Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Category:WikiProject Fan Fiction[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: speedy delete under criterion G8 (pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fan Fiction. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:B-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:C-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:FA-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:FL-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:GA-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:List-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:NA-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:Start-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:Stub-Class Fan Fiction articles

Category:Unassessed Fan Fiction articles

Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this category and all subcategories. The project this category is associated too was already deleted and so was the WikiProject template. All categories are empty. Kumioko (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Davenport MRA[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Davenport MRA to Category:Davenport, Iowa National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Both Davenport and MRA are ambiguous. Not sure what the correct name should be, but based on the parents, the proposed name, while longish, appears to be correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Government of Worcester County, Massachusetts[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 without prejudice to a wider discussion about the scope of these categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Government of Worcester County, Massachusetts to Category:Government in Worcester County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no government of Worcester County. —Markles 18:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Category:Government of Massachusetts by county. I don't understand this whole structure. It doesn't make sense to me to put federal congressional districts or local district attorneys in a county-level category since neither of them is a county-level office. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct to say "Government of Massachusetts by county", but not its subcats. Hence, my suggested name change.—Markles 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at one point there was a government of Worcester County thought. By this logic we would have to delete all government of categories where the government is disolved. The logic behind this nomination needs to be throught through.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the comment is right. I didn't create this category, or the categories for the other counties in Massachusetts, so I can't attest to the creator's intent. There is no government now, when this category was made, so it's not correct to say that Massachusetts's 1st congressional district, for example, or any of the other articles should be included in this category. —Markles 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

People associated with the Church of the Nazarene[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep first two, rename rest to Fooian members of.... Timrollpickering (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming or deleting:

Category:People associated with the Church of the Nazarene
- Category:People associated with Nazarene universities and colleges
- Category:People associated with the Church of the Nazarene by nationality

Rationalle: Per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED - this category name is too vague. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the renaming. The one problem I see myself is that there is, so far as I know, no specific adjective, like Nazarenes, which is not also associated with other groups. The ambiguity would itself lead to confusion. "Members of" or something similar might work better though. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first 2 as each is acting as a container category for subcats which are not vague. Rename the others to 'Fooian members of the Church of the Nazarene' and cast out any non-members. Occuli (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am inclined to agree with Occuli on this. The nationality ones look like mis-named adherents categories, and they should simply be renamed to "Fooian members of the Church of Nazarene". I don't really like the "associated with university x" format, though, and think there must be something better for these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olfactory's and Occuli's renaming proposal for nationality categories. On the matter of the universities people are not in general "Assoicated with Nazarene universities and colleges" they are associated with a specific Nazarene University or college, possibly just one or possibly multiple ones but the association is with a specific university or college. Thus this category should be renamed Category:People by Nazarene university or college and be turned into a contained category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I chekeced. Currently the University and college people category is a container category, so we just need to rename it to reflect the fact that it is a container category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Academic institutions associated with the Bengal Renaissance[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Academic institutions associated with the Bengal Renaissance to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED - this category name is too vague. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think there is any real need to rename this category. The context of the Bengal Renaissance is well explained in the article, although I suppose it could be expanded. The use of the word "association" is unlike those of the Christian religious institutions that are discussed earlier. Rather they reflect a sense of identification or influence with many of the ideas, ideals, and principles of social justice and cultural agency that marked this period. Bengal Renaissance refers to a historical phase of cultural and literary output in the colonial era Bengal Presidency. Although the number of contributing institutions could be increased, the paucity of Wikipedia articles leave a lot to be desired. So it would be better to let the category name remain till there are better written and vastly expanded articles on the subject. Sidhu Jyatha (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 21:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Foo-Class, Bar-priority Economics articles[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.. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Foo-Class, Bar-priority Economics articles

Rationalle: Other WikiProjects don't have intersection categories for importance/priority and class, I see no reason for WikiProject Economics to be different here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Economics has been notified of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These categories don't seem to be needed with current available tools and culture. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – these are administrative categories placed on talk pages, which appear to be populated automatically by templates such as {{WikiProject Economics}}. Category:Start-Class, Top-priority Economics articles say seems to be of obvious administrative utility. Occuli (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the intersection categories as such, except that I very much appreciate having tools like this table. It appears the table is generated, and links from the table created by database searches rather than the categories? If so, I don't care about the categories. If the categories are used to create that table, and similar, then I think they should be retained. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fifelfoo and Cretog8 appear to be correct that the intersection statistics are generated by database tools rather than the categories. As I recall, there was a time when the tools were not available and quality-importance intersection categories were useful; however, these types of categories are obsolete now. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Intersection categories are evil. I don't oppose keeping them if they serve some purpose, but I haven't seen one yet. CRGreathouse (t | c) 08:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The assesment table itself is useful for editors. However, the table is unrelated to the categories, hence, the categories are redundant. --Forich (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Australian hospital ships[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian hospital ships to Category:Hospital ships of Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with other ship categories, which are named "Type X ships of Country Y". SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gas stations[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 match main article; revisit if that is changed. This is a tricky one because of regional issues but the basis of matching the main article name seems best for now. If the main article is renamed then this can be revisited. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gas stations to Category:Filling stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per category's main article, Filling station. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Slightly more accurate title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The UK and many of its former colonies use the term "petrol," not "gas." Carrite (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both the article and the category should be called something else. "filling station"s exist for other things that require filling, as to "gas station"s, which have something to do with gas instead of gasoline. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it does stand that the term "filling station", when used unqualified, refers to the dispensation of petroleum products. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never heard the term "filling station" to refer to a place where you put fuel in your car. 'Gas station' would be considered an Americanism here, but it's understood what it means at least. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia generally tries to use the most common term. I have yet to see either gas station or filling station used for anything else. What we need is for someone to find a good corpus of words that can tell them which of these terms is most widely used and then implement it. The one argument for filing stations is that many such stations dispense disel as well as gasoline and so this is a better term. It also avoids regional variations between petrol verses gas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom as the main article of this category is named "Filling station". Beagel (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, both of them are regional terms that are either unknown or not used in particular parts of the world. Surely a nationally neutral term can be agreed upon? How about "service station"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As you see, service station is right now an ambiguous page and as a term in some cases it may refer to different facilities. Beagel (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as ambiguous at this time. Filling Station could be a company. Filling stations are used to fill water bottles. I'll second the options above that we need a better language neutral name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiProject Cheers members[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. WOSlinker (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The WikiProject Associated with this category was deleted so there is no need for the category at this point. Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiProject Cheers[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. WOSlinker (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The WikiProject Associated with this category was deleted so there is no need for the category at this point. Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Opera singers who died in Nazi concentration camps[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; consensus to Merge,. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Opera singers who died in Nazi concentration camps to Category:Opera singers who died in the Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small with no potential for growth (only one entry). 71.20.47.135 (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a well-defined sub-cat of the parent. Also see Category:Composers who died in Nazi concentration camps. Lugnuts (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Concentration camps and extermination camps differed, I believe. "...Holocaust" is more succinct and more accurate. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and also merge to Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps. I am pretty sure that occupation was not relevant. (All the 'by occupation' subcats should also be upmerged.) Occuli (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the two concepts are co-extensive. People died in Nazi concentration camps who were not part of the Jewish Holocaust, and people died in the Jewish Holocaust but not in Nazi concentration camps. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I created this category), I also did 7 of the 9 articles on opera singers who died during Nazi persecution/genocide. I started by placing opera singers under Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation then moved most articles to Category:Opera singers who died in the Holocaust. The problem was/is (compare the musicians/composers categories) that while the great majority died in the death camps, there were also those who died on the road, disappeared, died in refugee camps (such as Romanian opera singer who died after he'd reached the safety of Switzerland). Overall I would think "Holocaust" covers it better, but I left Hans Erl in the "in Nazi concentration camps" deliberately so that it would end up on categories for discussion. Then it's probably something where Jewish editors should have the casting/vote decision. Then the question remains, what about all the other dozens of categories. (btw - to the comment by Occuli on Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation that occupation wasn't relevant. It evidently wasn't relevant to the Germans, however in considering the cultural/social impact on Europe of this event Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation is relevant to be able to search by "writer" "composer" "journalist" "opera singer" etc. and other of 19 categories.) To Carrite, yes concentration camps (Theresienstadt) and those concentration camps which had gas chambers and ovens (Auschwitz) did differ, but the category is concentration camps so it covers both, and victims died in both. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were also those slaughtered by the Einsatzgruppen who died by being lined up and shot and not in any camp at all. The majority of victims in the holocaust were killed in extermination or death camps, where they were sent to the gas chambers directly on arrival. It is a misrepresenation of the experience and horror of what these people went through to call this concentration camps, and so this will remain a limited category as a sub-category that covers few of the deaths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only about half of the victims of the holocaust were Jewish by the Nazis own definition. Many of those who the Nazis killed as Jews would not have identified as Jews, such as the CAtholic priests and nuns who were sent to the concentration and death camps because they fit the Nazi definition of Jew. The Holocaust is not a special domain of Jews, and I say this as someone who had a grandmother who was raised Jewish and who thus might come close to fitting the Nazi definition of Jews. Wikipedia is meant to be an open collaboration, and suggesting that people based on their ethnicity/race (that is the term that best describes how the Nazis defined Jews)/religion have a special insight into categories, especially when they are not limited to that ethncity/race/religion (it is probably many of the people killed in the Holocaust who were musicians were Gypsies) is just not the right approach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would recomend upmerging this category into Category:Musicians killed in the Holocaust. I see no reason that there needs to be sub-categorization beyond that. Maybe Category:Singers killed in the Holocaust but there seems to be no reason to sub-divide singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the whole structure of naming in this category tree there are major issues, and I have proposed recently some other changes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I don't believe there is any relationship between being an opera singer and having died either in a concentration camp specifically or in the Holocaust generally. Unless someone can point me to some reliable citations that there is a relationship between the two (i.e. the Nazis sent opera singers to the camps because they were opera singers and not for some other reason) then I don't see the justification for a category based on the two disparate characteristics. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or delete this and similar cats I think Harley Hudson makes a good point. Notable victims of the Holocaust can be categorised by their profession and by their casualty type separately. However the overlap of profession and casualty status is only of importance if this is notable in itself. For example, if a certain profession or artistic movement is documented as being exceptionally setback due to the Holocaust, then a list of victims could accompany an article. Or if there were an article on music in Auschwitz, say, then a list of those who performed there might be appropriate. But no to categories of two specific overlaps.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, this is an mp3 of Grete Forst, then a young protoge of Mahler at the Vienna Opera, and who later wrote an obituary for Mahler in the Vienna press. ♪ Puccini - 'Madama Butterfly': "Se tua madre" (1908) ♪. And no, it was not because of her WP:Notability as a protege of Mahler that at the age of 62 she was transported to the Vitebsk ghetto and killed there. Why would it be? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, in regard to "However the overlap of profession and casualty status is only of importance if this is notable in itself." - Firstly where is the wikipedia criteria that says this? If there is such Wikipedia criteria then why does Category:American actors by state divide 1200 American actors into Category:Actors from Kansas etc? Please link to the criteria page which states that a subcategory must be notable in itself? Secondly, when you have provided the WP link, on what grounds do you consider this subcategory not notable? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link is WP:OCTrivial - "Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated". Occuli (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link Occuli, and the :Example: Celebrity Gamers, Red haired kings I think the problem is however that since the Germans didn't distinguish, and therefore the distinction of the occupation was trivial to the Germans in killing these people, whether therefore the distinction of the occupation should also be a trivial intersection to Wikipedia, and all 120 bio-articles should be Category:People who died in the Holocaust, period. Going by WP:Notability I think the intention of the example Celebrity Gamers, Red haired kings is there to show that a trivial intersection is more the intersection of something that is trivial. The difference being that you don't get scholarly sources on the impact of red-haired kings, but you do get books on the impact of 1939-1940 genocide on European music/art/literature. There was no red-haired king league, but there was The Jewish Cultural Association (Der Jüdische Kulturbund), also organized in 1933, hired over 1300 men and 700 women artists, musicians, and actors fired from German institutions, and grew to about 70,000 members.(Jonathan C. Friedman The Routledge History of the Holocaust 2011 Page 92). Jewish participation in music in the Weimar Republic, and sudden termination of that in 1933 is notable in itself. The fact that those who were deprived of their livelihood in 1933 were also largely deprived of their lives 10 years later may or may not be an exclusive causal intersection, but I don't think it is a trivial intersection either, even if it was trivial to the perpetrators.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be addressing my point that lists are more appropriate than categories for this sort of thing.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree, but it's not an either/or Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_12 In ictu oculi (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for god's sake, none of these people were killed because they sang opera. Categorizing them by this intersection creates the impression that they were and that impression is a lie. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see main discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_12#Category:Holocaust_victims_by_occupation.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started the main discussion, thanks, and it's every bit as ridiculous as this one. All of these "Nazi victim by occupation" categories create the false impression that the Nazis went after these people because of their occupation and there's been nothing offered at either discussion to support that impression. "Opera singers who died in concentration camps". "Butchers who died in the Hiroshima bomb". "Bakers who died in the Great Chicago fire". "Candlestick makers who died in American interment camps". All irrelevant intersections of unrelated facts. But because a dedicated group of editors who do not spend any time outside the Judaism project have decided that this has something to do with how Jews are treated on Wikipedia, we gotten a lot of hot air and unsupported nonsense that ignores the simple fact that none of these people died because of what they did for a living. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see main discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_12#Category:Holocaust_victims_by_occupation.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see how none of these people died for singing opera. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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