descent

I propose all discussion on these categories takes place on this page, the discussion on the first three categories listed above being remove to this discussion and that no decision be made to make any changes as a result of the general discussion below, without taking into account this discussion, and vice versa. (We have already seen here, the deletion of one of the parent categories in this category tree - Category:People of Jewish descent - without consideration of its affect on the rest of the tree). Davshul (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all categories to "American Jews of Fooian-Jewish descent". Nearly all the categories listed above, as well as the three categories (Polish; Canadian; and French) that are currently the subject of separate Cfd's, were among over 20 categories in the same series that were nominated for renaming on 18 November 2010, the result of which was to rename them to their present names and to reject the names currently being proposed above by the nominator (which were suggested at the time as alternatives). The previous names of these categories were "Category:Fooian American Jews", so it is clear that the categories are intended to include/comprise Jews. In the earlier discussion, the fact that the people concerned were not simply of "Fooian" descent, but were of "Fooian-Jewish" descent was an important consideration. In light of various issues that have been raised regarding the current name, including some of the issues discused below in the discussion on Category:American people of Jewish descent, I am in favor of renaming the categories to an unambiguous name. Accordingly, I am proposing that all categories in the series are renamed on the basis of "American Jews of Fooian-Jewish descent". This takes into account the views expressed in the earlier discussion, and neverthelesss makes it clear that the categories comprise Jews. all categoriies will be subcategories of (among others) a new parent/container category Category: American Jews by national-Jewish descent. This could also be a subcategory of Category: American people of Jewish descent, the introduction making it clear that such category (apart from the new container subcategory and its subcategories) are for those American people with Jewish ancestry who not generally considered to be Jewish. To summarize, I propose the following regarding categories nominated above:
  • Rename Category:American people of Moroccan-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Moroccan-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Algerian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Algerian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Egyptian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Egyptian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Tunisian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Tunisian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Iraqi-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Iraqi-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Ottoman-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Ottoman-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Turkish-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Turkish-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Greek-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Greek-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Mexican-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of British-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of British-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Slovak-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Slovak-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Italian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Italian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Swiss-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Swiss-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Persian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Persian-Jewish descent

In addition, I propose the following regarding the three categories in this series nominated by the nominator in Cfr's on other pages:

• • Rename Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Polish-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Canadian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of French-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of French-Jewish descent

I am unclear as to why the nominator selected just the above categories for renaming, there are at least another 13 in the series that have not been nominated, and which I accordingly nominate below:

• • Rename Category:American people of Austrian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Austrian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Belarusian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Cuban-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Cuban-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Dutch-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Dutch-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of German-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of German-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Hungarian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Latvian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Latvian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Lithuanian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Lithuanian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Pakistani-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Pakistani-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Russian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Spanish-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Spanish-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Syrian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Syrian-Jewish descent
  • Rename Category:American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Ukrainian-Jewish descent

I will be adding the appropriate tags to the above categories, drawing attention to this discussion. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that we need to centralize discussion. I'm opposed to the the use of the phrase "…of Jewish descent", and I'm opposed to the use of hyphenation between the name of a country and the word Jewish. Category names should be extremely clear, and the clearest of rules for naming Categories should be applied uniformly across all Categories. The same criteria for inclusion should apply if a Category has one member or one-hundred members. Boilerplate should spell out the significance of Categories for both readers and editors alike. Care should be taken to assign the same significance to like terms appearing in different Category names. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I too agree that we need to centralize discussion of these with the list of nominated categories presented cleanly. As it stands, these nomination are a little bit too chaotic and spread-out for users to make sense of without major effort. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to centralize and in an attempt to clean up the nominations, I have added above the discussion on the other Cfr's of categories in this series and summarized my own proposals on all the categories in the series. Davshul (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Cuban and Pakistani cats are currently empty. The Pakistani cat is empty because the only person who was in it not only is not a Jew but a Muslim (or at least her mother who is of Jewish descent is Muslim), but her last Jewish ancestor lived in India before the creation of Pakistan. Her mother moved from India to Pakistan specifically because she was a Muslim. The Cuban category is empty on the theory that these cats should be reserved for people who are actually Jews.
  • Comment. The status regarding these categories is not stable. One day they are populated and the next day empty. However, if these categories remain empty (or again become empty), then it is quite simple to speedily deleted them as empty. However, if either of the category do not remain empty, such category should be renamed in similar manner to the other categories in this series. If, in the meantime, they have been deleted as empty, they will appear in red and obviously not be renamed. (Several other categories in this series were recently deleted, including two at my instigation, as they were empty.) I do not believe that this is the place to discuss whether or not people qualify to be listed in the categories. Davshul (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see multiple problems with the dual Jew in the name. 1-There is a strong precdent for modifying American directly and then putting "of X descent". Thus we have Category:American musicians of Mexican descent and thus Category:American Jews of Mexican descent works as a close correlary. I know some people will point out being a Jew is very different than being a musician, but I think the general form works. 2- The dash wars I think have shown that where possible we should avoid using dashes. 3- arguably the biggest reason why I think we should avoid the double Jew form is we are classifying American Jews by their ethnic/ancestral origin. I am not convinced that we need to limit this to where their Jewish ancestors lived. As it is the vast majority of Jews have only known Jewish ancestors. We could make this even more the case by deciding not to include converts to Judaism in these categories. So I think all of these categorize should be renamed to Category:American Jews of French descent and so forth. Any people in any of these categories who are not actually Jews (observant of Judaism or not, basically they would just need to self-identify as Jews, we would accept non-religious Jews and people who identify as Jews while practicing other religions) should be removed from the categories. Another problem with the Jews of x-Jewish descent form is it would move from us having to 1- determine that the people had ancestors in a given place and 2- that the person is in some way a Jew to a third question "did any of their ancestors living in x place identify as being Jews while living in that place". That would just be an added amount of ancestral data that we do not currently have. I do think we should not use nationality identifiers anachronistically, which is why the Slovak category is so small, because before 1918 Slovakia was not at all an identifier of place. Czech Jews can be used before that date though because Czech is a full synonnym of Bohemian, and the area was clearly Bohemia before 1918. I would say since we have Ottoman and Turkish Jews cats, we should only use Turkish for those who had ancestors living in modern Turkey after 1922. Greek should be limited to those who had ancestors who lived in the Nation-state of Greece, so if they left Salonika in 1909 they do not count, thus Maurice Abravanel does not count as a Greek Jew. Pakistani should not be used for people unless they had Jewish ancestors living in the country after it was created in 1947, and Israeli should not be applied to people who were born in the US in 1947 to parents who had moved to the US from what is today Israel. All these rules apply whether we use Jew one or two times in the cat names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. (1) This is the fourth occasion in less than 15 months that these categories were the subject of discussions regarding renaming. On each of the three previous occasions, here, here and here, there was a proposal to rename per your proposal, which was not agreed. I believe it is unreasonable that every few months the same failed proposals are raised. It was pointed out in the previous dicsussions that there there is a significant difference between, say, Lithuanian descent and Lithuanian-Jewish descent, and I reiterate all the points made in the previous discussions. However, I note the point made by you that elsewhere categories "of Jewish descent" or "of Fooian-Jewish descent" would normally refer to those not generally considered as "Jewish", and although personally I would have had no problem with leaving the categories unchanged, in response to your comment, I put forward above the proposal to substitute the words "American Jews" for "American people" which will enable a parent category, "People..." and "American People..." solely to list non-Jews, and anyone clearly identified as a Jew, would be in listed in the subcategory, "American Jews of....". (I would also point out that the new categories will also enable one to reduce the number of entries in the Category:American Jews (currently with over 3,800 listed articles), as at present a large number of the articles listed in the categories under discussion are also listed in the "American Jews" category, as the present name can also include non-Jews which will not be the case with the name.)

(2) I have no particular view as to whether or not to include a dash, and am quite willing to amend my counter-proposal to exclude the dash, subject to Mayumashu's view, who has recently endorsed my proposals.

(3) As to the third issue raised by you, this is largely covered by the earlier discussions. In so far as your comments as to whom to include in the specific categories, and the extent to which the designations should be limited to the current national entity, the wider geographical area or the historic nation state, etc., I believe that this is best dealt with by discussion following a general decision on the category names. Davshul (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on "Persian" verses "Iranian". We use the accepted modern identifiers for the countries, except where we use an excepted past identifier for a past country. Thus we call them "American people of Czech-Jewish descent" even though the vast majority of them or their ancestors left the modern Czech Republic when it was still known as Boehmia. Also, these are not the same as categories like "Ashkenazi Jews" or "Romiot Jews". We are not identifying these Jews by their Jewish ethnicity but by the nation of origin of their ancestors (in some cases it is also the country where they were born, but that is not the issue). The goal here is to identify the nation where there Jewsish ancestors came from, not to identify the sub-Jewish ancestry they are part of. Thus we should use Iranian instead of Persian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial triple intersection (see my comment on the Polish-Jewish categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support User:Davshul's suggested renames, all. The "built-in redundancy" of sorts, of 'Jews of Fooian-Jewish descent', provides the best clarity of all suggestions made thus far, for this tricky rename. (I've struck out my previous "votes" above.) Mayumashu (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayumashu, what is your view regarding dropping the dash from the new category names proposed by me? John Pack Lambert raised the issue above and I responded that I had no objection, subject to your view, as you had already endorsed the new names proposed by me. Cheers. Davshul (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really do not see the need for using Jewish twice, but I would prefer to go to that than to leave this at the status quo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there has been a comment posted on the Canadian-Jewish cat discussion since the positing of that discussions content to this cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per Carlos Suarez on Polish-Jewish cats. The Cats I nominated here and the ones I nominated seperately later on have all been reviewed and with the exception of the Tunisian-American Jews cat pruned to people who meet the requirements for classifying as Jews. I did have to remove several articles where the article made no claim that the person was a Jew, and I would guess the Polish, Austrian, German, Russian and other cats I did not review, being even larger than the ones I did review, would probably have this problem even more so. However this is a case of miscategorization. The fact that people apply a category where it does not belong does not mean we should not have the category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. The nominator is advised to start a general discussion about categories for duos members. Ruslik_Zero 12:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Simon & Garfunkel members to Category:Simon & Garfunkel
• Nominator's rationale There were only two members of this group, so it does not seem neccesary for there to be a seperate category for its members. We might at some point have Category:Simon & Garfunkel people, to cover other people who worked with the group as recording engineers, producers, tour schedulers, etc., if we get enough such people who are notable to have an articles to make this category worth while, but with the two group members clearly connected with the group in its name, I do not see a need for the category as it now is. I know this is sort of what was nominated a little bit ago, but this uses the actual form of the name in the cat (whether we should have the ampersand, I as opposed to writing out "and", I do not know). It also links to the cat, and I have posted a notice of CfD on the cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment [I wonder whether it really is necessary to have category "Simon and Garfunkel members" as it seems obvious that Art Garfunkel and Paul Simon were the only members of this duo. If a band has as four members, such as the Beatles, I could understand why we would have a category for its members, but I wonder about the necessity of this category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is this a delete nomination? I'm not sure.... I think it should be deleted anyway because uh, yeah.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. (Note: There were two discussions on this category - I merged the two above comments into this one with this edit.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:31, 26 Tamuz 5771 / 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Do not merge. Duos don't get a members category. Occuli (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More likely spam. There is a variety of people who are noticable to have been edited in an article, while this is clearly superfluous for being a category.--Corusant (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as creator. There are many categories for duos, such as Category:Dos members, Category:Goldfrapp members, and Category:Erasure members. Just because it is obvious who is in a category doesn't mean the category is not valid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be of limited usage in isolation, but it is part of an overall scheme which would otherwise be incomplete if not included. This is similar to having an album category for bands that produced only one album, or a book category for authors who wrote only one. Good Olfactory 02:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Emerson and Gerardw (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I hear that quote one more time in a CFD, I'm going to start thinking that those who repeatedly quote it can't see the self-inflicted irony of doing so .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No useful purpose for this two-member category. When I saw this CfD, my first assumption was that the category had been created as a joke. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost worth daftifying. And what's with the weird "see also" links? Grutness...wha? 10:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added by the nominator, presumably in error. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess that is what I get for copying CfD notice templates without paying close attention. I removed the accidental see also links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in accordance with other subcategories of Category:Musicians by band, eg Category:Brooks & Dunn members. Some people might not know the first names of the pair. Cjc13 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete Undecided. It is obvious they are a duo.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 12:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep As part of an established scheme, both of Category:Musicians by band and Category:ARTIST category (in this case, Category:Simon & Garfunkel.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep due to 'do not rename' result on above categories. This category is needed as a container for the ones retained above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American people of Jewish descent
• Nominators rationale. There are two issues here. One is why the sub-cats of this category are here and not at Category:American Jews by national origin. However some of the subcats belong here, some would seem to belong there, and some are split between the two, the latter may include Category:American people of Tunisian-Jewish descent, one of whose contents clearly would be in this category, that is George Allen, while the other probably actually qualifies as a Jew. However I think we need to first focus on the definition of this cat. The cat header says "Note: Listed are citizens of the United States with Jewish ancestry for whom reliable sources have not been found indicating self-identification as being Jewish (observant or nonobservant). For Americans who are Jews (observant or nonobservant) see Category:American Jews and the other subcategories listed below." There are a few questions. 1-Is being a citizen of the US neccesary to be an "American". There are three sets of people who might be one and not the other. One is people born before the 14th admendment who were not granted citizenship although they lived their entire lives in the US, is Nat Turner an American or not? 2- People who died before the United States became an indepndent country. Is Crispus Attucks an American? What about John Barnard (clergyman)? The later is in categories such as Category:American Congregationalist clergy, although he died in 1770 (I found him by doing the 1770 death cat search), but he was chaplain of what appears to have been a Massachusetts military regiment. It seems we have concluded we can apply the term American to people who died before 1776 (and even that is to probably too early to speak of people having citizenship in the United States). 3- While some may argue the first two sets are not likely to affect this category, the third one certainly will. There are people who immigrate to the US significantly before they gain any notability at anything, and thus practice their entire career in the US, and are thus described as say "American geologists" or "American accountants", but they never formally get US citizenship. Do we really think an author who wrote books in English set in the US and is always descibed as an American author, but was born in Poland and came to the US at age 4 but never actually got citizenship, should be excluded from this category because he did not have citizenship? 3a- There are also several people who are essentially like the above, but who we really do not know if they have citizenship or not, we can tell they were born in Australia, Estonia, Germany or wherever, came to the US at age 10, and lived in the US until they died at age 80, going to an American public high school, one or more American universities and so forth, but the article does not state they were a citizen. Does it really make sense to not call them Ameircan just because we do not know what their citizenship was?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment continuing main discussion, split so we do not have long and unconnected paragraph overload There is another issue that to me is even bigger than citizenship. It is that second part "with Jewish ancestry for whom reliable sources have not been found indicating self-identification as being Jewish (observant or nonobservant)". It is proably self-evident that a blog by the subject would be a reliable source they self-identify as being a Jew (verifiability is what we are talking about here, not notability. Notability applies to whether we have an article or not, verifiablitiy is the threshold for what we put in the article). The problem is that this is just functioning as "someone says this person has an ancestor who was a Jew, but nothing proves that they self-identified as being Jewish at all". The problem is that the current wording emphasiszes that we should exclude people who are veriafiably Jews. It ignores the fact that there needs to be some minimum verifiable connection to having a Jewish ancestor. At a minimum people should not be put in this cat if there is no statement in the article that they had a Jewish ancestor, and a statement should not be in the aritcle unless it is actrually sourced. Betyond this, categorizations should be uncontroversial. If a person adamantly denies having Jewish ancestors, I really do not think we should put them in this cat. I think we need to reword this so that we say something like "Note:Listed are American people with Jewish ancestry. This means that there is both veriafiable information (that should be included in the text of the article) that they had Jewish ancestry and also no reliable sources that indicate that they self-identified as being Jewish observant or nonobservant). For the purposes of their self-identification as a Jew there is no need for the source to be 3rd-party, if they wrote an autobiogrpahy or issued a press-relaese in which they said they were a Jew/Jewish (which is different than saying they had Jewish ancestors or descibing a specific ancestor as being Jewish) than this would qualify as a reliable source they self-identified as a Jew (it would not neccesarily be a reliable source for other claims). For Americans who are Jews (observant or nonobservant) see Category:American Jews".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just noticed the "and other sub-categories listed below", is that saying that the categories of Category:American Jews are also a place to look, or is it saying that the sub-cats of this category can contain things that would not qualify as fitting the parameters of the parent cat? If it is the later, than we should clearly delete the line, if it is the former, we should remove it because it is unneccesary and confusing. A sub-cat of a category should be something that fits in the category. Thus we have Category:Harvard University alumni and Category:Harvard Law School alumni as a sub-cat. Those who are alumni of Harvard Law School are also alumni of its parent institution Harvard University, so if we decided having the law school alumni cat did not make sense we could move all the people to the parent cat. That is how sub-cats works, so it makes no sense to have that last part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – what does the nominator recommend? (Usually a cfd nom is a brief proposal, leading in some cases to reams of responses. Here we seem to have a ream of observations but no proposal, unless I have missed it.) Occuli (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not useful. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment i thought it was clear that I recomended we change the text of the header. This may not be a normal CfD nom, but the cat discussion pages say they are rarely looked at, and I wanted to open this up for people who might be able to give insights to the issues discussed. So I made this proposal to change the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (in answer to contributors who "vote" here assuming it is a nomination - as long as WP has categories for ancestry, such as Category:American people of Italian descent etc. There are Americans with Jewish ancestry (typically partial) who are neither practising Jewish faith nor who self-identify as being secular Jewish.) As for this "nomination", the points raised belong on the talk page for this category, not here. However in reply, all categories under Category:American people by ethnic or national origin include a header saying that listed are U.S. citizens, as the term 'American' can refer to someone of the Americas, and that is clearly not the intended purpose. True though, this unintentionally leaves out "colonial Americans" (of the 13 colonies), and the header should be edited accordingly. As for expats in or immigrants to the U.S. who work in a field in the U.S. and are listed under, say, 'American musicians', that is not a shortcoming of this particular category page, but a WP-wide matter that does not to be cleared up. (As it stands) Category:American musicians, for example, is a sub-category of Category:Musicians by nationality, meaning citizenship. If that is the case, then expat musicians who work in the U.S. are still not, for WP catting purposes at present, considered 'American musicians'. Perhaps we should have a dual-purpose set of occupation cats, to allow for 'American musician' to mean both musicians active in the music in the U.S. and also any American who is a musician anywhere in the world (both country and citizenship combined, with a header to say so). Then the supracategory should be Category:Musicians by country instead. Alternatively we could maintain two separate cat. trees - Category:Musicians by country of citizenship with the subcat Category:Musicians with American citizenship and Category:Musicians by country where active with the subcat Category:Musicians active in the United States. Mayumashu (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The possibly too broad interpretation of American is why I specifically had the proposed new heading link to "American people". That article makes it clear it is about "citizens or residents of the US". There are some US citizens who never lived in the US (children of US military personnel born overseas, at least where their parents are married or it is the mother who is in the military, come to mind quickly, and though I am not sure any of these are notable they are worth considering, also just because someone is working on an oil drilling project in the UAE does not mean they have stopped being an American). I still think that the main issue though we need to not tie emigration to gaining citizenship, but accept that an expatriate is somone who still actively identifies with their homeland. The question is not simple nationality, especially since often there are not clear statements of nationality. Frank Oz was up until yesterday classed as a naturalized citizen of the US with the admission that this was presumed. I do not think it is realistic to say we have to be able to cite his naturalization to call him an American actor if he has spent his whole career in the US. On the other hand an academic who spends a good part of their career in the US but retires to their country of birth and never gained US citizenship I would call an expatriate. I think we need to realize that nationality is slightly more complexed than citizenship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that an expat retires to their home country, while someone from away who stays in their adopted country (but who may or may not become naturalized) is an immigrant. And, of course, that some citizens of the U.S. never happen to live in the States. Cases such as Frank Oz are exactly what WP catting needs to sort out, aren't they. Then how about my suggestion for a dual-purpose category, so that American actors are both U.S. citizens who pass WP:Notability for acting (no matter where they ply their trade) and also any actors active the U.S., in U.S. produced film, theatre or TV, etc.; and have this stated in the header? Then make the parent cat 'by country' and not 'by nationality' Mayumashu (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of this would end up being medium sensitive. With sports people since we cat them by the team they were with, there is no reason to change the nature of the way we categorize them by country. With actors you have the issue that you can have actors acting in American produced films who are not neccesarily American by citizenship, some of whom after retirement return to their home country. Should we call these American actors or not. Or should we create a second cat of actors by national affiliation of films they acted in. Of course then there is the question, do we then call all the actors who played in "Lord of the Rings" New Zealand actors in some sense, of was that film made in New Zealand but funded in a way that it is not truly a New Zealand film. Some of this is sorted out in the case of Bollywood Actors who are not Indians, by their being a Category:Actors in Bollywood films or something along those lines (at least I think there is). Maybe we could do the same for Hollywood films and create a category ;Category:Actors in Hollywood films. This of course assumes that there is a clear yes or no answer for a film being a "Hollywood Film" which I am not sure there is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although Jewish law may indicate that someone descended from a Jewish mother remains (religiously) Jewish - there is no objective reason for treating Jews different than Roman Catholics, and we don't have and never would accept Category:American people of Roman Catholic descent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think there is any more reason to have a Category of individuals "…of Jewish descent" than there is to have a Category of individuals "…of Christian descent".

Religious descent should not, in my opinion, constitute a criteria for categorization. Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Jewishness is an ethnicity in addition to being a religion. It is reagularly said of people that they had a "Jewish father and an Italian mother" and the person who says this feels they are expressing ethnicity all around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Features on Tethys to Category:Surface features of Tethys

Propose renaming Category:Features on Titan to Category:Surface features of Titan

Propose renaming Category:Features on Enceladus to Category:Surface features of Enceladus

Propose renaming Category:Features on Iapetus to Category:Surface features of Iapetus

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the naming convention for such categories. See Category:Surface feature nomenclature of solar system bodies. Ruslik_Zero 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, consistent with the rest of the tree. (That head category is a mouthful; I'm nominating it today.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Media by event to Category:Media about events

• Category:Events by medium to Category:Media about events

  Category:Media by event and by medium to Category:Media about events

Nominator's rationale: I finally figured out what's driving me batty about User:Stefanomione's Category:Media by event and Category:Events by medium: flipping the "x" of "y" serves no useful purpose. The category can only be for media about foo. Therefore Category:Media by event and Category:Events by medium groups the same thing, separated only by a trivial difference in the wording of the sub-categories -- one that should be addressed by standardizing names here or at WP:CFDS, if needed. I have chosen "about" as the suggested rename based on the parent category Category:Media by topic, in which all the sub-categories not created by Stefanomione use "about", because it is a good clear logical relationship that leaves no room for what I think are pointless semantics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merging Rename Shawn in Montreal's reasoning is absolutely logical.Curb Chain (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for your support on this. I've withdrawn the upmerge nom for Category:Media by event and by medium and moved it here, as its intended upmerge target, Category:Media by event, is now nominated for renaming. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add one more observation here: the creator has been using "by" for some time when setting up container cats where there are multiple sub-categories for works by topic. It is an alternative to using the sort key within master categories to position such sub-cats together, and maybe it's needed in some cases, where master categories have become large and unwieldy. Maybe. But not here, where this structure makes following the media about events tree unnecessarily difficult. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still Support your noms. (Please don't interpret this as votestacking.)Curb Chain (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 3 August's log page. Courcelles 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily stigmatizes editors with template on page.

My attention was drawn to this category (which I hadn't been aware of) when a new user was very concerned there were unjustly being placed on a "bad" list. (A note was going on their permanent record!) As any editor can place this template on another editor's talk page, justified or not, it isn't meaningful. Reviewing the prior deletion discussion, the primary user of this template appeared to be User:A. B.. I asked them if they were still using the template on 6 June User_talk:A._B.#spam_category but they apparently are not currently active. Gerardw (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete not a useful category. It also may fall under the ban on attack pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete; limit to those with convictions; revisit if necessary. A broader nomination of the whole tree may be needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian murderers of children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a category created specifically for Anders Behring Breivik. While true, unless other articles fit into this category, there is no use for this category, except perhaps to disparage a BLP, which needless to say is not kosher. Cerejota (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed with Crejota. This category seems to be created for Anders Behring Breivik, and seems to be used to disparage him. Note many indiscriminate massacre murderers also kill children, but do not have such an ethnic intersection category.Curb Chain (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless all of Category:Murderers of children by nationality is brought up for review; the vast majority of categories there have three or fewer members.- choster (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the articles in those categories are of convicted murderers. Breivik has not been convicted, even if he has confessed. The difference is not trivial under BLP. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Cerejota (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I noticed a few days ago that Breivik was in Category:Murderers of children, so I thought it useful to subcat him into Norwegian murderers of children. Realising that this subcat did not exist, I created it. There was no intention to disparage anyone. I created another subcat which has at least one biography that fits the criteria of it. I noticed that there are many subcats of Murderers of children by nationality, but not Norwegian. If other biographies fit this subcat, they can be put in it; it is not especially / only for Breivik. There are far more biographies in subcats of Murderers of children that there are in Murderers of children itself. There are 31 subcats of Murderers of children by nationality, most of which contain one, two or three articles. I'm not aware of there being any rule / guideline saying that a cat must contain a minimum number of articles, and if there is, then many of them should be deleted, not just this one. Jim Michael (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Choster. Perfectly valid subcat of the parent. Lugnuts (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Choster. Part of the established scheme Category:Murderers of children by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a cat that is being used in ways out of line with the BLP rules. Also, I would have assumed we would use it for someone who is notable for murdering one or more children, not for someone who is notable because they killed over 70 people of all ages. It takes a long time to nominate entire category trees, so we should consider the merits of this cat and delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this category is to be deleted due to being underpopulated, then so should several other nationality murderers of children cats. Jim Michael (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wont be deleted due to being underpopulated. Lots of categories are setup to be broken down by nationality (or another defining attribute) that only contain one entry. Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The issue of population is generally not a reason to delete categories. My rationale is clear that this is about the BLP issue. As per Carlossuarez46 below, a BLP/NPOV compliant category wouldn't include him at all as he has not been convicted. Which is the point. This category tree generally is only for convicted murderers of children. Just because the majority of us hates this guy, it is not a free license to throw BLP out the door. --Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, it should be renamed Category:Norwegians convicted of murders of children to avoid BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are BLP issues with this cat, then all the nationality of murderers of children cats should have the word convicted added to them, unless we can include dead murderers who were not convicted. Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, without prejudice to a broader nomination. No good reason to cherry pick this one out from the overall scheme. I don't see any concerning BLP issue here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European film actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category states that this is for actors who "worked in a lot of films in Europe". We don't group actors together were they worked. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category sentence, "worked in a lot of films in Europe". The pronounciation is there, although, the language estimation and wording is faltering. I suggest improving the grammar and meliorate(better or satisfy) the title category, or simply "European Actors". Do not hesitate upon using the Sandbox or reading the Manual of Style upon fixing minor errors and paragraph analysis.--Corusant (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete indefinite inclusion criteria. We also don't have such categories for other continents.Curb Chain (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – actors work in many continents (Tony Leblanc is a good read). There are ample nationality cats already such as Category:Spanish film actors, Category:Spanish television actors, Category:Spanish stage actors. Occuli (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we categorize actors by their national identity, not by the location of filming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For this to have any chance of working I think we should say they worked on "European films" in line with say Bollywood films, or Hollywood films. We do have Category:Bollywood playback singers, so at least there is some precedent for specific film-type people by film-industry grouping. However I am not sure that there is a European film industry in the same sense as a Bollywood film industry (as opposed to having a French film industry, and Italian film industry, a German film industry and so forth) and the way this cat is named being in a bunch of films like To Catch a Thief which was an American film made in Europe, would put people in the category, which I do not think is what we want.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only is the category's stated aim vague (how many is "a lot"?), but the category's name is ambiguous: actors in European films, or European actors in films? At first glance I would have expected the latter, with subcategories of film actors by nationality. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theatre activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what this category is supposed to be for. People who used theatre as a vehicle for social change? People who were active in trying to revive a particular theatre scene? Neither of the above with no indication of how the term applies? (Current membership of the category includes all of these.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An activistsactivist at the very least participates in political peaceful demonstration and activity. The entries have organized programs et al., but this is different from activism.Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Uneccessary inclusion criteria. Of course, it is relative to understanding art, although, unneccessary for activism usage or political debate .--Corusant (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A theatre activist, per how we subdivide activist cats, would be someone who is an activist in favor of theatre/a specific type of theatre. It does not seem that this is how this cat is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dangerous Professions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has no defined criteria apart from being composed of "dangerous professional employment operations" and is therefore essentially subjective or arbitrary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category is a newly defined criteria of information, which is shown employments that can be harmful to the community and business.----Corusant (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry prostitution is a completely hazardous/dangerous job, and there is no way to quantify the amount of people, including children, in this profession, let alone where it rates on this "danger" scale. How about drug dealer? That's a dangerous job too. These are actual jobs people do for a living, even if they are undocumented. I think it's ridiculous to try to come up with a category because people will put all kinds of stuff in there like Mobster, Hitman, etc. People get really creative. It's kids mostly.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Now defined as occupations "considered cautionary among communities and business organizations around the world". Quite vague, isn't it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • More or less, possibly not, if the hazards and cautionary procedures of these professions offered substantialamount of evidence of injuries or casualties in every aspect of its workplace.--74.34.87.235 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So how does one quantify "substantial" in a category in which a bright line of inclusion or non-inclusion is the standard? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, if you would have read the recent changes, instead of argumental facts, you will,eventually, find out there is more to renaming the category and keeping the occupations, thus not all occupations are hazardous, of course compared to some which are government-privately owned, or advanced labor training(talk)(talk) 16:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • ? I did read the recent changes. I quoted them above. The issue is how one defines "hazardous"—any definition is either subjective or arbitrarily limiting and thus this is not appropriate for categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. Of course, Hazardous conditions under DEFINITION in an area workplace does not render its decision arbitrary or unreasonable doubt. Enough is concluded for this ARGUMENT. CASE CLOSED. Thank you;).--Corusant (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: you are saying if you provided sources documenting the workplaces that state such a job is dangerous, then it is dangerous? So where are your sources?Curb Chain (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the category is for deletion, it was new, thus it was preparing for references. CASE CLOSED. Furthermore excuses will be deleted, this is only voting a nomination. (:Thank you:)-(Corusant)(talk)14:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore excuses will be deleted". I'd advise that you shouldn't delete anyone else's comments in a public discussion under any circumstances. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, of course, let it cease, seriously.--Corusant (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let what cease? The discussion? That's the purpose of this page. If you want to stop discussion, of course you can, but you shouldn't tell others you will delete their comments if they continue to discuss. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get the attention, of notifying a few wikipedia adiministrators, but no concern now, I am suprised it, actually, went this far for such a dangerous category, although, I want to thank you for the factual opinions for such a topic. Carry on;).--Corusant (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obviously arbitrary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do we have an article that would link all such articles in this category as dangerous? No, so no inclusion criteria has been given, so delete.Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep bad inclusion criteria should not be considered as indicative of there being no valid inclusion criteria. There are many common lists of "top 10" or 20 or 30 dangerous professions. These statistics are verifiable by actuarial data and are notable based on how many people are reporting them. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the references? We still have no article on this.Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we decided to use the "top 10" or "top 20" from a given list, the category would still be arbitrary because it would include the top 10 or top 20 according to statistics rather than the top 25, 50 or 100. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – "There are many common lists of "top 10" or 20 or 30 dangerous professions" is an argument for a sourced list, not a category. Occuli (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective and arbitrary: the odd inclusion of Chauffeur indicates, imo, that this category scheme can be applied to just about any job, if the circumstances are right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is totally subjective unless there is some sort of regulatory committee that rates dangerous jobs. Uh, why is Prostitute not on this list? I guess jobs with a high women and child count are excluded? Yes, it's arbitrary. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The name is inherently POV. "Dangerous" is an extremely unclear standard. Categories should be things that are clearly yes or no, whether a profession is dangerous is not easy to answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely subjective category. Is being a truck driver really a dangerous profession? What about a farmer? Both of these are included in the category and have the potential for injury but I wouldn't classify them as dangerous. Waste collector totally shouldn't be included in my opinion. If you are going to include every category that could possibly cause injury then foodservice could be included as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't believe farming is a dangerous occupation, you must not have a lot of farm folk among your acquaintances. Missing digits, limbs, eyes, etc. were standard in my youth. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I come from a rural farming community. We had a person die in a farming accident this past Winter. Farming can certainly be dangerous. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a "dangerous profession". You and I have very different views on what a dangerous profession is which is why I say delete. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, then, you and I are in agreement on the deletion, in part because we are in disagreement on the definition! I apologize if I seem to have called you a city kid, even by implication. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - arbitrary and capricious. I will note that clerical worker is a dangerous profession, if you're a clerical worker in a prison. Convenience store clerk on graveyard shift is dangerous; on day shift, not so much so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if you are in a high crime neighborhood? It's all subjective. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As others have said, far to arbitrary. Cab driver in The Bronx=dangerous. Cab driver in Milford, Ohio=not really. Hundreds more examples like this could be made. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have heard that statistically conveince store clerks have the highest death rate, yet I do not recall seeing them on here. True, being alone on the night shift does not help, but there are plenty of robberies/shootings during the day, even in neighborhoods that are not generally considered "high crime". Then there are occupations like Maquilladora worker, which in Ciudad Juarez has seen some of the highest rates of kidnappings and murders, but these have generally been of the female workers on their way to or home from work, not while technically on the job, so it is only tandengentially linked to their work (they suffer from being in areas where they would not be or being there at times they would not be there if they did not have the job). Categories need to have a clear way that people can decide if something belongs or not, this category does not, and even if we formulated a percentage of workers receiving bodily injusry/death per year rule, or even a complexed system where we gave varying point based on injury, rape, death, severe psychological trama and so forth, and then limited it to occupations that exceeded a given point threshold, we would still just have arbitrary rules for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This if it can work at all (which I am not sure if it can) should be a list. As a category we are limited to the occupations that actually have actirlce in wikipedia and the parameters that the articles set. If it was a list we could include things like "policeman in Detroit" or other specific linkages of occupation and place, that are not notable enough to have articles on. Also a list could have sources, give an indication of why the occupation is dangerous, list the percenage of workers killed annually, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subjective criteria with inherent neutrality / original research concerns. US President must be up there, with 9% assassinated during their term Chzz  ►  01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The president assationation rate is only that low when we consider succesful assasinations that lead to death. Reagan got seriously wounded in a life threatening way, and other presidents were actually shot at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no objective way to measure it; what is the danger of? injury? death? embarrassment (reality show contestant?)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Juba, South Sudan to Category:Juba

also subcategory Category:People from Juba, South Sudan → Category:People from Juba

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per key article (Juba). Grutness...wha? 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, could probably qualify under speedy C2D. There are other possible meanings for "Juba", but I think confusion is unlikely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; I agree that the primary meaning is clear despite the variety of entries at Juba (disambiguation). - Fayenatic (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Clear meaning is needed in cat names more than in article names. With another place called Juba there is no reason to assume people will not put things linked to that in this category unless its name makes it clear they should not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the key article is at Juba is indication that there is a clear primary meaning for the word. That's why the article isn't at Juba, South Sudan. To say that "even though the article's at one place we don't know that it is the obvious meaning" sets us down a slope where we have to make an arbitrary decision as to when an article name is desirable as the category name. Do we have to move Category:London because a pretty big place in Ontario with that name? And since the only other place called Juba is a tiny village in Estonia, do we also need to move Category:New Zealand to Category:New Zealand (country) because of a tiny village of that name in England? Arbitrary decisions are something we try to avoid with category naming (there's a huge precedent for the avoidance of arbitrariness in past CFD logs) - which is why we usually try to make article names and category names agree. As we should here. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the best argument in favour of matching category names to article names that I've read in some time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (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.