Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5 May 7 >

May 6[edit]

Category:Lists of cities in Serbia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Lists of cities in Europe and Category:Serbia-related lists. Jafeluv (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lists of cities in Serbia to Category:Lists of cities in Europe
Nominator's rationale: This category is a subcategory of the category proposed to take its place. However, it has only one article. Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 20:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it really a category for lists of cities? If it was, then I could support the upmerge. But as its only content has to do with Latin names (which may or may not be cites in the 21st century), would upmerge be the appropriate action? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and to Category:Serbia-related lists. - Eureka Lott 08:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other articles about lists of cities that would be useful to be included here. The article "list of cities in Serbia" for example! Felisse (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. If the parent category gets too large due to Serbia-related lists, it can be seperated out at a latter time. Felisse's ability to find one other article that belongs in this category does not substantially change anything. Two articles are rarely enough to justify keeping a category, unless it is likely to grow in the near future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American professional wrestlers of Irish 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: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American professional wrestlers of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American professional wrestlers of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is not to the best of my knowledge any relationship between being an American and being of Irish descent and being a professional wrestler or mixed martial artist, other than maybe coming to the ring or octagon wearing a shamrock insignia as part of one's ring garb. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete triple intersections are little more than trivialities or trying to prove a WP:POINT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category nor one that has been documented in any articles I can find. Felisse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CECOPAC[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:CECOPAC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete It would be best to have a list of missions CECOPAC participated in. Categorizing UN peacekeeping missions by countries involved would create significant category clutter. Obviously this isn't the case currently because similar categories for other countries do not exist. Moreover, I don't think involvement of Chilean peacekeepers (or peacekeepers of any other country) is a sufficiently defining characteristic for, say, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. As for individuals currently in the category, they can be moved to Category:CECOPAC personnel. Pichpich (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can be recreated as a list. It is unclear that Chilean participation was significant in these missions. Do not allow this precedent to survive, down this path lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Physicians of medieval Islam[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam to Category:Medieval Persian physicians and Category:Physicians of medieval Islam, and Category:Assyrian physicians of medieval Islam to Category:Medieval Assyrian physicians and Category:Physicians of medieval Islam. These are quadruple intersection categories (Persian/Assyrian, physician, medieval, and Islam), and that's something to be avoided except in case of extreme overcrowding in a category. Category:Physicians of medieval Islam has already survived a recent attempt at deletion, and it is clear from the presence of Category:Medieval Jewish physicians of Persia that we can't just make the "Medeival (X) physicians" categories into subcategories of Category:Physicians of medieval Islam. So this should suffice for now. As a side note to User:Al-Andalusi, please allow the discussion closer to remove nomination tags rather than doing it yourself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merger Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Persian physicians
Propose merger Category:Assyrian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Assyrian physicians
Propose deletion Category:Physicians of medieval Islam
Nominator's rationale: These nominations are to give further effect to the result of the Cfd discussion dated April 18, 2011 under the caption "Medieval Arab physicians", reproduced below.
Cfd log of April 18, 2011: Medieval Arab physicians
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 as is. A new CFD may be necessary to rename the categories that do not conform to the naming scheme of the two nominated categories.. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Medieval Arab physicians to Category:Arab physicians of medieval Islam
Propose renaming Category:Medieval Moorish physicians to Category:Moorish physicians of medieval Islam
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More consistent with the categories under Category:Physicians of medieval Islam:
Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam
Category:Jewish physicians of medieval Islam
Category:Assyrian physicians of medieval Islam. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that two of the examples mentioned above by the Nominator represent the two instances where the Nominator has retained that national (or ethnic) character of the categories. However he has emptied the contents of the pre-existing categories and moved the contents to two new categories created by him. (Clearly in contravention of Wiki guidelines - he should have opened a cfd for renaming.) However, as a start I proposed that this action be reversed by the following actions:
Propose merger of Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Persian physicians
Propose merger of Category:Assyrian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Assyrian physicians
A lot of work appears to be necessary to undue the unilateral action taken by the Nominator. Davshul (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have clearly missed a lot of the discussions going on for the last months regarding the categorization of scientists in medieval Islam (here "medieval Islam" has both geographical and temporal definitions, and not a religious definition to compare it to "medieval Christianity". The term includes notable Arabs and non-Arabs, Muslims and non-Muslims who lived in medieval Islamic civlization from North Africa and Al-Andalus in the west to India in the east, from the 7th to 15/16th centuries). So there is no need for the agenda accusations. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age and also some support for the idea of removing "modern-day" Iraq, Syria, Egypt...etc Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to add that the Iraqi/Egyptian/Syrian/Azerbaijani or any "modern-day" country category were created at a time when we did not have Category:Physicians of medieval Islam (recently created then renamed by concensus).
Al-Andalusi. The discussion to which you referred centers around the replacement of the term "Islamic Golden Age", which resulted in a decision to rename to "medieval Islam". However, the choice of the latter name was hardly conclusive and the administrator's decision states that "followup nominations might produce a different result". The decision did not, either explicitly or impliedly, authorize the renaming, without any form of discussion, of a large number of categories that did not even have the word 'Islam' as part of their title. At the very least, were such changes merely for the sake of consistency, which I strongly contend is not the case, such changes of name would have required the use of the CFD/Speedy procedure. Instead you merely emptied the old categories of their contents and transferred the contents to new categories created by you. For example, in the case of Category:Medieval Persian physicians, you individually removed nearly 50 articles to the new category created by you, rather than making a single CFD nomination. As you appear to be an experienced Wiki user, my assumption was that such laborious action was undertaken by you in order to try to avoid discussion, but am willing to accept that it was done in "good faith" if you can justify why this and similar actions were taken by you in an apparent contravention of Wiki guidelines. Also your reference to "some support" for the idea of removing "modern-day" country names (which was not the subject of a full discussion, let alone a decision) is hardly a justification for your unilateral actions. Davshul (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to echo this, when I closed that discussion, the consensus was merely about finding a replacement for the term "Islamic Golden Age." Nothing about that close took a position on whether "medieval Islam," the term I selected from the offered options, was the right term for other categories with differing content.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The renaming of 'national' categories to 'religious' or 'civilizational' categories is certainly a process of the utmost importance which has not been discussed enough. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think I'd like to like to see a whole set of categories "<Ethnicity> <profession> in <time frame>". "<Etnicity> <profession>" and "<Profession> in <time frame>" should suffice. —Ruud 16:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, all the categories you listed above should be merged into Category:Physicians of medieval Islam. —Ruud 17:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: <whatever> of medieval Islam just sounds strange. It sounds as though you're saying that Islam is medieval, which means "old-fashioned, primitive" according to the dictionary, and is insulting. "Moorish physicians of the Middle Ages" would be fine. "Islamic physicians of the middle ages". --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Strange wording. The current wording is much better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support medieval Islam is the most concise means of conveying the necessary information. Islamic civilization of the Middle Ages might be better, but it would not fit in the dropdown list on the search box. Consistency is clearly the guiding principle here. And why would some wish to obscure the contributions Islamic civilization, with its relatively tolerant multiculturalism, made to the sciences and world civilization as a whole? As for the Scientists of Christianity, this term is a misnomer. The correct phrase would be Scientists of Christendom. Note here Islamdom has been suggested by some to distinguish the religion from the civilization it fostered, but the word has never come into general use. English has no separate word for Islamic civilization. -Aquib (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, nationalism is a relatively recent development, and can be misleading when used in the context of medieval history. -Aquib (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
In presenting the result of the above discussion, the administrator specifically stated that "[a] new CFD may be necessary to rename the categories that do not conform to the naming scheme of the two nominated categories." These nominations are pursuant to this statement and consistent with the discussion. Furthermore, as regards the proposed deletion of Category:Physicians of medieval Islam, the category adds nothing to the approximate 20 articles listed therein (most of which actually relate to medieval Jewish physicians), all of which are already listed under one or more of the existing 32 subcategories of the container category Category:Medieval physicians, where all subcategories of Category:Physicians of medieval Islam are similarly to be found. The category Category:Jewish physicians of medieval Islam would also have been included in this discussion, but it is empty and has already been listed for Speedy deletion. Davshul (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We have an absurd amount of redundant categories. Why do we need Medieval Iraqi/Tunisian/Egyptian/Iranian categories when a category for medieval Islamic civilization exists ?
Ibn al-Nafis and other scholars for an example were tagged with Category:Medieval Iraqi physicians AND Category:Medieval Arab physicians AND Category:Physicians of medieval Islam when we could essentially use only one tag, Category:Arab physicians of medieval Islam, which is also more accurate and concise.
The same applies to (Medival Persian/Iranian) and Jewish physicians. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al-Andalusi, I note that you are still raising similar issues to those almost unanimously rejected in the previous discussion (initiated by you), including by two administrators. I see little point in my re-iterating the points raised in the previous discussion, set out above, as this nomination is essentially to give effect to decision reached in the earlier discussion. However, as to the claim regarding an "absurd amount of redundant categories", the amount in question is certainly not absurd and, for most Wiki users, there is clearly a difference as regards physicians from, say, medieval Iran, Egypt or Moorish Spain, as there is for physicians from the different countries of medieval Christendom. As regards the example given by you, tagged with three categories, the third category has been nominated here for deletion because is is redundant. Davshul (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"unanimously rejected" ? Not true and misleading; the Category:Physicians of medieval Islam was discussed (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age) in April and the consensus was to keep the category and rename to the name that it currently has, so why are you proposing its deletion now ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. One of the articles in the Persian physicians of medieval Islam category relates to a group of Nestorian Christian physicians. Many of the articles do not indiciate the religion of the subject, only that they were Persian. "Medieval Persian Physians" seems a far better descriptor of these people.
Comment the assumption by al-Andulusi that Medieval Islam is a term with a different context than Medieval Christendom is not easily supported. The forcing of Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews who lived under Islamic governments to be identified as part of "Islam" is part of a ploy to claim greater past glory for Islam, and has little to do with the reality of the situation. Why a similar rubric can not be used for the openly and unequivocably Chriustian governments of Christendom is not going to be explained. The fact of the matter is that Perso-Turkic culture was always distict from Arabic culture and to merge them into one great conglomeration makes no sense. Assyrian and Persian as well as Moorish and Arab are perfectly good descriptors for this time. The heading "Of Medieval Islam" does not work. The work of these physicians is medical, not religious. There is no justification for the invcing of intersection of time, religion and profession in this case. These physicians largely built on the legacy of the Greeks, and as mentioned before were as likely to be Jewish or Christian as Muslim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A ploy to claim greater past glory for Islam ? Go read a book on the history of science in the Muslim world before you spew crap out of your mouth and accuse others of pushing an agenda. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated removal of banner. Please note that Al-Andalusi has again today removed the banner on Category:Physicians of medieval Islam that notifies users of this discussion (with the edit summary "The consensus reached just last month was "keep and rename", I see no reason for reopening this now. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2". Would users more familiar with Wiki guidelines please confirm that this is in breach of such guidelines and advise what steps should be taken to prevent Al-Andalusi from continuing to breach the same. Davshul (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The breach of guidelines occurred when you misled the administrators and other editors by claiming that the categories that end with "of medieval Islam" were "unanimously rejected in the previous discussion by two administrators". This is not true and I referred you several times to last month's discussion that ended with "keep". So the issue was settled by an administrator, something you have (1) not mentioned and (2) continue to deny and ignore insisting that "medieval Islam" (a term you are not familiar with its definition to begin with) is an agenda driven term.
In addition, you failed to mention that those who rejected the use of "Persian physicians of medieval Islam" in the second discussion were merely opposed to the Persian/Arab/Jewish part of the category name, while maintaing that "Physicians of medieval Islam" is enough. I have notified the administrator who first settled the "Physicians of medieval Islam" about your proposal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would prefer not to became involved in quasi-personal dispute on a discussion page, I feel compelled to refute the unjustified accusation leveled against me, in that I "misled the administrators and other editors". Below I respond to each point raised above by Al-Andalusi and I stand by every statement that I made previously:
(1) I did not not say that the issues were "unanimously rejecte", I stated that issues raised by Al-Andalusi were "almost unanimously rejected in the previous discussion". Apart from Al-Andalusi as nominator, eight people took part in the discussion of whom seven rejected your proposal. I consider this "almost" unanimous.
(2) As regards the comment regarding two administrators, Dana boomer rejected the renaming (and specifically stated that "[a] new CFD may be necessary to rename the categories that do not conform to the naming scheme of the two nominated categories" - hence the present discussion) and Mike Selinker, who had decided the earlier discussion of April 2 stated in the "discussion of April 18 "Just to echo this, when I closed that discussion, the consensus was merely about finding a replacement for the term "Islamic Golden Age." Nothing about that close took a position on whether "medieval Islam," the term I selected from the offered options, was the right term for other categories with differing content."
(3) Al-Andalusi's claim that "last month's discussion ended with "keep" is blatantly untrue. The discussion, as pointed out by Mike Selinker, related purely to whether "medieval Islam" was a preferable term to "Islamic Golden Age". There was no discussion as to whether or not anything should be "kept", not least of all the present category being proposed by me for deletion.
(4) I have made no claim in the present discussion that anything is an "agenda driven term" .
(5) I find nothing in the earlier discussion to substantiate Al-Andalusi's claim "that those who rejected the use of "Persian physicians of medieval Islam" in the second discussion were merely opposed to the Persian/Arab/Jewish part of the category name, while maintaining that "Physicians of medieval Islam" is enough."
On a personal level, I consider that an apology by Al-Andalusi's would not be out of place. Davshul (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: many of the "medieval islam" type articles are ridiculously overburdened with truely absurd numbers of categories. We need less of them William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When people born in Christian controlled parts of Spain and died in France who were Muslims get put in this category the category is clearly being used incorrectly. I have yet to see a good explanation of why Jewish and Chrisitan mathematicians or other scientists should be grouped under the heading "of Islam".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal to reach consensus: In an endeavour to reach a full consensus in this matter, I propose that this discussion be viewed as two separate issues, as follows:
(1) The two categories proposed for merger (Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Persian physicians and Category:Assyrian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Assyrian physicians), be merged. This, I believe, is indisputably consistent with the decision in the "earlier discussion of April 18. Such naming convention can also continue to be followed when dealing with "sister categories", such as Category:Medieval Persian mathematicians and Category:Medieval Jewish astrologers, some of which have recently been created by me.
(2) As regards the proposed deletion of Category:Physicians of medieval Islam, this would not appear to be as "cut and dried" as the above merger issue. Whilst I do not personally see a need for a category of this nature (and I object to the comments and actions employed by Al-Andalusi in furthering his view on the matter), I can nevertheless recognize the argument that the phrase "of medieval Islam" in the category's name is intended to relate not to the religion itself, but to the territories and civilization that formed part of the medieval Islamic world (my words not Al-Andalusi's) and I can understand Al-Andalusi's wish to have a single category that encompasses those that full within such territories/civilization. However, for example, having some of the most notable Christian and Jewish personalities of the medieval era being referred to simply as "of medieval Islam" is clearly misleading and unacceptable to a number of users. The expression "medieval Islam", approved in the discussion of April 2 appears fine when dealing with purely Islamic matters, but can be contentious when it also refers to non-Muslims. I therefore propose that this category be renamed (rather than deleted) and, although I would prefer a name that does not include the term "medieval Islam", I am aware of the enormous amount of work undertaken by Al-Andalusi with regard to the general subject of medieval Islam. Accordingly, I suggest that the new name be along the lines of Category:Physicians of the countries of medieval Islam or Category:Physicians of the states of medieval Islam or something similar.
If agreed, this formula would also be adopted in connection with a number of similar categories, some of which I notice have recently been proposed for deletion in a discussion of May 19.
I would add that the listing of physicians (or astrologers, etc.) in one of the proposed "of the countries of the medieval Islam" categories should in no way be preclude such physicians, etc. being listed in the appropriate national or ethnic categories of the type mentioned or referred to in (1) above. Davshul (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any changes under this proposal. The proposal is unclear, the discussion is unclear, the scope is unclear, and the purpose is unclear. How much of the conversation above pertains to this specific proposal is unclear. Whether I am entering this vote in the right place is unclear. -Aquib (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pseudonyms[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. Whether or not it makes sense to create a new category for people who used pseudonyms can be discussed separately. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pseudonyms to Category:Pseudonymous people
Nominator's rationale: (Actually, Category:Pseudonymous persons, but I know that won't fly.) The category at the moment is a mix of articles about pseudonyms themselves (e.g. List of pen names) and biographical articles of persons with pseudonyms. Since they are the majority, I suggest moving them to this proposed category and leaving the handful of articles about pseudonyms at large in the parent category of Category:Pseudonyms. Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To Pichpich's proposed title. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 20:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this category was discussed two and a half years ago, for whatever insight that old discussion may provide. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clear out - I agree with the nominator that articles about people who use pseudonyms should not be in this category and that it should be reserved for articles about the concept of pseudonyms. I disagree that people should be categorized on the basis of having used a pseudonym. If such a category were fully populated it would contain countless thousands of articles on people from every conceivable walk of life and occupation thrown together with nothing in common other than the type of name they use for some aspect of their personal or professional lives. I don't see any value to such a category. So those articles should be taken out. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pseudonym can have an article that links to other articles about related topics. A category is not the right kind of structure to use for this purpose, it can be done much better by establishing proper links between the articles. Having the category will inevitably lead to people putting examples rather than related articles into it, which is not what is wanted. It will be a source of mess more than usefulness. Felisse (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as people are willing to keep an eye on it then once it's cleaned out keeping it cleaned out wouldn't be difficult. See for example Category:Eponyms which is vulnerable to the same issues. There were a few inappropriately categorized articles but it took just a few minutes to tidy it up. The same can be done here.
  • Justin, people is the used plural of person. Please avoid being a perscriptive grammarian. English is how it is used, thus the correct plural of person is people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clear out per Harley Hudson's nom. There are way too many people who have used pseudonyms, from Charles Dickens, to Josip Broz to Vladimir Ulich. If it was "people who used nomes de guerre" or "people who used pen names", there might be some justification, but not the arbitrary linking of all pseudonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and subcategorise Category:Pseudonymous people. Many of the category members are not biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - Rename this category to Category:Pseudonym and limit it to articles that are actually about the concept of pseudonym. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish American political consultants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish American political consultants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Odd and somewhat unsettling WP:OCAT. Bulldog123 03:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_6&oldid=1074808021"