Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10[edit]

Category:Repurposed shopping malls in the United States[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Repurposed shopping malls in the United States to Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Very few shopping malls are ever converted to non-retail, in my findings. One of the ones in this category is a true repurpose, and the other appears to have been stalled since 2007 without any progress. I know of one or two stray malls that have been truly converted to non-retail uses, but such occurrences are usually to non-notable malls, and the instances are so few and far between that the "defunct" category suffices. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an important classifier. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with merging. If a place indeed has a new function, than categorize it according to present function first and then as "defunct mall". NVO (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as suggested. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. And agree with NVO about how situations like this should actually be handled. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 17 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:Atheist and agnostic politicians[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. I find the questions raised below about the relative notability of the category between countries to be compelling. I also have a problem with the categories being run together -- and the inherent difficulty of categorizing when people don't agree on the exact definitions of the terms. While I have a great deal of sympathy for the difficulties faced by politicians in this category, it's far too general for use here. Subdivisions of the category should be fine, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
Nominator's rationale: Category appears to be of little if any value, and appears to have been created as a negative equity rather than a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete Seems an irrelevant intersection. Unless the articles would show how their atheism or agnostism shapes their political views and actions. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I admit my opinion's a bit muzzy on this, but at least in the US it's damn near impossible to get elected if you don't espouse a belief in a god of some sort or another, and even then it had best be the "right" god. I suspect the same applies in many other countries, especially those in the Middle East and Latin and South America. This may mean that the intersection of "atheist" and "politician" rises to the level of defining characteristic even if other intersections of religion and "politician" don't. Otto4711 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very well populated category which is of particular interest to many in the increasingly secular or "post-religious" West. --Wassermann (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I would add that some of the reasoning displayed herein demonstrates why this category is so worthy of deletion. The category implies that:

a) unless a particular religion can be ascribed
b) based on the government in which he or she serves

any politician can be declared an agnostic or an atheist. Any person's religious beliefs, at least outside the United States, are a private matter and not something third parties should attempt to categorise. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split, if kept -- Athiest and agnostic are different positions to hold and should not be combined. The categoy should only be applied where the person has self-identified as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- two different things. Moreover,

    The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

    If there really are politicians that were elected because of their non-religious views, I'd be very surprised.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The issue here is not that politicians are being elected because of their atheist/agnostic beliefs, but that so few are. Especially in the United States, numerous sources have reported on how difficult it is for an atheist to win elected office, especially between the coasts. While politicians *can* be any denomination, their lack of denomination is a problem. This 2008 article in The New York Times noted that Pete Stark is the only one of 535 congressmen self-identify as a non-theist (a fact noted prominently in his article), that atheist bloggers opined that the best way to keep a Republican out of the White House in 2008 would have been to form "Atheists for McCain" and another noting that "We are where gays were at the time of Stonewall". Atheist politicians at the highest levels essentially face greater discrimination from the public (and are more defining) than being a U.S. politician who is LGBT, Native American, African American or Jewish American. For atheists and agnostics, "The subject's beliefs.. are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life" and are clearly defining. As always, any such categorization should be based on reliable and verifiable sources and the lack of sources available to support identification as such is a wonderful reason to remove any questionable entry from this category. Alansohn (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wasserman and Alasohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since you'd have to list every Communist block politician, this category is potentially so large and unwieldy as to be meaningless.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being atheist or agnostic is not a notable intersection with politics generally - perhaps it may be in Iran or the USA, but not in North Korea, the Soviet Union, or much of today's Europe. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per last two commenters. We could have jurisdiction-specific categories for atheist politicians, but as a broad category covering all nationalities this is not wise, since it could include most communist politicians, many French revolutionaries, and a sizeable chunk of European politicians today. Also, combining atheists with agnostics is misleading and inappropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46 and Good Ol'factory, for three reasons: (1) combining agnostics and atheists is misleading; (2) there is significant variation in the defining-ness of this attribute across jurisdictions; and (3) given the problems that atheist political hopefuls face, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at least some of them lie about their religious beliefs. The good news is that the information is not completely lost; every article in this category should still be tagged with "(Nationality) politicians" and "(Nationality) atheists" or "(Nationality) agnostics" categories. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, as nominator of this WP:CFD, although I appreciate BLACK FALCON's vote, I don't quite understand what The good news is that the information is not completely lost; every article in this category should still be tagged with "(Nationality) politicians" and "(Nationality) atheists" or "(Nationality) agnostics" categories. means. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that it is a trivial intersection and that one's atheistic/agnostic religious views usually have very little to do with the political office. I could see an Atheist Communists etc category, since there is some connection there, but not in this case Corpx (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn who I usually disagree with about stuff like this. Splitting atheists from agnostics is also a good idea. There are very few US politicians willing to admit being atheist, so the category conveys significant information. Re Good Olfactory's point about covering all nationalities, really, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and English speaking politicians (particularly US ones) are going to be more heavily represented than other nationalities throughout the encyclopedia. That's enough to populate the category fairly densely with politicians for whom the matter is significant. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 11:32, 26 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:Cinderella[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cinderella to Category:Cinderella (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main, dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I can't believe this wasn't named that way already. It's not like the band is the only thing with that name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cinderella (band). 2 (at least) of its 3 subcats are also ambiguous and should follow suit. Occuli (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which two? Albums and songs? I don't know how ambiguous those really are, but if you want, you can tack them on here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 13 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 economists[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: Speedily deleted G4. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish economists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Without opining on the legitimacy of the Category:Economists by nationality category, I would point out that this one is not a nationality, and is fundamentally racist. There is no category for other races or religions, nor ought there to be. The intersection of "Jewish" and Economist is not a matter of encyclopaedic interest. There is no encyclopaedic relationship between Judaism and practising economics.94.193.244.105 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An excellent point. We don't have a category for "Christian economists" or "Black economists". Shii (tock) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Another "Jewish" category of irrelevant intersection. Why not nominate all of them together. Mind you, just the irrelevant ones. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nominated -- recent (May) re-creation of previously deleted material:
    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10#Category:Jewish Economists.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy deletion - as a recreated category. No indication that consensus has changed regarding this category in light of the deletion of several other Jews by occupation categories recently. If speedy is declined, delete as there is, as noted in the previous CFD, no "Jewish way to do economics". Otto4711 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Jews (whether ethnic or religious or both) of course have a very long, illustrious, and well-documented history of being involved in the study and practice of economics...and I'm quite sure that all of you who voted to delete this category fully know this to be true. Yet still you all voted en masse to delete it like a bunch of censorious automatons, seemingly blinded by your own POV which seeks to censor/delete any and all information dealing with Jews on Wikipedia. And also, just wondering...you all wouldn't happen to be tag-teaming or engaging in any kind of cabal-esque behavior in your quest to delete/censor all of the Jewish categories found on Wikipedia, would you? Because lately it sure seems like something is going on collaboratively behind-the-scenes regarding all of these Jewish categories... --Wassermann (talk) 06:15, 11 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:Soviet Union canoeist stubs[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: moved to WP:SFD
Propose renaming Category:Soviet Union canoeist stubs to Category:Soviet canoeists stubs
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other professions from people who lived in the former Soviet Union. Chris (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and move to WP:SFD. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why does this need to be moved to WP:SFD? There are other canoeist stubs of different nationalities. The stub can stay. It is just the category of the stub that needs renaming. Chris (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And those categories are managed by WP:SFD and not here. There is a specific exclusion for those and it is listed on the main CfD page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn: Renaming has been trasnferred to WP:SFD. Chris (talk) 23:42, 14 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:Quebecois cuisine[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 per revised nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quebecois cuisine to Category:Québécois cuisine Category:Quebec cuisine
Nominator's rationale: Not sure about this one, created by an anon IP back in 2004. Québécois is a French word, with the accents. What we have now is a corrupted anglicized word. However, I generally don't like using non-English accented words in categories because I think it's harder for many users with standard English keyboards. While it looks like a noun, we do in fact at times use "Quebec" as an adjective in English -- i.e. "Quebec politics" -- and I have revised this nom to suggest this as the best route. As Jeremy makes clear below, Quebec is the proper adjective form in English. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are there any adjectival (I think this is correct) forms of Quebec being used? If not, then should this be a simple exception to the general rule? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one thing I realized is that we do use Quebec as an adjective. For example, we say "Quebec politics" whereas we would not say "Canada politics." I'll modify my nom right now to reflect that, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It does not have accents in English always. Further, Quebecois is used to indicate ethnic Quebecois cuisine. So should be split in two (Cuisine in Quebec .vs. Quebecois cuisine) 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment I do agree that there is an ethnic Québécois cuisine issue -- i.e. tourtières (ethnic Québécois) vs Montreal bagels (Quebec). I'm wondering if it's advisable to have Category:Québécois cuisine, accented, as a sub-category of Category:Quebec cuisine, in this case? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the non-ethnic Québécois fare -- Montreal bagels, smoked meat and the like -- are effectively covered in Category:Montreal cuisine, so nevermind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - According to the guidelines Quebec is the proper adjective form in English, so Category:Quebec cuisine would be the proper format. This would be the preferred form according to the standards for national and regional cuisine we use in the Food and Drink Wikiproject. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should be Quebec cuisine. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (the 2nd go) per nom & above discussion. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. English expression preferable in English Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:21, 15 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:Islamic travel writers[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: Renaming to Category:Medieval Islamic travel writers to clarify category's purpose and to be uniform with corresponding Jewish category. Certainly it should be purged of modern travel writers who happen to be Muslim or from the Islamic world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Islamic travel writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with Jewish travel writers below, there's no evidence on the record that this religion "is essential to the occupation."
Also, there's no evidence in the existing articles that each "subject's beliefs are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 17#Category:Muslim travel writers.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the last debate. Nom's comment is ludicrous, frankly! Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – ludicrous is putting it mildly. I take it that WAS has read eg Ibn Battuta. Occuli (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sorry to disagree with so many outspoken fellow editors here and in the previous discussion, but I completely agree with the nominators rationale, and the arguments I have seen here and in the previous discussion have not convinced me otherwise. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WASimpson: why do you keep using so called "policies" you (or one of your close Wiki-associates) recently revised or rewrote to justify the continued deletion of dozens of perfectly valid, factual, and encyclopedic categories? Doesn't revising or rewriting certain "policies," and then immediately turning around and using those same changed "policies" you just rewrote or revised to justify the deletion of categories, qualify as a conflict of interest (at best) or outright manipulation of policies to suit your wishes (at worst)? --Wassermann (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have noticed a tendency of WAS to quote himself in these 'official' looking blockquotes. There are now various WAS creations being transcluded into policy and onto categories; eg Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy which transcludes into policy, and {{People by nationality}}, {{People by ethnicity}} (full of imperatives: where does "living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage" come from?). He can now rewrite policy and 1000s of category inclusion statements merely by editing his own documents, which are unwatched. Occuli (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also noticed this tendency. I just don't have any idea what to do against such behavior. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Users Occuli and Debresser: we clearly need to report this behavior to ArbCom or something like that. Not sure exactly where this should reported to, but WAS's behavior is increasingly POV, irrational, and unacceptable...I mean, who does this guy think he is quoting policies he recently rewrote/changed in order to justify the wholesale wiping out of whole swathes of valid/factual/encyclopedia categories? As you wrote Occuli, explaining this situation perfectly: "[WAS] can now rewrite policy and 1000s of category inclusion statements merely by editing his own documents, which are unwatched." Absurd! --Wassermann (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename and purge per Peterkingiron. The articles that are on this subject are interesting reading and would be helpfully grouped together. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being Muslim and a travel writer is a trivial intersection. We have plenty of categories for the medieval travel writers of the Muslim world, like their counterparts in Christendom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are a few entries I don't understand, the best example of what this category includes is Ibn Battuta, who is essentially known primarily for for his travel writing over 600 years ago. This really isn't about people who write for Frommer's, but those who have a strong defining characteristic of being Islamic authors who have written about their travels at a time when people did not travel, and relied on the accounts of individuals such as Ibn Battuta. The argument that this is a "trivial intersection", the playground equivalent of the retort "is not", is rather difficult to reconcile with the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 19 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:Film awards for Best Animated Feature[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Animated Feature to Category:Awards for best animated feature film
Nominator's rationale: Once again, renaming per capitalization guidelines in WP:NCCAT and the fact that all awards in this category are not literally for Best Animated Feature. I was originally going to suggest that we rename as "Animated feature film awards," along the lines of Category:Documentary film awards. But my concern is that this could be misconstrued as a category for awards for animated features that are not for best in category, such as the Annie Award for Music in an Animated Feature Production. So I've used the recently renamed Category:Awards for best film as the model. This could then become a sub-cat of that category, too. Also, there's nothing stopping us from creating Category:Animated feature film awards as a top-level category for all long form animation awards -- best film and craft awards -- itself a subcat of Category:Animation awards, if needed, at a later date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 10 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:Musical forms[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. While people agree that something needs to be done, there is no consensus on whether "forms" is OK in the name of the category. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Musical forms to Category:Arabic musical forms
Nominator's rationale: Category:Musical form holds musical forms. This plural category has been managed to keep only Arabic musical forms. Either major restructure or else rename Musical forms to Arabic musical forms. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and reparent per nom. It's doubtful if Yürük semai should remain in the cat in that case. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGREE that something needs to be done - as it stands this has caused confusion between form, style and genre. But also agree some forms in there are Turkish. Suggest Form in Asian music as the most useful missing category. Then Indian and Chinese forms can be added - it is not too many articles and it will be good to have them within Category:Musical form. Strongly recommend that the word "formS" be strenuously avoided. Thanks IC - good idea, very glad you mentioned it. Redheylin (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Arabic musical forms and Category:Turkish musical forms, both of which should be subcats of Category:Muscial form. A few of the articles belong in both the Arabic and Turkish subcats, the others only in one or the other.--Aervanath (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please avoid the word "forms" - it is taken by some people to mean "genres". That is the reason the category has been depopulated. If the music has explicit formal features it should be categorised under "musical form" - if not under "musical genres". Redheylin (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify into List of musical forms. Clearly there is resistance to having form in the category name and the list has existed for a while and contains complete articles and not just stubs. The suggestion about splitting into two makes two very small categories out of a small category. A listify allows dual listing of the Arabic and Turkish relationships. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical form is a technical term related to structure - there is a category so named. Musical styles and genres are not "forms" - there are only around a dozen "forms" listed in wiki. There are places to categorise genres and styles. This had not been understood and so it took hours to remove genres wrongly classed as forms. Only one editor resisted, otherwise this category would not exist. I am saying; it would be good to have a place to discuss Asian FORM: there are already places for GENRES and the confusing plural FORMS is to be deprecated. That includes List of musical forms. Where these few pages relate to structure, they belong in "form", otherwise they are styles and genres. Redheylin (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mentioned list is headed "This article erroneously mixes genre and form together. For instance, the term symphony (genre) describes a large, multi-movement work for orchestra but says nothing about the form of each of the movements." This is correct. I am sorry I have not yet been able to fix this, but PLEASE do not make matters worse by adding more forms and genres indiscriminately. Even a Category "middle eastern musical form" will be tiny - that is why I suggest "Asian musical form". Please may I have some explicit engagement with this suggestion? Redheylin (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They are Turkish and Arabic musical forms. Badagnani (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename with split to address uniquely Turkish forms. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the articles in question contain no formal information. Are there citations to support caling them "forms"? Redheylin (talk) 02:15, 4 July 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:Diet food writers[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 to delete. Someone could propose a rename in a new discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Diet food writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Moved its only article to more appropriate category. We already have Category:Food writers and Category:Health and wellness writers which are well-used and linked in. thisisace (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reinstate whatever you removed. See the procedures. How can we consider a category that has been emptied? There may well be a case for a category (with a better name) with both of these as parents. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. thisisace (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Diet writers or Category:Writers on diet. can very easily be populated from the parents, & a useful sub-category of these. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anyone who writes about food is writing about diet. If this is intended to capture people who have written books about specific diets - meaning weight loss plans - then the category is becoming too specific. Categorizing authors based on the subject matter of their books (as opposed to genre) is cutting things too fine. Otto4711 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most food writers just address one dish or meal at a time. I'm open to different phrasing, but diet books are clearly a very different genre from cookery books, and recognised and placed as such in completely different sections (often not even in the food section) on the shelves of bookshops and elsewhere in the book trade. We have many far more minute distinctions than this in writer categories that have been upheld here. Obviously not all diet writing is about weight loss. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename There are people who write about cooking from an aesthetic standpoint and there are those who write about from a dieting standpoint, where the goal is to eat foods to reach some state of improved health. Irma S. Rombauer, author of The Joy of Cooking, was not writing about dieting, and most cookbook authors don't. Category:Health and wellness writers includes writers who address issues other than food as a means towards wellness. I would fully support a rename, but this category appears to capture a defining characteristic that would be eliminated by deletion or renaming. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason? Or for not upmerging to the other parent Category:Food writers? Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I don't know that I would classify them that way. Someone writing about diets is more often writing about the benefits of one type of diet over another. So I'm not convinced that there are writers on food, cooking, dining, and cultural history related to food. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I don't find that at all pursuasive! Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 20 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:A Nightmare on Elm Street films[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) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An unnecessary category. We already have Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street, which contains anything and everything connected to the series. We also have Template:Nightmareseries, which has a link to all of the major articles (including the films). We don't need an overly specific category just for the films when we have the template and a general Nightmare category.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 10 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:Haroon albums[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: Close so it can be deleted via C1 as empty. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Haroon albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: empty category about deleted non-notable musician, see Haroon (music producer). Hekerui (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Google cache reveals a deleted album (by Haroon, not produced by H), a deleted song and a deleted article for Haroon (whose first album was entitled 'Gloom', but sadly there seems to have been no article). I have no idea whether these deletions were sound. Occuli (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - if the album category remains empty for four days it can be tagged for speedy deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as Otto4711. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 11 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:Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement to Category:Mormonism and polygamy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Renaming to match main article Mormonism and polygamy. As discussed when the article was renamed, the proposed name actually reflects the contents a bit better, since polygamy has a lot to do with Mormonism but not a lot to do with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement. (The article name has bounced around a bit lately, and I've just been renaming the category to follow it each time. Originally it was Category:Plural marriage, then it went to what it is now, now we're changing it again.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main article is now called "Mormonism and polygamy", but of all the other articles in this category, none have "Mormonism" in their title. "Latter Day Saint movement" is present in part of titles. On one hand the category name should be close to the main article's name, but we shouldn't forget about the other articles of the category. Especially when, as the nominator has mentioned, the main article is being renamed frequently. Since the present name is more inclusive (Mormonism being a part of the Latter Day Saint movement), I'd prefer to keep the more inclusive name. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – but it is (allegedly) a subcat of Category:Mormonism and women. If there are articles about non-Mormon LDS polygamy/polygamists, perhaps there is a case for keeping the present one with a subcat of Category:Mormonism and polygamy. Occuli (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification and comments (nom). The perceived problem with the current name is that outside of "Mormonism" (i.e., the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalists), there is not really any history of polygamy whatsoever in the Latter Day Saint movement. The non-Mormonism strands of the movement are mainly the Community of Christ, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and some other small groups. None of the members of these groups ever practiced polygamy and the churches have never taught the doctrine of plural marriage. Debresser's point should be considered, though. The single article that now links the phrases "LDS movement" and "polygamy" is Current state of polygamy in the Latter Day Saint movement. For the non-Mormonism groups, this article basically says, "never has taught it and adherents never practiced it and actively opposes it." This may be enough to keep the name broader rather than Mormonism, I'm not sure. In light of this and Occuli's comment, which is also relevant, I'm a bit unsure of what to do. It is a close call; ultimately either will be acceptable to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The people call themselves LDS, not Mormons: that is an abusive term used by others and WP articles have usually been renmed to the LDS format. A rename to drop "movement" might be acceptable, but that is all. Note I am an Evangelical Christian, and have no axe to grind on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mormons also call themselves Mormons. Ever heard of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Or the Mormon pioneers? An official website of the LDS Church is "mormon.org". It's not a term of abuse anymore, though it was intended to be so originally in the 1830s. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Mormonism is not at all an abusive term, and is embraced especially by polygamists within the movement, as well as the LDS Church, who has actually created, for example, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Churches within the movement that have never practiced polygamy, such as the Community of Christ, are the only ones who oppose use of the term Mormonism. COGDEN 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The standard in similar articles to this parent seems to include Latter Day Saint movement in the title, and the nominator has offered no convincing argument for a change. As a Gentile, it may be that a more thorough explanation of the nuance might convince me and other voters of the need for change. Alansohn (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar "articles to this parent" (whatever those may be) are about the entire movement if they use the term "Latter Day Saint movement", and are not just Mormonism, which is a subgroup within the movement. Polygamy only has relevance within the Mormonism subgroup. I'm not sure what more there is to explain than my clarification above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Polygamy has essentially existed only within Mormonism, not within the broader Latter Day Saint movement. COGDEN 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - at least one post succession crisis group that is not part of "Mormonism", but is part of the Latter Day Saint movement has a history of polygamy: the Strangites. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:02, 18 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:Articles by class[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 for now. Could be re-created under a better name, if one can be had. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles by class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am unsure whether this should be just deleted (assuming there is another core way of navigating basic subject areas) or if this should be renamed. If renamed I couldn't quite think of an appropriate alternative, just this doesn't quite fit this title. To illustrate when I put a note on the category talk page questioning the category, someone left this on my talk. "'articles by class' refers to whether an article is stub-class, Start-class, B-, A, Good, Featured, etc"; which if it was the nature of the category I would understand. But it isn't it's purpose. So ideas please! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was surpised to see that the nominator is correct. If I wouldn't have checked, I would have made the same mistake as that editor answering on the nominators talkpage. The way it is, I see no rationale in having this category. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this category (courtesy of RK) is just 2 days old and should be deleted before it develops. Category:Articles, and above it Category:Contents, both also created by RK, already have some rather mysterious subcat schemes. I note that Category:Contents is the ultimate category, with no parent. Occuli (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename & relocate Most of the scheme - Categories, Articles etc has been in place for 2yrs & has some very experienced editors in the histories. But this one is clearly misleadingly named. I always struggle a bit to see the use of such grand schemes, but that's just me. I think this category would be better renamed to Category:Categories for things and relocated to Category:Categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename iff someone can think of a more appropriate name. (Disclosure: I created this category.) First of all this category has indeed nothing to do with article quality class system. It is one possible scheme of categorising articles, such as Category:Main topic classifications or Category:Fundamental, which have existed for several years. The intent of this scheme is to start with the type of object the article is about, similar to de:Kategorie:Objekt on the German Wikipedia. Class (as in class (philosophy) or class (computer science)) seemed to be a more concise term than type of object but it may indeed be confusing. —Ruud 14:21, 10 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 travel writers[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 to Category:Medieval Jewish travel writers. This appears, as one editor mentioned, to be where consensus is pointing. In the end, it keeps most of the contents supporting the keep opinions and it focus the contents which hopefully address the issues raised in favor of deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Jewish travel writers to Category:Travel writers
Nominator's rationale: Merge overcategorization by religion and/or ethnicity. There is no encyclopedic relationship between "Jewish" and "travel writer". Otto4711 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Islamic category, had the name change not been involved, would have been closed as "no consensus". The closer felt that the arguments for deletion were superior but didn't have consensus. The category was renamed because no one made the case for the intersection of religion (Muslim) and occupation (travel writer) being defining. If the assertion that the perspective of Middle Ages Jews is "very distinct and highly encyclopedic" then an article covering the topic would better serve the project than a bare alphabetical category, which can tell us nothing of this distinct perspective. Otto4711 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article would not replace the category, though it would certainly be a good idea. That is a novel and strange idea - usually the existence of a main article is cited here as strengthening the case for a category, not the reverse. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither novel nor strange. Not every topic that has an article on Wikipedia warrants a category that covers the topic. If that were the case every WP article would be eligible for its own category. I've made this argument before repeatedly. Where a lead article usually strengthens a CFD case is in selecting a rename for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of both policy and guidelines, cited above. Merge as nominated would be OK for selected articles, after checking whether they are already in nationality occupation categories.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod. Benjamin of Tudela for one is evidently a legitimate member of the category. Occuli (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod. Purge it of any one after (say) 1800. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish travel writers" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:
  1. Terminology must be neutral....
  2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
  3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it."
Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, one must distinguish the issue of whether an individual warrants inclusion in the category, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and whether the category should be deleted. The guideline clearly states, “People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.”--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, is it the case that you are deleting only Jewish categories, and not categories of other ethnicities/religions/nationalities? And if that is the case, why would that be? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, failing a response here, I just checked your last 500 edits, and found that to be the case. I see that while you sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names, you did not at the same time seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicity. As I asked above, why would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WAS: The article has long referred to Jews as a nation, as Johnbod has pointed out below, though an editor did just recently delete that reference, which I've since restored with supporting citations from Supreme Court Justice Brandeis and others. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3] --Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the previous editor (and stand by my delete), because being Jewish is being part of an ethnic group, not of a nation. I fail to understand the reason why this is a cause of discomfort for some. Being Jewish myself, I see nothing wrong with it. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think that these CfDs are the place to debate the "Jews as a nation" thesis. There's got be a single, more appropriate place -- a WikiProject discussion forum, main nationalities category talk page, something. Otherwise it seems like a someone trying to redefine the definition of "nation" in Wikipedia, to suit their purposes, on the fly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous editor was at least the 6th editor who expresses being uneasy with what's going on here. (Yes, I can find diffs from 6 different editors.) So what should be done? Debresser (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great question. I see that some editors have sought to raise this issue by: 1) seeking to delete references to categories of Jews and/or Jewish/Americans, etc.; 2) the conversations in the past have been based in part on incomplete and/or incorrect discussions (leading to the recent deletion of at least one category); 3) this has spilled over into the recent deletion (though that has been corrected) of the long-standing reference in the Wikipedia entry for Jews to the fact that they are considered a nation ... with the follow-on denial of that fact in these discussions. This is both disturbing and inefficient, to my view.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*:Delete per nom. Rename per Johnbod and building consensus now appearing to take form at Islamic counterpart, above. IMO, this Jews are a "nation" thesis is just a way to bypass the stricter requirements on occupation by religion/ethnicity, nothing more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changing to rename above. I think I let my frustration at the Jewish nation-building going on here get the better of me. Regardless of that, I believe the medieval writers could be encyclopedic? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. But the fact remains that many, including veterans of these discussion pages, have expressed concern. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt there are those who would posit that this "Jews are not a "nation" thesis" -- unsupported, as distinct from the contrary thesis which has supporting citations from Justice Brandeis, Albert Einstein, scholarly works, etc. -- is just an attempt by some who appear to have singled out Jewish categories to seek to eliminate them, nothing more.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lest one also have Presbyterian or Unitarian travel writers, having a category for Jewish travel writers seems weird. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why isn't Chaim Joseph David Azulai in this category? He was the first one I thought about when I saw the name of this category and the article mentions his travels and writing about them. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a travel writer and being Jewish (ethnically or religiously) is a trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]
  1. ^ [1] "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on June 15, 2009
  2. ^ [2] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009
  3. ^ [3] "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on June 15, 2009
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:Tamils of Sri Lanka[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: Withdrawn by nominator.
Re-listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 11#Tamil Sri Lankan topics.
Suggest merging Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka to Category:Tamil Sri Lankans
or rename Category:Tamil Sri Lankan as umbrella topic category
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two nearly identically named ethnic subcategories for the same island, populated only by a few different subcategories. The later name matches the form of Category:Tamil Indians, Category:Tamil Singaporeans, Category:Tamil South Africans, etc.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Of course, I checked every subcategory. As noted in the nomination, I also checked other Tamil societies in several countries, where this category has no parallel.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then didn't it occur to you that merging a general category into a people category was not a good idea? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would match many other categories, including other Tamil "nationality" categories.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As to the reflexive hostility and counter-rename, naming conventions would require Category:Tamil Sri Lankan for the topic category – note the trailing 'n' – singular topic, plural set (of people). Added to the nomination.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to understand this last argument and proposal. IMHO Category:Tamil Sri Lanka is correct. Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are refering to and why. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your failure to understand is not the responsibility of others. Read the policies. Look at recent discussion. Pay attention.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:32, 11 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_10&oldid=1074802598"