Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28[edit]

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

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

  • Comment I really would not mind replacing "descent" with "origin". However the intent of these categories is to include Jews born in the US whose grandparents or such came from the country in question, as well as those American Jews born in these questions. It is also the general formation of various things. This would also leave them easily with their parent cats like Category:American people of Czech descent. I think if we want to change from "descent" to "origin" we should switch all the cats. However the point here is that we are including people born in the US who have ancestors from the countries in question, not just Jews who immigrated to the US from these countries. Even in cats where all the people currently are immigrants there is no reason to permanently limit it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, too, that 'origin' may imply having come directly from the previous place, and not by way of ancestors. So, in the end here, I support the nominated renamed. I think ultimately, if WP keeps its ancestry cats (and personally I think they are not maintainable as there are next to no reliable sources available), then it should be Category:American people of Zambian origin or descent etc. to more clearly cover both types of people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs)
  • Need to centralize discussion There are currently at least four different discussions taking place regarding categories in this series. All discussion should be centralized. The other discussions are:
A Cfd commenced on July 26 to rename Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent
status of Cfr discussion on "Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent" as at 3 August 2011
  • Rename Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Polish descent
  • 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]
  • Comment The Category:People of Jewish descent by nationality cat does explain how it is not to be used for Jews. This is a recent introduction, it used to be explained at Category:People of Jewish descent but that cat was deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 28 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]
If it to be just this, being from, then why do we bother maintaining an expats tree? I guess you would argue that we shouldnt. But we can't call it 'nationality' at the supracat level, as we do - I can say I'm from Japan as I lived there 12 years, but it's a real stretch to say my nationality is Japanese, without Japanese citizenship or much Japanese ethnicity (intermediate language skills and still poorer Japanese mindset, despite my better efforts!). If we are to stay broad with just 'from', then the supracats need to be 'by country' and not 'by nationality'. Mayumashu (talk) 12:06, 3 August 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 to Category: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]
  • Delete a triple intersection of religion, current nationality, and ancestry is trivial. Category:American Roman Catholics of Norwegian descent for Knute Rockne; Category:American Muslims of Puerto Rican descent for José Padilla???? No thanks! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 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]
A Cfd commenced on July 29 to rename Category:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent
status of Cfr discussion on "Category:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent" as at 3 August 2011
  • Rename Category:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent to Category:American Jews of Candiaian descent
  • Nominators rationale. This should be renamed since everyone in the category is a Jew. Generally "people of Jewish descent" is a term used in wkipedia only to describe non-Jews. Beyond this this will put it in line with its parent cat Category:American Jews by national origin. The move last Novembmer to this current name did not consider that in wikipedia classifications "people of Jewish descent" is a term used for people who are not Jews, if they are Jews we call them Jews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sounds reasonable. Except for the typo.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Jews of Canadian-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 above (which was suggested at the time as an alternative). The previous name of this category was Category:Canadian 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 "Fooian" orgin, but were of "Fooian-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 by me 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) 14:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete triple intersection per the Polish-Jewish above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Cfd commenced on July 29 to rename Category:American people of French-Jewish descent
status of Cfr discussion on "Category:American people of French-Jewish descent" as at 3 August 2011
As well as the general discussion below regarding the parent category Category:American people of Jewish descent
I propose all discussion on these categories takes place on this page, the discussion on the first three categories listed above being remove to this discussion and that no decision be made to make any changes as a result of the general discussion below, without taking into account this discussion, and vice versa. (We have already seen here, the deletion of one of the parent categories in this category tree - Category:People of Jewish descent - without consideration of its affect on the rest of the tree). Davshul (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I propose the following regarding the three categories in this series nominated by the nominator in Cfr's on other pages:
I am unclear as to why the nominator selected just the above categories for renaming, there are at least another 13 in the series that have not been nominated, and which I accordingly nominate below:
I will be adding the appropriate tags to the above categories, drawing attention to this discussion. Davshul (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that we need to centralize discussion. I'm opposed to the the use of the phrase "…of Jewish descent", and I'm opposed to the use of hyphenation between the name of a country and the word Jewish. Category names should be extremely clear, and the clearest of rules for naming Categories should be applied uniformly across all Categories. The same criteria for inclusion should apply if a Category has one member or one-hundred members. Boilerplate should spell out the significance of Categories for both readers and editors alike. Care should be taken to assign the same significance to like terms appearing in different Category names. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I too agree that we need to centralize discussion of these with the list of nominated categories presented cleanly. As it stands, these nomination are a little bit too chaotic and spread-out for users to make sense of without major effort. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to centralize and in an attempt to clean up the nominations, I have added above the discussion on the other Cfr's of categories in this series and summarized my own proposals on all the categories in the series. Davshul (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Cuban and Pakistani cats are currently empty. The Pakistani cat is empty because the only person who was in it not only is not a Jew but a Muslim (or at least her mother who is of Jewish descent is Muslim), but her last Jewish ancestor lived in India before the creation of Pakistan. Her mother moved from India to Pakistan specifically because she was a Muslim. The Cuban category is empty on the theory that these cats should be reserved for people who are actually Jews.
    • Comment. The status regarding these categories is not stable. One day they are populated and the next day empty. However, if these categories remain empty (or again become empty), then it is quite simple to speedily deleted them as empty. However, if either of the category do not remain empty, such category should be renamed in similar manner to the other categories in this series. If, in the meantime, they have been deleted as empty, they will appear in red and obviously not be renamed. (Several other categories in this series were recently deleted, including two at my instigation, as they were empty.) I do not believe that this is the place to discuss whether or not people qualify to be listed in the categories. Davshul (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see multiple problems with the dual Jew in the name. 1-There is a strong precdent for modifying American directly and then putting "of X descent". Thus we have Category:American musicians of Mexican descent and thus Category:American Jews of Mexican descent works as a close correlary. I know some people will point out being a Jew is very different than being a musician, but I think the general form works. 2- The dash wars I think have shown that where possible we should avoid using dashes. 3- arguably the biggest reason why I think we should avoid the double Jew form is we are classifying American Jews by their ethnic/ancestral origin. I am not convinced that we need to limit this to where their Jewish ancestors lived. As it is the vast majority of Jews have only known Jewish ancestors. We could make this even more the case by deciding not to include converts to Judaism in these categories. So I think all of these categorize should be renamed to Category:American Jews of French descent and so forth. Any people in any of these categories who are not actually Jews (observant of Judaism or not, basically they would just need to self-identify as Jews, we would accept non-religious Jews and people who identify as Jews while practicing other religions) should be removed from the categories. Another problem with the Jews of x-Jewish descent form is it would move from us having to 1- determine that the people had ancestors in a given place and 2- that the person is in some way a Jew to a third question "did any of their ancestors living in x place identify as being Jews while living in that place". That would just be an added amount of ancestral data that we do not currently have. I do think we should not use nationality identifiers anachronistically, which is why the Slovak category is so small, because before 1918 Slovakia was not at all an identifier of place. Czech Jews can be used before that date though because Czech is a full synonnym of Bohemian, and the area was clearly Bohemia before 1918. I would say since we have Ottoman and Turkish Jews cats, we should only use Turkish for those who had ancestors living in modern Turkey after 1922. Greek should be limited to those who had ancestors who lived in the Nation-state of Greece, so if they left Salonika in 1909 they do not count, thus Maurice Abravanel does not count as a Greek Jew. Pakistani should not be used for people unless they had Jewish ancestors living in the country after it was created in 1947, and Israeli should not be applied to people who were born in the US in 1947 to parents who had moved to the US from what is today Israel. All these rules apply whether we use Jew one or two times in the cat names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. (1) This is the fourth occasion in less than 15 months that these categories were the subject of discussions regarding renaming. On each of the three previous occasions, here, here and here, there was a proposal to rename per your proposal, which was not agreed. I believe it is unreasonable that every few months the same failed proposals are raised. It was pointed out in the previous dicsussions that there there is a significant difference between, say, Lithuanian descent and Lithuanian-Jewish descent, and I reiterate all the points made in the previous discussions. However, I note the point made by you that elsewhere categories "of Jewish descent" or "of Fooian-Jewish descent" would normally refer to those not generally considered as "Jewish", and although personally I would have had no problem with leaving the categories unchanged, in response to your comment, I put forward above the proposal to substitute the words "American Jews" for "American people" which will enable a parent category, "People..." and "American People..." solely to list non-Jews, and anyone clearly identified as a Jew, would be in listed in the subcategory, "American Jews of....". (I would also point out that the new categories will also enable one to reduce the number of entries in the Category:American Jews (currently with over 3,800 listed articles), as at present a large number of the articles listed in the categories under discussion are also listed in the "American Jews" category, as the present name can also include non-Jews which will not be the case with the name.)
(2) I have no particular view as to whether or not to include a dash, and am quite willing to amend my counter-proposal to exclude the dash, subject to Mayumashu's view, who has recently endorsed my proposals.
(3) As to the third issue raised by you, this is largely covered by the earlier discussions. In so far as your comments as to whom to include in the specific categories, and the extent to which the designations should be limited to the current national entity, the wider geographical area or the historic nation state, etc., I believe that this is best dealt with by discussion following a general decision on the category names. Davshul (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "Persian" verses "Iranian". We use the accepted modern identifiers for the countries, except where we use an excepted past identifier for a past country. Thus we call them "American people of Czech-Jewish descent" even though the vast majority of them or their ancestors left the modern Czech Republic when it was still known as Boehmia. Also, these are not the same as categories like "Ashkenazi Jews" or "Romiot Jews". We are not identifying these Jews by their Jewish ethnicity but by the nation of origin of their ancestors (in some cases it is also the country where they were born, but that is not the issue). The goal here is to identify the nation where there Jewsish ancestors came from, not to identify the sub-Jewish ancestry they are part of. Thus we should use Iranian instead of Persian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial triple intersection (see my comment on the Polish-Jewish categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User:Davshul's suggested renames, all. The "built-in redundancy" of sorts, of 'Jews of Fooian-Jewish descent', provides the best clarity of all suggestions made thus far, for this tricky rename. (I've struck out my previous "votes" above.) Mayumashu (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mayumashu, what is your view regarding dropping the dash from the new category names proposed by me? John Pack Lambert raised the issue above and I responded that I had no objection, subject to your view, as you had already endorsed the new names proposed by me. Cheers. Davshul (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really do not see the need for using Jewish twice, but I would prefer to go to that than to leave this at the status quo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there has been a comment posted on the Canadian-Jewish cat discussion since the positing of that discussions content to this cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Carlos Suarez on Polish-Jewish cats. The Cats I nominated here and the ones I nominated seperately later on have all been reviewed and with the exception of the Tunisian-American Jews cat pruned to people who meet the requirements for classifying as Jews. I did have to remove several articles where the article made no claim that the person was a Jew, and I would guess the Polish, Austrian, German, Russian and other cats I did not review, being even larger than the ones I did review, would probably have this problem even more so. However this is a case of miscategorization. The fact that people apply a category where it does not belong does not mean we should not have the category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Simon & Garfunkel 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: No consensus. The nominator is advised to start a general discussion about categories for duos members. Ruslik_Zero 12:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Simon & Garfunkel members to Category:Simon & Garfunkel
  • Nominator's rationale There were only two members of this group, so it does not seem neccesary for there to be a seperate category for its members. We might at some point have Category:Simon & Garfunkel people, to cover other people who worked with the group as recording engineers, producers, tour schedulers, etc., if we get enough such people who are notable to have an articles to make this category worth while, but with the two group members clearly connected with the group in its name, I do not see a need for the category as it now is. I know this is sort of what was nominated a little bit ago, but this uses the actual form of the name in the cat (whether we should have the ampersand, I as opposed to writing out "and", I do not know). It also links to the cat, and I have posted a notice of CfD on the cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [I wonder whether it really is necessary to have category "Simon and Garfunkel members" as it seems obvious that Art Garfunkel and Paul Simon were the only members of this duo. If a band has as four members, such as the Beatles, I could understand why we would have a category for its members, but I wonder about the necessity of this category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this a delete nomination? I'm not sure.... I think it should be deleted anyway because uh, yeah.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (Note: There were two discussions on this category - I merged the two above comments into this one with this edit.) Avicennasis @ 22:31, 26 Tamuz 5771 / 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Do not merge. Duos don't get a members category. Occuli (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More likely spam. There is a variety of people who are noticable to have been edited in an article, while this is clearly superfluous for being a category.--Corusant (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator. There are many categories for duos, such as Category:Dos members, Category:Goldfrapp members, and Category:Erasure members. Just because it is obvious who is in a category doesn't mean the category is not valid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be of limited usage in isolation, but it is part of an overall scheme which would otherwise be incomplete if not included. This is similar to having an album category for bands that produced only one album, or a book category for authors who wrote only one. Good Olfactory 02:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Emerson and Gerardw (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I hear that quote one more time in a CFD, I'm going to start thinking that those who repeatedly quote it can't see the self-inflicted irony of doing so .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No useful purpose for this two-member category. When I saw this CfD, my first assumption was that the category had been created as a joke. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost worth daftifying. And what's with the weird "see also" links? Grutness...wha? 10:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess that is what I get for copying CfD notice templates without paying close attention. I removed the accidental see also links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in accordance with other subcategories of Category:Musicians by band, eg Category:Brooks & Dunn members. Some people might not know the first names of the pair. Cjc13 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Undecided. It is obvious they are a duo.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 12:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As part of an established scheme, both of Category:Musicians by band and Category:ARTIST category (in this case, Category:Simon & Garfunkel.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of 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.
The result of the discussion was: keep due to 'do not rename' result on above categories. This category is needed as a container for the ones retained above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:American people of Jewish descent
  • Nominators rationale. There are two issues here. One is why the sub-cats of this category are here and not at Category:American Jews by national origin. However some of the subcats belong here, some would seem to belong there, and some are split between the two, the latter may include Category:American people of Tunisian-Jewish descent, one of whose contents clearly would be in this category, that is George Allen, while the other probably actually qualifies as a Jew. However I think we need to first focus on the definition of this cat. The cat header says "Note: Listed are citizens of the United States with Jewish ancestry for whom reliable sources have not been found indicating self-identification as being Jewish (observant or nonobservant). For Americans who are Jews (observant or nonobservant) see Category:American Jews and the other subcategories listed below." There are a few questions. 1-Is being a citizen of the US neccesary to be an "American". There are three sets of people who might be one and not the other. One is people born before the 14th admendment who were not granted citizenship although they lived their entire lives in the US, is Nat Turner an American or not? 2- People who died before the United States became an indepndent country. Is Crispus Attucks an American? What about John Barnard (clergyman)? The later is in categories such as Category:American Congregationalist clergy, although he died in 1770 (I found him by doing the 1770 death cat search), but he was chaplain of what appears to have been a Massachusetts military regiment. It seems we have concluded we can apply the term American to people who died before 1776 (and even that is to probably too early to speak of people having citizenship in the United States). 3- While some may argue the first two sets are not likely to affect this category, the third one certainly will. There are people who immigrate to the US significantly before they gain any notability at anything, and thus practice their entire career in the US, and are thus described as say "American geologists" or "American accountants", but they never formally get US citizenship. Do we really think an author who wrote books in English set in the US and is always descibed as an American author, but was born in Poland and came to the US at age 4 but never actually got citizenship, should be excluded from this category because he did not have citizenship? 3a- There are also several people who are essentially like the above, but who we really do not know if they have citizenship or not, we can tell they were born in Australia, Estonia, Germany or wherever, came to the US at age 10, and lived in the US until they died at age 80, going to an American public high school, one or more American universities and so forth, but the article does not state they were a citizen. Does it really make sense to not call them Ameircan just because we do not know what their citizenship was?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment continuing main discussion, split so we do not have long and unconnected paragraph overload There is another issue that to me is even bigger than citizenship. It is that second part "with Jewish ancestry for whom reliable sources have not been found indicating self-identification as being Jewish (observant or nonobservant)". It is proably self-evident that a blog by the subject would be a reliable source they self-identify as being a Jew (verifiability is what we are talking about here, not notability. Notability applies to whether we have an article or not, verifiablitiy is the threshold for what we put in the article). The problem is that this is just functioning as "someone says this person has an ancestor who was a Jew, but nothing proves that they self-identified as being Jewish at all". The problem is that the current wording emphasiszes that we should exclude people who are veriafiably Jews. It ignores the fact that there needs to be some minimum verifiable connection to having a Jewish ancestor. At a minimum people should not be put in this cat if there is no statement in the article that they had a Jewish ancestor, and a statement should not be in the aritcle unless it is actrually sourced. Betyond this, categorizations should be uncontroversial. If a person adamantly denies having Jewish ancestors, I really do not think we should put them in this cat. I think we need to reword this so that we say something like "Note:Listed are American people with Jewish ancestry. This means that there is both veriafiable information (that should be included in the text of the article) that they had Jewish ancestry and also no reliable sources that indicate that they self-identified as being Jewish observant or nonobservant). For the purposes of their self-identification as a Jew there is no need for the source to be 3rd-party, if they wrote an autobiogrpahy or issued a press-relaese in which they said they were a Jew/Jewish (which is different than saying they had Jewish ancestors or descibing a specific ancestor as being Jewish) than this would qualify as a reliable source they self-identified as a Jew (it would not neccesarily be a reliable source for other claims). For Americans who are Jews (observant or nonobservant) see Category:American Jews".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noticed the "and other sub-categories listed below", is that saying that the categories of Category:American Jews are also a place to look, or is it saying that the sub-cats of this category can contain things that would not qualify as fitting the parameters of the parent cat? If it is the later, than we should clearly delete the line, if it is the former, we should remove it because it is unneccesary and confusing. A sub-cat of a category should be something that fits in the category. Thus we have Category:Harvard University alumni and Category:Harvard Law School alumni as a sub-cat. Those who are alumni of Harvard Law School are also alumni of its parent institution Harvard University, so if we decided having the law school alumni cat did not make sense we could move all the people to the parent cat. That is how sub-cats works, so it makes no sense to have that last part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query – what does the nominator recommend? (Usually a cfd nom is a brief proposal, leading in some cases to reams of responses. Here we seem to have a ream of observations but no proposal, unless I have missed it.) Occuli (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not useful. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i thought it was clear that I recomended we change the text of the header. This may not be a normal CfD nom, but the cat discussion pages say they are rarely looked at, and I wanted to open this up for people who might be able to give insights to the issues discussed. So I made this proposal to change the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (in answer to contributors who "vote" here assuming it is a nomination - as long as WP has categories for ancestry, such as Category:American people of Italian descent etc. There are Americans with Jewish ancestry (typically partial) who are neither practising Jewish faith nor who self-identify as being secular Jewish.) As for this "nomination", the points raised belong on the talk page for this category, not here. However in reply, all categories under Category:American people by ethnic or national origin include a header saying that listed are U.S. citizens, as the term 'American' can refer to someone of the Americas, and that is clearly not the intended purpose. True though, this unintentionally leaves out "colonial Americans" (of the 13 colonies), and the header should be edited accordingly. As for expats in or immigrants to the U.S. who work in a field in the U.S. and are listed under, say, 'American musicians', that is not a shortcoming of this particular category page, but a WP-wide matter that does not to be cleared up. (As it stands) Category:American musicians, for example, is a sub-category of Category:Musicians by nationality, meaning citizenship. If that is the case, then expat musicians who work in the U.S. are still not, for WP catting purposes at present, considered 'American musicians'. Perhaps we should have a dual-purpose set of occupation cats, to allow for 'American musician' to mean both musicians active in the music in the U.S. and also any American who is a musician anywhere in the world (both country and citizenship combined, with a header to say so). Then the supracategory should be Category:Musicians by country instead. Alternatively we could maintain two separate cat. trees - Category:Musicians by country of citizenship with the subcat Category:Musicians with American citizenship and Category:Musicians by country where active with the subcat Category:Musicians active in the United States. Mayumashu (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The possibly too broad interpretation of American is why I specifically had the proposed new heading link to "American people". That article makes it clear it is about "citizens or residents of the US". There are some US citizens who never lived in the US (children of US military personnel born overseas, at least where their parents are married or it is the mother who is in the military, come to mind quickly, and though I am not sure any of these are notable they are worth considering, also just because someone is working on an oil drilling project in the UAE does not mean they have stopped being an American). I still think that the main issue though we need to not tie emigration to gaining citizenship, but accept that an expatriate is somone who still actively identifies with their homeland. The question is not simple nationality, especially since often there are not clear statements of nationality. Frank Oz was up until yesterday classed as a naturalized citizen of the US with the admission that this was presumed. I do not think it is realistic to say we have to be able to cite his naturalization to call him an American actor if he has spent his whole career in the US. On the other hand an academic who spends a good part of their career in the US but retires to their country of birth and never gained US citizenship I would call an expatriate. I think we need to realize that nationality is slightly more complexed than citizenship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that an expat retires to their home country, while someone from away who stays in their adopted country (but who may or may not become naturalized) is an immigrant. And, of course, that some citizens of the U.S. never happen to live in the States. Cases such as Frank Oz are exactly what WP catting needs to sort out, aren't they. Then how about my suggestion for a dual-purpose category, so that American actors are both U.S. citizens who pass WP:Notability for acting (no matter where they ply their trade) and also any actors active the U.S., in U.S. produced film, theatre or TV, etc.; and have this stated in the header? Then make the parent cat 'by country' and not 'by nationality' Mayumashu (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of this would end up being medium sensitive. With sports people since we cat them by the team they were with, there is no reason to change the nature of the way we categorize them by country. With actors you have the issue that you can have actors acting in American produced films who are not neccesarily American by citizenship, some of whom after retirement return to their home country. Should we call these American actors or not. Or should we create a second cat of actors by national affiliation of films they acted in. Of course then there is the question, do we then call all the actors who played in "Lord of the Rings" New Zealand actors in some sense, of was that film made in New Zealand but funded in a way that it is not truly a New Zealand film. Some of this is sorted out in the case of Bollywood Actors who are not Indians, by their being a Category:Actors in Bollywood films or something along those lines (at least I think there is). Maybe we could do the same for Hollywood films and create a category ;Category:Actors in Hollywood films. This of course assumes that there is a clear yes or no answer for a film being a "Hollywood Film" which I am not sure there is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think there is any more reason to have a Category of individuals "…of Jewish descent" than there is to have a Category of individuals "…of Christian descent".
Religious descent should not, in my opinion, constitute a criteria for categorization. Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jewishness is an ethnicity in addition to being a religion. It is reagularly said of people that they had a "Jewish father and an Italian mother" and the person who says this feels they are expressing ethnicity all around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Features on Tethys[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Features on Tethys to Category:Surface features of Tethys
Propose renaming Category:Features on Titan to Category:Surface features of Titan
Propose renaming Category:Features on Enceladus to Category:Surface features of Enceladus
Propose renaming Category:Features on Iapetus to Category:Surface features of Iapetus
Nominator's rationale: To conform to the naming convention for such categories. See Category:Surface feature nomenclature of solar system bodies. Ruslik_Zero 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, consistent with the rest of the tree. (That head category is a mouthful; I'm nominating it today.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Media about events[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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Media by event to Category:Media about events
Nominator's rationale: I finally figured out what's driving me batty about User:Stefanomione's Category:Media by event and Category:Events by medium: flipping the "x" of "y" serves no useful purpose. The category can only be for media about foo. Therefore Category:Media by event and Category:Events by medium groups the same thing, separated only by a trivial difference in the wording of the sub-categories -- one that should be addressed by standardizing names here or at WP:CFDS, if needed. I have chosen "about" as the suggested rename based on the parent category Category:Media by topic, in which all the sub-categories not created by Stefanomione use "about", because it is a good clear logical relationship that leaves no room for what I think are pointless semantics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging Rename Shawn in Montreal's reasoning is absolutely logical.Curb Chain (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support on this. I've withdrawn the upmerge nom for Category:Media by event and by medium and moved it here, as its intended upmerge target, Category:Media by event, is now nominated for renaming. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add one more observation here: the creator has been using "by" for some time when setting up container cats where there are multiple sub-categories for works by topic. It is an alternative to using the sort key within master categories to position such sub-cats together, and maybe it's needed in some cases, where master categories have become large and unwieldy. Maybe. But not here, where this structure makes following the media about events tree unnecessarily difficult. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still Support your noms. (Please don't interpret this as votestacking.)Curb Chain (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices[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: relisted on 3 August's log page. Courcelles 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily stigmatizes editors with template on page.

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

  • 'Delete not a useful category. It also may fall under the ban on attack pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Norwegian murderers of children[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; limit to those with convictions; revisit if necessary. A broader nomination of the whole tree may be needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Norwegian murderers of children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a category created specifically for Anders Behring Breivik. While true, unless other articles fit into this category, there is no use for this category, except perhaps to disparage a BLP, which needless to say is not kosher. Cerejota (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed with Crejota. This category seems to be created for Anders Behring Breivik, and seems to be used to disparage him. Note many indiscriminate massacre murderers also kill children, but do not have such an ethnic intersection category.Curb Chain (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless all of Category:Murderers of children by nationality is brought up for review; the vast majority of categories there have three or fewer members.- choster (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of the articles in those categories are of convicted murderers. Breivik has not been convicted, even if he has confessed. The difference is not trivial under BLP. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Cerejota (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed a few days ago that Breivik was in Category:Murderers of children, so I thought it useful to subcat him into Norwegian murderers of children. Realising that this subcat did not exist, I created it. There was no intention to disparage anyone. I created another subcat which has at least one biography that fits the criteria of it. I noticed that there are many subcats of Murderers of children by nationality, but not Norwegian. If other biographies fit this subcat, they can be put in it; it is not especially / only for Breivik. There are far more biographies in subcats of Murderers of children that there are in Murderers of children itself. There are 31 subcats of Murderers of children by nationality, most of which contain one, two or three articles. I'm not aware of there being any rule / guideline saying that a cat must contain a minimum number of articles, and if there is, then many of them should be deleted, not just this one. Jim Michael (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Choster. Perfectly valid subcat of the parent. Lugnuts (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choster. Part of the established scheme Category:Murderers of children by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a cat that is being used in ways out of line with the BLP rules. Also, I would have assumed we would use it for someone who is notable for murdering one or more children, not for someone who is notable because they killed over 70 people of all ages. It takes a long time to nominate entire category trees, so we should consider the merits of this cat and delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this category is to be deleted due to being underpopulated, then so should several other nationality murderers of children cats. Jim Michael (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wont be deleted due to being underpopulated. Lots of categories are setup to be broken down by nationality (or another defining attribute) that only contain one entry. Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The issue of population is generally not a reason to delete categories. My rationale is clear that this is about the BLP issue. As per Carlossuarez46 below, a BLP/NPOV compliant category wouldn't include him at all as he has not been convicted. Which is the point. This category tree generally is only for convicted murderers of children. Just because the majority of us hates this guy, it is not a free license to throw BLP out the door. --Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are BLP issues with this cat, then all the nationality of murderers of children cats should have the word convicted added to them, unless we can include dead murderers who were not convicted. Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without prejudice to a broader nomination. No good reason to cherry pick this one out from the overall scheme. I don't see any concerning BLP issue here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European film 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:European film actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category states that this is for actors who "worked in a lot of films in Europe". We don't group actors together were they worked. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category sentence, "worked in a lot of films in Europe". The pronounciation is there, although, the language estimation and wording is faltering. I suggest improving the grammar and meliorate(better or satisfy) the title category, or simply "European Actors". Do not hesitate upon using the Sandbox or reading the Manual of Style upon fixing minor errors and paragraph analysis.--Corusant (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indefinite inclusion criteria. We also don't have such categories for other continents.Curb Chain (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – actors work in many continents (Tony Leblanc is a good read). There are ample nationality cats already such as Category:Spanish film actors, Category:Spanish television actors, Category:Spanish stage actors. Occuli (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we categorize actors by their national identity, not by the location of filming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For this to have any chance of working I think we should say they worked on "European films" in line with say Bollywood films, or Hollywood films. We do have Category:Bollywood playback singers, so at least there is some precedent for specific film-type people by film-industry grouping. However I am not sure that there is a European film industry in the same sense as a Bollywood film industry (as opposed to having a French film industry, and Italian film industry, a German film industry and so forth) and the way this cat is named being in a bunch of films like To Catch a Thief which was an American film made in Europe, would put people in the category, which I do not think is what we want.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is the category's stated aim vague (how many is "a lot"?), but the category's name is ambiguous: actors in European films, or European actors in films? At first glance I would have expected the latter, with subcategories of film actors by nationality. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theatre activists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theatre activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what this category is supposed to be for. People who used theatre as a vehicle for social change? People who were active in trying to revive a particular theatre scene? Neither of the above with no indication of how the term applies? (Current membership of the category includes all of these.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An activistsactivist at the very least participates in political peaceful demonstration and activity. The entries have organized programs et al., but this is different from activism.Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uneccessary inclusion criteria. Of course, it is relative to understanding art, although, unneccessary for activism usage or political debate .--Corusant (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A theatre activist, per how we subdivide activist cats, would be someone who is an activist in favor of theatre/a specific type of theatre. It does not seem that this is how this cat is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dangerous Professions[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dangerous Professions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has no defined criteria apart from being composed of "dangerous professional employment operations" and is therefore essentially subjective or arbitrary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This category is a newly defined criteria of information, which is shown employments that can be harmful to the community and business.----Corusant (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry prostitution is a completely hazardous/dangerous job, and there is no way to quantify the amount of people, including children, in this profession, let alone where it rates on this "danger" scale. How about drug dealer? That's a dangerous job too. These are actual jobs people do for a living, even if they are undocumented. I think it's ridiculous to try to come up with a category because people will put all kinds of stuff in there like Mobster, Hitman, etc. People get really creative. It's kids mostly.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now defined as occupations "considered cautionary among communities and business organizations around the world". Quite vague, isn't it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • More or less, possibly not, if the hazards and cautionary procedures of these professions offered substantialamount of evidence of injuries or casualties in every aspect of its workplace.--74.34.87.235 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So how does one quantify "substantial" in a category in which a bright line of inclusion or non-inclusion is the standard? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, if you would have read the recent changes, instead of argumental facts, you will,eventually, find out there is more to renaming the category and keeping the occupations, thus not all occupations are hazardous, of course compared to some which are government-privately owned, or advanced labor training(talk)(talk) 16:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • ? I did read the recent changes. I quoted them above. The issue is how one defines "hazardous"—any definition is either subjective or arbitrarily limiting and thus this is not appropriate for categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. Of course, Hazardous conditions under DEFINITION in an area workplace does not render its decision arbitrary or unreasonable doubt. Enough is concluded for this ARGUMENT. CASE CLOSED. Thank you;).--Corusant (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are saying if you provided sources documenting the workplaces that state such a job is dangerous, then it is dangerous? So where are your sources?Curb Chain (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the category is for deletion, it was new, thus it was preparing for references. CASE CLOSED. Furthermore excuses will be deleted, this is only voting a nomination. (:Thank you:)-(Corusant)(talk)14:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore excuses will be deleted". I'd advise that you shouldn't delete anyone else's comments in a public discussion under any circumstances. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, of course, let it cease, seriously.--Corusant (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let what cease? The discussion? That's the purpose of this page. If you want to stop discussion, of course you can, but you shouldn't tell others you will delete their comments if they continue to discuss. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get the attention, of notifying a few wikipedia adiministrators, but no concern now, I am suprised it, actually, went this far for such a dangerous category, although, I want to thank you for the factual opinions for such a topic. Carry on;).--Corusant (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously arbitrary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we have an article that would link all such articles in this category as dangerous? No, so no inclusion criteria has been given, so delete.Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep bad inclusion criteria should not be considered as indicative of there being no valid inclusion criteria. There are many common lists of "top 10" or 20 or 30 dangerous professions. These statistics are verifiable by actuarial data and are notable based on how many people are reporting them. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then where are the references? We still have no article on this.Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we decided to use the "top 10" or "top 20" from a given list, the category would still be arbitrary because it would include the top 10 or top 20 according to statistics rather than the top 25, 50 or 100. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – "There are many common lists of "top 10" or 20 or 30 dangerous professions" is an argument for a sourced list, not a category. Occuli (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective and arbitrary: the odd inclusion of Chauffeur indicates, imo, that this category scheme can be applied to just about any job, if the circumstances are right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is totally subjective unless there is some sort of regulatory committee that rates dangerous jobs. Uh, why is Prostitute not on this list? I guess jobs with a high women and child count are excluded? Yes, it's arbitrary. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name is inherently POV. "Dangerous" is an extremely unclear standard. Categories should be things that are clearly yes or no, whether a profession is dangerous is not easy to answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely subjective category. Is being a truck driver really a dangerous profession? What about a farmer? Both of these are included in the category and have the potential for injury but I wouldn't classify them as dangerous. Waste collector totally shouldn't be included in my opinion. If you are going to include every category that could possibly cause injury then foodservice could be included as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't believe farming is a dangerous occupation, you must not have a lot of farm folk among your acquaintances. Missing digits, limbs, eyes, etc. were standard in my youth. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I come from a rural farming community. We had a person die in a farming accident this past Winter. Farming can certainly be dangerous. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a "dangerous profession". You and I have very different views on what a dangerous profession is which is why I say delete. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, then, you and I are in agreement on the deletion, in part because we are in disagreement on the definition! I apologize if I seem to have called you a city kid, even by implication. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - arbitrary and capricious. I will note that clerical worker is a dangerous profession, if you're a clerical worker in a prison. Convenience store clerk on graveyard shift is dangerous; on day shift, not so much so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if you are in a high crime neighborhood? It's all subjective. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As others have said, far to arbitrary. Cab driver in The Bronx=dangerous. Cab driver in Milford, Ohio=not really. Hundreds more examples like this could be made. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have heard that statistically conveince store clerks have the highest death rate, yet I do not recall seeing them on here. True, being alone on the night shift does not help, but there are plenty of robberies/shootings during the day, even in neighborhoods that are not generally considered "high crime". Then there are occupations like Maquilladora worker, which in Ciudad Juarez has seen some of the highest rates of kidnappings and murders, but these have generally been of the female workers on their way to or home from work, not while technically on the job, so it is only tandengentially linked to their work (they suffer from being in areas where they would not be or being there at times they would not be there if they did not have the job). Categories need to have a clear way that people can decide if something belongs or not, this category does not, and even if we formulated a percentage of workers receiving bodily injusry/death per year rule, or even a complexed system where we gave varying point based on injury, rape, death, severe psychological trama and so forth, and then limited it to occupations that exceeded a given point threshold, we would still just have arbitrary rules for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This if it can work at all (which I am not sure if it can) should be a list. As a category we are limited to the occupations that actually have actirlce in wikipedia and the parameters that the articles set. If it was a list we could include things like "policeman in Detroit" or other specific linkages of occupation and place, that are not notable enough to have articles on. Also a list could have sources, give an indication of why the occupation is dangerous, list the percenage of workers killed annually, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subjective criteria with inherent neutrality / original research concerns. US President must be up there, with 9% assassinated during their term Chzz  ►  01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The president assationation rate is only that low when we consider succesful assasinations that lead to death. Reagan got seriously wounded in a life threatening way, and other presidents were actually shot at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective way to measure it; what is the danger of? injury? death? embarrassment (reality show contestant?)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Juba, South Sudan[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) 09:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Juba, South Sudan to Category:Juba
also subcategory Category:People from Juba, South Sudan → Category:People from Juba
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per key article (Juba). Grutness...wha? 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, could probably qualify under speedy C2D. There are other possible meanings for "Juba", but I think confusion is unlikely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; I agree that the primary meaning is clear despite the variety of entries at Juba (disambiguation). - Fayenatic (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear meaning is needed in cat names more than in article names. With another place called Juba there is no reason to assume people will not put things linked to that in this category unless its name makes it clear they should not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that the key article is at Juba is indication that there is a clear primary meaning for the word. That's why the article isn't at Juba, South Sudan. To say that "even though the article's at one place we don't know that it is the obvious meaning" sets us down a slope where we have to make an arbitrary decision as to when an article name is desirable as the category name. Do we have to move Category:London because a pretty big place in Ontario with that name? And since the only other place called Juba is a tiny village in Estonia, do we also need to move Category:New Zealand to Category:New Zealand (country) because of a tiny village of that name in England? Arbitrary decisions are something we try to avoid with category naming (there's a huge precedent for the avoidance of arbitrariness in past CFD logs) - which is why we usually try to make article names and category names agree. As we should here. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the best argument in favour of matching category names to article names that I've read in some time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_28&oldid=1127484714"