Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 15 June 17 >

June 16[edit]

Category:Articles to be split[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. I think that Good Ol’factory's points about the headache you get from reading this says there is no consensus. I recommend that the parties that seem to have an interest, take this to a talk page and see if they can reach an agreement. At that point this can be brought back here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Articles to be split to Category:Wikipedia articles to be split
Nominator's rationale: To match the dated subcategories. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category was deleted per discussion here. However, that discussion contains no arguments that pertain to the present nomination. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alternatively we could consider deleting the word "Wikipedia" from the dated subcategories. However the reason I made my nomination this way is because 1. it is the easier of the two 2. it conforms with the guideline here. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alternative. Because I have proposed removing the requirement for the Wikipedia prefix. And as far as "easier" goes most administrative categories don't start with "Wikipedia" - the word is superfluous except when there is a subject matter category which would naturally have same name (Tools - Wikipedia tools for example):- I would submit this is an extremely rare event and the "Wikipedia" prefix can be used then. In general "Pages", "Articles", "Templates", "Categories", "Redirects", "Users" and "User pages" (just for a start) make it clear that they are not subject matter categories and the addition of "Wikipedia" is superfluous. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- it has been previously decided. I do not support the alternative, especially as those "dated" subpages were renamed out-of-process. There have been cases where a word like Pages et alia would be confusing, but this is not one of them.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this editor previously was in favor of the alternative. Just today, after he came back from a 3rr block to whch I sent him, he changed his mind. More to the point: the issue is not the word "Wikipedia" perse, but uniformity, which will allow easy template programming. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- No, the sentence as originally mistakenly written was contrary to the !vote ("Keep") and the "especially as ..." clause following. Noticed as I was updating the listing with copious examples. My practice for an actual change would be a strike. Furthermore, I have consistently opposed the out-of-process renames (see WT:CFD sections "CfD categories renamed" and "More out of process category renames"). Your attempt to exploit a minor typing error, subsequently corrected, is egregious. Please don't cast aspersions on my intent, motivations, and/or thoughts.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion was closed in this edit as "rename". William Allen Simpson has reverted this closure with irrelevant arguments. I am not sure how such a revert such be treated. The text of a closure says clearly not to modify it... Debresser (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult. WAS and Debresser are both misrepresenting the history. WAS is misrepresenting the previous closure (category was created after a template error populated it, and it was speedily deleted as an empty category with deletion requested by the category creator), and Debresser is misrepresenting the claim that Wikipedia maintenance categories are supposed to have the name "Wikipedia" in the title. I lean toward a rename, and the removal of "Wikipedia" from the dated subcategories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Actually there is a whole discussion about removing that demand for the word "Wikipedia". The discusssion takes place at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories) in 2 of the sections, and I am one of the proposent of dropping that demand. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur,
    1. The 2008 discussion confirmed (after 13 days) that "The correct category is Category:Articles to be split." That's not a speedy deletion. I've never mentioned that the nominator was the creator, and don't think that adds to the discussion. It was discussed, there was consensus, the consensus was relatively recent, nothing has happened to change the consensus.
    2. There is also no question that many/most of the "dated" subcategories were renamed out-of-process.
  • I do not understand your contrary rename (add "Wikipedia " prefix) here, but remove the "Wikipedia " prefix for others not nominated here?
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a speedy, but it should have been. The nominator indicated that the Wikipedia category was populated by mistake, and would now be empty, so it would have qualifed as a WP:CSD#C1 5 days after the nomination. I agree with this nominator that that discussion should not be considered a precedent for this one, even if we followed precedent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Many times, as something appears obvious, all that appears is 1 nominator, 1 agreement, 1 closer. After 13 days and no objections, seems like precedent to me. Moreover, it has been confirmed by more recent discussions.
    Anyway, that still doesn't explain the tautology of renaming (add "Wikipedia " prefix) here, but remove the "Wikipedia " prefix for others not nominated here?
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a tautology. In any case, I think it should be renamed, and, as a separate issue, that the hidden dated categories be renamed to remove Wikipedia. The latter rename is not under discussion here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically no-one else is interested, save those who work with the categories, so re-listing is a waste of time. The disagreement seems to be based on a mis-understating. We are all basically agreed on renaming the subcategories and leaving the category as is. The previous discussion was closed on this basis, and the renaming done. Time to move on. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Honestly, guys, this is mind boggling. I came to see if I could close this discussion and I read through it a number of times and I still can't understand what happened when and who is in favor of what or what the consensus might be at this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 2 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:Sportspeople by city[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: Upmerge and delete as nominated, except for Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, which was clearly not intended to be of the same type and for which there was no consensus. Multiple target merge categories will be listed at WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete
Category:Sportspeople by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: not against the idea in principle but do not see it as necessary and wish to fell this tree while it s still a sapling. (There is a precedent of catting sportspeople by state and province, so doing so by English county at some point would make sense.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio; as the different wording (not to mention its contents!) indicates, that has nothing to do with where people are "from," but rather groups together players by team categories for teams that actually play in Columbus. I don't think any of the "Sportspeople from Foo" categories should exist at the city level, because they don't target where they actually played, so those could be merged per nom. But a better solution would be to rename those to "Sportspeople in Foo" and prune accordingly. Postdlf (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'people from' cat pages have included those resident to a place, even if rather temporarily. (I wonder if 'people of' is not a better wording to include both people from and people in}. Actually, the contents of the 'sportspeople from' pages also tend to list, along with sportspeople native to the place, players for sport teams (as sub-cat pages) in the place in question Mayumashu (talk) 17:26, 16 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:Names by culture[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: Administrative close. I'm just going to close this discussion and give the nominator the chance to start it again if he wishes. The reason for this is that I have now closed the previous discussion, where I recommended some discussion before revising this system. I didn't "mandate" a "by language" system in that close, but it's certainly a possibility. This close is without prejudice to any future nomination for the category, whether it be for deletion or renaming. It can even be re-nominated immediately if desired. I just thought it would be helpful to have a starting point to go from now that the other discussion is closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Names by culture to Category:Names by language
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Few of the contents are names of cultures, or any other permutation of the words "names" and "culture".
As suggested some time ago by User:CJLL_Wright, "ensure they are focused on linguistic, instead of nationalistic, usage." [spelling corrected] This is the first step in that process.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "few" that are actually names of cultures, would those simply be removed? How would those be categorized separately? Postdlf (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how would they be linked to the names category structure? Postdlf (talk) 15:54, 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:Jewish actors[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: "Strong" no consensus. (In my opinion, it would be useful if we could avoid the idea that any one opinion is going to be given any extra weight by a closer when the user appends "strong" to whatever the opinion is. Hopefully everyone realizes that there is no way to jack your vote up to a "supervote". As long as there's no misunderstanding in that regard and it's merely a way of expressing an extra degree of passion about an issue, by all means carry on. ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per [1] (which was nominated for deletion and deleted because Judaism "is not a nationality"), such categories are to be deleted. There is no encyclopedic relationship between Judaism and being an actor. BirgerOJ (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Many places have and have had their Jewish theaters. Just type "Jewish theater..." in the search box. There are actors who use their Jewishness as a main theme of their acts, like Woody Allen and many others I know. If the nominators argument is sometimes correct, this is a case where it surely isn't. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People known for their work in Jewish theatre belong in a category on Jewish theatre. It does not mean we have to have a category of any actor who happens to be Jewish, Judaism and Jewish theatre are two different things. Most of the people in this category are not known for work in Jewish theatre, but are, mostly American, actors who just happen either to be Jewish, or in many cases not be Jewish themselves, but have a Jewish parent, or perhaps a Jewish grandparent. Some of the people included aren't even religious but could rather be described as Category:Atheist actors. Some of them are even Category:Christian actors. BirgerOJ (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with what Birger just said? Bulldog123 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the substance of Birger's comments below, and (obviously) have a different view, which I've supported with citations.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't some editors ask for a pause in the "Jewish nominations"? Debresser (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the "community" has no uniform opinion whether the adjective refers to a nationality or ethnicity or culture or race (?!) - better erase any mention of it and salt it, until a firm and unequivocal policy appears... some day. This is exactly the case of no consensus on core subject, but a particular nomination may turn out slightly pro or slightly contra depending on the noun in the cat name. Fraudsters are bad, actors are good, and the circle continues. NVO (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community has a clear opinion, expressed by the creation of these categories and their long existence and many articles. It is some "revisors" at Cfd that try to raise objections. They seem to forget that their arguments should always reflect community consensus. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community has a clear opinion that Judaism is not a nationality, as demonstrated by several recent deletions of similar categories. It's much easier to create than to delete a category. The fact that certain contributors create "Jewish" categories en masse, doesn't mean they are valid. BirgerOJ (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That view is not a community view, nor the historical view on the issue of Jewish nationality, as I discuss below, though I do recognize that it is the POV view of some editors who have maintained it without demonstrating it through supporting citations to reliable sources-- as the view of the Jews as a "nation" has been demonstrated.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this seems to be connected with User:Beganlocal's bizarre pointy nom of 2 days ago - see this diff. These seem to be 'one-track.mind' editors (or 'few-tracks-mind') (I do not include otto in this description - his mind is multi-facetted and his cfd noms wondrous in their scope and variety). It is not clear to me why we do not await the closure of recent similar cfds to see where consensus lies as of June 2009 before listing more. (There is much contention but no consensus on these that I can perceive.) I agree with Debresser's comments - this intersection is not trivial; and this category has been around since 2006, has attracted no attention until now and can thus be deemed to reflect consensus. Occuli (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal -- Seems to be a very strong consensus, over many years (at least since 2005). A huge number of these Jewish categories were created by Eliyak. Easy to create; long process to delete. Recently:
  • Note that those groupings were nominated a week apart. All were deleted. No need to endlessly prolong the process, since policy is well established (more than 4 years). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is irrelevant without a corresponding list of the many that have been kept or renamed. Occuli (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resent the implication that I am involved in the creation of large numbers of spurious categories. I have created a few of those in Jews by occupation, which I felt were especially notable, and this is one of those. The involvement of Jews in the entertainment industry is a phenomenon which has been noted and discussed very often. --Eliyak T·C 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about the involvement of Christians in the entertainment industry? I suspect there are several of them as well. This category is a prime example of categories without any encyclopedic interest, and which are only bragging on behalf of a religion (see how many Jews who are inventors, actors, Nobel Prize laureates etc.). We don't categorize other religions like that, we generally don't categorize Jews that way either, at least not when the category cannot serve the purpose of bragging (Jewish fraudsters got deleted, despite the fact that fraudsters is an established category with a number of other national/ethnic categories). BirgerOJ (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A long time ago on a policy-discussion talk page, somebody (can't recall the username now) mentioned that these Jewish categories (and lists) were created by users who were trying to assert a POV of a new way of thinking about Judaism - a religion/ethnicity/race/culture that encompasses everyone and applies to everyone's career regardless of their individual situations - that's why (unlike any other categories on wikipedia) as soon as a rumor props up that someone is of Jewish descent, it only takes a couple of minutes until one of these users adds a dozen Jewish categories to their page. Given the sheer massive amount of these lists/categories that have sprout out over the years, I'm beginning to think they were right. Bulldog123 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaning up is a good thing. Accidentally adding a religious category to an ethnic groups category is a bad thing, leading to complications. (Yes, 1 year is relatively recent.)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- religion not essential to the occupation.
    1. If these are claimed to be "Jewish ethnicity", then the form would replace the nationality; for example, Category:Jewish American actors, long deleted. But it's not ethnicity form, so that argument is moot.
Looks to me like many are in this category because of possibly Jewish surnames, without any references to either Judaism or its intersection with their occupation.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Leslie Howard (actor) didn't seem to spoil Gone with the Wind (film) as a being cast against "type" as a Jew playing a Gentile, but perhaps that view isn't uniform. And no doubt thousands of other examples could be cited, either way, but WP must keep its stereotypes and prejudices I suppose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are dozens to hundreds of sources that address the subject of the Jewish actor as a strong defining characteristic and the fact that other vaguely similar categories have been deleted has no relevance to mandating deletion of this category. The problem with the deletion process is that it takes seconds to nominate a category and delete it, hile undoing the damage from bad deletions can take hours. Alansohn (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Alansohn says, Jewish involvement in the entertainment professions (as producers, directors, writers, AND actors), is a subject of extensive popular and scholarly interest. The nominator may be of the opinion that there is no "encyclopedic relationship" but numerous writers would disagree. Here a few, for starters:
  • Henry Bial, Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen, ISBN 9780472069088
  • Marline Otte, Jewish identities in German popular entertainment, 1890-1933 ISBN 9780521856300
  • Paul Buhle, From the Lower East Side to Hollywood: Jews in American popular culture, ISBN 9781859845981
  • Jonathan C. Friedman, Rainbow Jews: Jewish and gay identity in the performing arts, ISBN 9780739114483
  • Ted Merwin, In their own image: New York Jews in Jazz Age popular culture ISBN 9780813538099
  • Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, ISBN 9780385265577
--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thesse all refer to Jews who perform in Jewish-themed, Jewish-based performing arts. I take it that if this is your argument, you'd be fine with me pruning Category:Jewish actors to only include such actors, right? I'll gladly do it, but you have to understand that means 80% of the current entries will be gone. Bulldog123 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. A consistent theme in Jewish studies is that Jewishness (in all its great varieties) impacts the experiences of Jews and non-Jews in the "outside" world. In performing arts, Jewishness is expressed (according to the academics) in all sorts of ways, in everything from the Marx Brothers to Seinfeld. Much of it isn't explicitly religious or ethnic at all. The first book cited above talks about "a double-coding by which performers enact, and spectators read, Jewishness in contemporary performance-and, by extension, enact and read other minority identities."[2] Another talks about "the formative Jewish influence upon the rise and development of American popular culture"[3] You don't have to agree with this thesis, or like it, and you are free to ignore these categories, but the fact remains that they reflect serious and long-lived academic and popular points of view, and that's all the evidence it should take to support the maintenance of encyclopedic structures at Wikipedia that are devoted to assisting those who are interested better understand and organize these points of view.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So because there exists an academic theory that as soon as Jewish blood touches someones lineage they're all part of the same acting experience, we bundle everyone together in this category? So Helen Hunt (who is a quarter Jewish) has the same "Jewish experience" in performance as the Marx Brothers? Bulldog123 08:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Judaism is indeed not a nationality, but it is an ethnicity; if not why is anti-smeitism a form of racial prejudice (or worse)? Is not some one conducting an anti-semitic campaing within WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Just as there doesn't have to be a "French" way to do anything, there need not be a "Jewish" way to do anything for there to be a category. 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.

The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]

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. Heritage. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish ___" 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)."

Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

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.

3. 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.

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there was no valid reason to delete Category:Jewish fraudsters (prime example: Bernard Madoff, well known as not only an observant Jew, but who also financed the bulk of American Jewish institutions with his stolen money) and the category needs to be recreated. Either keep both, or delete both. Simple as that. I really don't care as long as the same policy is applied to both. BirgerOJ (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[sarcasm] You can't have that, Birger! Jewish fraudsters is a negative category! [/sarcasm]. Bulldog123 08:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ethnciity/racial/religious category that's WP:OCAT - Jews play non-Jews and vice versa and nothing seems amiss ; and some Jews act and some don't, so this seems a trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And American actors play non-Americans ... but, that's simply not the test here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is manifest nonsense - see Category:Actors by ethnic group, to which this belongs. As pointed out above Jews share characteristics of a nation, ethnicitry and religion. I don't think Jewish actors are noted for their devotion. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only "manifest nonsense" is that this is an ethnic category. Proof by assertion isn't a good argument. All ethnicity occupation categories are of the form Barian-Fooian Fooers. This isn't following the ethnic heritage naming convention, it's following the religion naming convention. Since you agree that these folks aren't "noted for their devotion", then it's clear that this is an improper categorization. If you find some Jewish actors that are notable for their religious acting, then the category could be recreated at some future time.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY! Bulldog123 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Johnbod.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - censorship of valid/factual data and rabid deletionism must be stringently opposed on Wikipedia, especially in relation to all of these Jewish categories which are currently under censorious assault. This is also an extremely well-populated category...to delete it would mean to pointlessly negate years worth of data gathering and leave a gaping hole in the categorical backbone of this encyclopedia which purports to be a gathering place for all human knowledge. I also continue to wonder why so many Jewish related categories continue to be singled out from the rest for deletion/censorship - for instance, why was this one nominated for deletion/censorship before all of the other subcategories found in Category:Actors by ethnic group? --Wassermann (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no censorship. Anybody that meets the specific requirements of WP:BLP#Categories policy and WP:GRS guidelines easily could be included in this category. Unless there is a gross mistake covering a multitude of categories, it's generally best to discuss categorization on a case by case basis. And "I also continue to wonder why so many Jewish related categories" are rabidly created and re-created, contrary to well-established precedent, policy, and guidelines?
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wasserman.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All the "keep" arguments refer to Jewish actors who somehow perform/deal-with "Jewish-themes" in the performing arts. This is not what this category is for. This category is for anyone with Jewish background who also happens to be an actor. Take note that Adam Lambert was recently added, for god's sake. That is not a defining intersection. See: Wikipedia:EIN for more information. Bulldog123 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's simply not true. Please read my entries above.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 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:Gardening hypermarkets[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. Postdlf (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gardening hypermarkets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There's no such thing as a "gardening hypermarket". The term turns up 8 hits on google. Not likely to expand if it isn't even a real term, eh? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:06, 16 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:Songs written by Don Robey[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 here, but a rename to Category:Songs credited to Don Robey or something similar could be proposed in a later CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Don Robey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is a widely known fact (as it is described in the article Don Robey) that Don Robey did not actually write the songs he is credited to. The reason why he got the credit for songs others wrote may be controversial, but I think this category is misleading and unnecessary. --Sumori (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch - a note should be added to the category mentioning the issue. As he, or his nom-de-plume, still has the credit, the category is still useful. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Occuli for pointing me to that case about Norman Petty/Buddy Holly. If it is to be credit-based rather than the actual writer-based, I think that's one way to look at it, but it does need to explain the situation in that case to avoid any misunderstanding. If we are going credit-based, then Robey is credited as Don Robey or Deadric Malone depending on the songs, so I guess we have to split the category into Category:Songs written by Don Robey and Category:Songs written by Deadric Malone. There currently are only three articles and it would be split to two and one, making them even less populated. Maybe not enough to keep them... --Sumori (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename perhaps? If he did not actually write the songs, perhaps they should be categorized as Category:Songs credited to Don Robey -- as per Johnbod's comment. Of course, then we need to do Category:Songs credited to Pee Wee King and Category:Songs credited to Redd Stewart for You Belong to Me and Slow Poke. -- BRG (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. According to the only reference I would rely on he is the writer of over 701 songs. BMI are the people who paid Robey his money!. It's not uncommon for singers who did not sing on their records, bands that did not perform as credited, writers who did not write (There's plenty of other examples in the songwriter categories). Neither McCartney nor Lennon actually contributed to every song listed in category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney. I see no purpose in separating Malone and Robey as they are the same person. The article covers the subject (although I wouldn't want AMG to testify at my trial!!!) and if a little more text is required in the category, then so be it. If we change to "songs credited as written by xxx" then I suggest that ALL the categories are changed accordingly as we cannot be sure who actually wrote what in any case. My views are the same as in the Norman Petty discussion and for exactly the same reasons. OTOH, it might be a kindness to delete all of the smaller music categories as being a complete waste of space! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richhoncho. I never suggested the category to be renamed. I suggested it to be deleted as I do not think it's useful. The fact that a song is credited to Robey doesn't show anything execept that it is a song that was somewhat related to one of Robey's labels. You cannot even assume who the original recorded artist was, as in most cases (if any), they are not co-credited. Agreed that we cannot be sure who actually wrote what in any case, but we do know about Robey case from many reliable sources, that he did not write the songs, why bother creating a category saying that he did?
It should be of interest to Robey (and to BMI) to whom BMI pays to, but to the rest of us, I don't think it's much. It is different from Lennon/McCartney case (where either one actually wrote the song) Combined with a fact that the category has only three articles, I would say this is not necessary and would suggest it to be deleted.--Sumori (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't what a renaming, I was responding to another editor. However, save that there are now 5 songs in the category (Occuli has added 2 more), and probably one or two will be added at some time, so deletion on size is no longer really possible. Furthermore the BMI list is telling because it confirms there is a legal document duly signed which confirms Robey as the writer of these songs. So although I accept these legal documents may not always be the "whole truth" I don't think anybody can actually find a more "truthful truth" --Richhoncho (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legal document is after all just a piece of paper, and I don't think it would be a good reason to say this category is significant enough to keep. How important are such proof documents when there are many reliable sources describing that such proofs aren't correct at all. Like I said, the fact that a song is credited to Robey doesn't show anything much, and I don't really see the point in trying to keep this category. Sumori (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I look and think about this more, there is an accusation that Robey did not write "many" of the songs he was credited with. Now, the question remains, which of any of the songs listed did he not write? You are assuming he did not write any of those listed, either under the name of Robey or Malone. THE primary source, BMI, says he did write these, if you can find specific evidence he wrote none of the 5 songs listed then you are right to ask for deletion. WP is here to report, not to right wrongs or make judgement on events which is why your nomination is flawed. There is a second issue you have raised regarding the size of the category. At present the criteria for a category in WPSongs is an article and an entry, far too low in my opinion, and if you want to debate that issue you can be assured of my support. I can even supply a list of all the songwriter categories that either have no songwriter article but more than 2 entries, or an article and only one song in the category! The rest, bar 2, I have already listed and had deleted --Richhoncho (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really accusing anybody, just would like to set the fact straight and avoid any misleads. The issue of Robey's songwriting credit being false is well-known and too big to ignore.
My main point is the significance of this category when we know from various sources that Robey didn't write the songs he published. I don't see why I have to prove one-by-one, that none of those songs were written by Robey to prove my point is valid. If there was a song or two which was indeed written by Robey, it wouldn't make much difference, IMO.
I am not too much for the rationale about size of this category though I did mention it. It is a simple and easily verifiable fact that Robey is credited to bunch of songs, and it would not be difficult to get the category more populated if more articles are made about them. But would such category be useful? I doubt it.
It would be better to have categories like, say, "Songs released by Duke/Peacock Records" instead. That's not equal to this one, but it's fairly close and significant, and moreover we can put aside the songwriting disputes. Just an alternative idea if you insist on keeping this category.--Sumori (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on Robey specifically, I'd never heard of him before seeing this category, but the accusation appears to be he did not write "many" of the songs - which is not the same as did not write "any" songs. This is why I suggested if you could prove he did not write any of the 5 in this category your nomination was correct. I suspect the real truth of the matter (as in the Petty case, too) is songwriter A and/or B wrote a song, it's got potential, but needs more work, so somebody from the record label/recording studio etc (in this case Robey) after the conception of the song and before the master reording suggests a change of melody here, a few couple of changes of words, maybe a repetition, or adds a significant hook and that in itself is enough to get a full-on legal copyright (I won't bore you with the next 20 or so pages to explain percentages, rights etc). Songwriter A & B are griping because they think they wrote the song, but without the additional songwriting work it wouldn't have been a hit. Accusations ain't proof. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have read what I have written before making the comment. I am not accusing Robey or anybody else, but you make it sound like I am. Like I said, many or any really isn't the point here. If we don't know whether the songs were really written by him or not, how significant can this category be? That is all I'm trying to say. I appreciate your sharing some wisdom about the copyright technical issues, but it really is irrelevant to the issue. --Sumori (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination reads "It is a widely known fact (as it is described in the article Don Robey) that Don Robey did not actually write the songs he is credited to. The reason why he got the credit for songs others wrote may be controversial, but I think this category is misleading and unnecessary." I think that is clear enough for anybody to understand. I am challenging the use of the words "widely known fact" and have asked to see evidence that he did not write any of the 5 songs named in the category. If it proven that he did not write any of the songs then I agree, the category should go, but I am not persuaded that he did not write/contribute to the songs. Also, if this category is deleted in the terms of the nomination it has far-reaching repercussions throughout the songwriter categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has it been agreed among songwriter article editors that you need to prove every single article in a category is not as described in it, to make delete nomination valid? If so, please point me to such discussion archive or guideline pages. Then I will follow what it says regardless of my beliefs. But without it, I can only say that's your personnal opinion. I have already made it clear my views are different to yours.
FYI, since you asked, one example of source about the topic can be found in the Allmusic entry about Deadric Malone cited in the Don Robey article where it says, "Although most of these songs were composed by other songwriters, those he owned got tagged as being co-written by him under the name Deadric Malone, including "Think," "Book of Love," "I Pity the Fool," "Trying to Make It Over," "Turn on Your Love Light," and many, many more." "I Pity the Fool" and "Turn on Your Love Light" are two of the five songs in question.
Also, there are numerous writings about the real writer for "As the Years Go Passing By" being Peppermint Harris. Here is one for example. --Sumori (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is clearly no consensus here. Isn't it time to close this discussion? -- BRG (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the late response, BRG. I would like to hear what others have to say as it seems to be only Richhoncho who is clearly against this. --Sumori (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my guidelines are WP:V, which is why I still say BMI is a creditable source, certainly more creditable than either AMG or that Japanese site you sent us to, neither of which are primary sources, secondly, precedent, Occuli pointed out the similarities of this nomination and Norman Petty, which was a keeper, thirdly, I am not the only person who wants to keep the category, although, unfortunately I am the most vocal, forthly, the standand for music cats is an article and a entry, this category passes that with 5 entries, so unless there is evidence that Robey wrote none of the songs (and the articles are duly amended accordingly) it can't be deleted on grounds of size (unless the standard is raised). Finally this is a discussion and not a vote regarding the deletion of categories generally. Nor is it time limited and I note there are still open debates on earlier pages! Enough. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already know what you have to say Richhoncho, but to me it doesn't make much sense. But I wouldn't want to force it be deleted, so I will take down the nomination for now. I feel enough is enough, too! Just one thing. You have been saying that deleting or renaming this category would affect the other "songs written by" categories, but I don't feel that way. The situations are different in every case though there are similarities among some of them, and I don't think we should generalize things. In that respect, it isn't at all a bad idea to rename this category "Songs credited to Don Robey" though I am not going to propose it here. Cheers. --Sumori (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Songs credited to XXX" is meaningless. "Imagine" is a song which is credited to John Lennon and we are not disputing whether he wrote it or not! --Richhoncho (talk) 12:14, 23 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.
  1. ^ [4] "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. ^ [5] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009
  3. ^ [6] "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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_16&oldid=1074802631"