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.
Delete as misguided and purely disruptive. StrPby (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bowser423 shouldn't be making so much stuff without consensus, especially if it isn't in his own userspace. This was likely created as a result of frustration due to a few MfDs of his pages.Jasper Deng(talk) 23:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and disruptiveCurb Chain (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unhelpful. Editor needs a strong cease and desist. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary and disruptive. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent[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.
Nominators rationale. I know this will change the scope of the category, but I think the new name is what was really intended and would more adequately include people. People of Jewish descent is supposed to only be used for non-Jews. However of the 15 people I have sampled so far, 13 are Jews, one is an American person of Jewish descent, and one is a Yugoslav emigrant to the US who had a grandparent who was a Polish Jew (he himself was a Roman Cahtolic). In general the people of Jewish descent cats are only for non-Jews, but the vast majority of people in this cat are also in Jew cats. If we renamed it it would actually reflect how it is being used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least one of the people in this cat Salo Wittmayer Baron was a rabbi. This definantly seems to indicate he is miscategorized being put in this cat with its current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think it makes any sense to rename this category when there are 35 or so other similar subcategories in Category:American people of Jewish descent. The current names for these were selected here, where the option of naming them "American Jews of FOOian descent" was offered as one possibility, but this format was selected instead. If these categories exist, we should keep them all in the same format at the very least. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Along the lines of Good Olfactory, the current naming occurred quite recently and with quite a few WP users contributing to the discussion; and that the whole set of alike cats needs to be nominated. I personally do agree with the suggested rename here (as my second choice, to Category:American Jews of Polish origin) and concomitant change in purpose (strictly speaking) for this cat., which was its original purpose, to list American Jews who had lived, or whose forebearers had lived, in Poland Mayumashu (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Where can we find an explanation of how categories "…of Jewish descent" are supposed to be used? Is it defined anywhere? I am reading up above that "People of Jewish descent is supposed to only be used for non-Jews" and "In general the people of Jewish descent cats are only for non-Jews…" but where is this explained? Can anybody link to a page? Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. Individual users just make these categories up as they go. There's been no grand plan roll-out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is easy to say this should be discussed with its sister cats but unrealistic for multiple reasons. 1-the issues I bring up apply to the contents of this cat, whether they apply to the contents of other cats is a different issue. 2- Actually I know that there are some sister cats where it does not apply, I think specifically Category:American people of Cuban-Jewish descent where the one member of the cat is not a Jew but a Cuban person of Jewish descent. The basic problem is that the Jews tree and the people of Jewish descent tree are supposed to be seperate. I guess in theory we could split this cat into the current one and the proposed one, and seperate out people based on whether they were Jews or just of Jewish descent into the two cats. 3- The biggest reason to not nominate all the cats at once it is just really hard. It takes a lot of time, and then you have complexed issues that are often cat specific. Some of these descent sub-cats only have non-Jews. I guess I could make a nomination that would argue everybody in these cats should be limited to Jews, and argue to delete those cats where there are non-Jews. I really do not see why people came up with the current names, since these categories are in general to differenciate the ancestral origins of various American Jews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The November discussion totally failed to point out that People of Jewish descent is generally used in a way to be distinct from Jews. It never really discussed the substance of the different categories. Basically it ignored the fact that Category:American Jews exist, because Jewishness is a non-nation specific ethnicity/religious related ethnicity. It is not a nation specific ethnicity like being Polish, where for many definitions of Polishness you have to be a citizen of Poland. No one argues being a citizen of Israel is required to be a Jew. This confusion of nation-related ethnicities with non-nation related ethnicities is unfortunant. I guess I will give up and renominate this whole cat tree, which is the frustrating thing about CfD. You nominate individual cats and make points based on their content, only to be told that you should discuss the general concept, you make nominations on the general concept that apply to it on the parent cat, get a consensus and have refusal to follow on the grounds the base consensus was too small, or you put a whole plethora of cats into nomination, which makes it hard to say anything meaningful on the individual cats and makes the whole process significantly longer, more involved, and engaging more of ones energy making the failure of people to even look at your actual arguments all the most frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Two parts. 1- Is there a way to get this closed as "consensus to nominate the whole tree with no prejudice on outcome"? 2- Even more inportantly, can I get an agreement to discuss the merits of the nomination and not just complaints about it not being broad enough if I expand this to all the American people of X-Jewish descent cats, or do I have to expand it to all the Y people of X Jewish descent sub-national cats for discussion, ignoring the fact that the US is a place that is considered by many Jews not truly part of the diaspora, and that the preservance of Jewishness based on parenthood changes over time and place, so the usefulness of Y people of X-Jewish descent verses Y Jews of X descent is highly conditioned on the specific nature of the cultural complex in the various countries involved, making a world-wide generalization of which of these two names is best difficult. Also While the majority of these cases are American there are some from other countries and so a worldwide nomination would be an even more daunting process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These sub-cats are out of line with this header note at Category:American people of Jewish descent "Note: Listed are citizens of the United States with Jewish ancestry for whom reliable sources have not been found indicating self-identification as being Jewish (observant or nonobservant). For Americans who are Jews (observant or nonobservant) see Category:American Jews and the other subcategories listed below." This is interesting in itself, we put people in a category because there are no reliable sources that would clearly say they would self-identify with the category. I think the insistence that the subjects must be "American citizens" is problematic, since if we found a slave who died in 1859 whose father was clearly agreed to be a Jew and lived their entire life in Virginia they would not qualify because per the Dred Scot decision they were not a citizen. However this is a clear indicator that this category should be renamed and removed as a sub-cat of Category:American people of Jewish descent and I see no good reason why we should wait to agree that all of the sub-cats that functionally include Jews should be renamed. I could have probably just removed all the Jews in the cat we are discussing, but since that would remove probably over 80% of the category it would have been illogical, but based on category rules and category criteria it could have been done. I see no reason to wait to do something about all the offending child cats. This cat is an offending child cat, and we can change that. Some others are actually in line with guidelines, so this is a case by case basis, not a mass consideration basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's got to be the first time ever that Dred Scott v. Sandford has been used to support an argument in a CFD discussion. :) Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying we should ignore reality and act like people were citizens of the United States who were denied citizenship?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that "American FOO" requires that the person be a citizen of the United States—they just need to be from the United States. "American people" can simply mean "people from the United States", and that's how it's best interpreted when it comes to categories. There's no need to dissect citizenship laws—we just need to determine where the person is from. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks, John Pack Lambert, and Good Ol’factory, for your responses to my question posted up above. Let me add the following thoughts, and please provide further responses.
The reader should be apprised of the way "…of Jewish descent" is being used in Category names and the significance of that terminology should be uniform in all Categories that employ that wording. A definition should be provided on every page that it is used or a link should be provided wherever the Category name is found, to a definition or an explanation.
The literal meaning of "…of Jewish descent" only serves as a distinction between those born Jewish and those who have converted to Judaism. The literal meaning says nothing about whether these individuals are Jewish according to reliable sources and involving self-identification in the case of living individuals. I think we should rethink whether we even want to make the distinction that is the fundamental meaning of the phrase "…of Jewish descent", and if it is another distinction we wish to make, we should use appropriate language geared to that distinction. In general I think we should have more transparency for both readers and editors alike as to what we are striving for and the criteria we are applying to arrive at differentiations that separate people into different Categories.
I can't address the question posed concerning the name change for the Category because I think the problem is wider than just this question. A definition should be provided for any Category name that includes the terminology "…of Jewish descent". A corollary question we should be asking ourselves is, what is the exact distinction that we are trying to make with this or closely related Categories? Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' The rename will move this category out of the morass we find with the phrase "of Jewish descent" and into the slightly surer groun we find with "Jews". It will reduce from one to two the amorphous number of descents included. We would also be able to move it from being in two parent trees that seem to exist against each other (Category:American people of Jewish descent and Category:American Jews by national origin) and move it into just the latter, specifically as a sub-cat of Category:American Jews of Slavic European descent, a cat that it is currently in). I do have to admit that I wonder why we have that parent cat at all. I would alter things so this is just a child cat of Category:American Jews of European descent, but that will require a nomination because that cat only has sub-cats and one should not unilaterally blank a cat because one thinks it is odd, but that can wait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed I removed the two Jews parent cats, on the understanding that the cat name indicated its contents were not Jews. I decided that this has made this nomination more complexed than it would have been so i added them back. I still think these people are not Polish Jews, they are American Jews, at least per the cat definition (some individuals here may be both, but there is no reason to exclude American-born people from the cat).John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename toCategory:American Jews of Polish-Jewish descent. This category was one of over 20 categories in the same series, that were nominated for renaming on 18 November 2010, the result of which was to rename to its present name and to reject the name currently being proposed by the nominator (which was suggested at the time as an alternative). The previous name of this category was Category:Polish American Jews, so it is clear that the category is intended to include Jews. In the earlier discussion, the fact that the people concerned were not simply of "Polish" orgin, but were of "Polish-Jewish" origin was an important consideration. In light of various issues that have been raised regarding the name, I propose a new name for each of the categories in the series, similar to that proposed at the beginning of this comment. However, there are at present a number of discussions taking place regarding this category tree - see in particular Cfd July 2011 - American People of X-Jewish descent, where I suggest that all discussion on this series be centralized and no final decission be made in isolation. Davshul (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Too fine a distinction is being made. Categories need to simpler. A distinction need not be made whether an individual is religious or secular. Secular Jews are normally considered Jews, unless sources tell us otherwise, for instance in the case of conversion. Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What source do you have for that? By whom are they considered Jews? Are those people WP should identify with to categorize people? Without sources and knowing whose concept of race/ethnicity/religion we're being asked to apply, I think it inconsistent with BLP and encyclopedic accuracy to do this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46—for Wikipedia purposes a person is a Jew if reliable sources say they are a Jew. It should not matter whether the individual is observant, nonobservant, or in-between. Sorry if I was not clear enough that I am only referring to those individuals that reliable sources indicate as being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the parent cat says "American people of Jewish descent" are American citizens, there is every reason to discet citizenship laws in this discussion. It would be nice if people read the relevant category headings before criticising those of us who took the time to do so for incorporating and commenting on what the headings actually say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Nominator's rationale:Upmerge'Rename to Category:Media about events. Do other editors agree that this category sub-structure by User:Stefanomione (and the subcats for revolutions and wars) is unwieldy and unnecessary? We typically use the sort key to rank sub-categories that are top-level and I can't see why we can't do so in this case, arranging things adequately and simply within Category:Media by event, without creating this awkward (it seems to me) sub-structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge We recently had a similar discussion regarding a category that was named similarly to Category:Media by medium, but I can't find it now. Anyhow, upmerge b/c such dual categorization of event and medium is unclear and ambiguous because should it be categorized by event first or medium first?Curb Chain (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. On the category:Media by revolution and Category:Media by war these two should be merged. All the involved revolutions are wars. I am just unsure if we need these cats at all. There might be some other places that we have longer established cats for the various things, and so I am not sure what the best move is. However I see no reason to distinguish wars and revolutions. It is not like we have Category:Books about the industrial revolution in there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the revolutions mentioned here are wars. The cats may be in theory different, but in practice all the revolution cats could be treated as war cats, so that we are creating duplicate cats that really are not marking any actual distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American converts to Roman Catholicism[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.
Delete, non-standard 3-way intersection; WP:category intersection tools are available. Similar categories for converts to Islam were nominated on July 27. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another 3-way intersection that's trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
nem. con. Those listed are/were all Companies Doug butler (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, and there are existing categories for Australian companies (similar to other countries) Hugo999 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never heard a person called a manufacturer. I think the term for that is normally something like industrialist. Categories that merge articles on people with articles not on people are generally discouraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and make it snappy. Lugnuts (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it...and what's that ticking sound.....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American singers of Puerto Rican descent[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; revisit deletion in a separate discussion if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale We currently have a sister category Category:American musicians of Mexican descent which includes the broader scope of coverage. There are a lot of musicians who are not singers, and it is not clear why we should only have this category be for singers and not for other musicians. It seems we should expand this category to have larger coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom. Agree that the broader scope here is better. Mayumashu (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial 3-way intersection; are we planning to have a whole series of Category:American mooers of Fooish descent for every moo (profession) and Foo (descent)??? This is far to narrow and trivial intersection, and just will succeed in moving a slew of American singers/musicians out by descent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
