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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Change adjective to standard usage to match parent Category:New Zealand culture. (Or do we want to use a slang term to describe the slang category?) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - she'll be right.Rename per above, though at the moment I wonder just how much NZ slang we have here. I'm sure that between them the scarfies, mooloos and jafas will be able to come up with a handful more words that belong in here, though. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll see if I can find a few members for it myself... Grutness...wha? 02:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Avenue (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. First, note that Category:Heiresses was deleted here and that really this is just a by-nationality subcategory of it. This category is, however, defined as "American socialites who married into the European peerage". That sounds OK, but this is not how its being applied. Paris Hilton is included, for instance, which means the category being used in a far more broad (har har) sense. Many American females are "heiresses" (i.e., legal beneficiaries) at some point in their lives, so the category is either (a) much too broad (har ... oh, I already made that joke), or (b) subject to POV application in deciding who is in the category and who is not. Yes, we could no doubt find (many) reliable sources that call people "heiresses", but to have such sources doesn't make the application of the category obvious or "self-evident", as WP:CLN suggests it should be (in a not-a-policy-but-a-guideline-kind-of-way). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then Delete Encyclopedic subject, as defined in the note, but better as a list, as nom shows. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any female who inherits property is an "heiress" so this is far too broad. I don't believe a list is required prior to deletion as a list of every female who inherited property would also be so broad as to be of no encyclopedic value. Otto4711 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the list should be on the subject as defined in the category note, which is highly specific. These silly remarks help no-one. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Heiress" does not mean "American socialite who married into the European peerage". It means "female who inherited property". The idea that we need to have a list of either the former or the latter is ridiculous, as either of them is trivia. I'll refrain from commenting on silly remarks, since considering the source I'd be here for hours if I were to document just the silliest of them. Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even poor people can be heiresses - just means that they have inherited something (perhaps a cherished photo or a pile of debts rather than the Rolls and the chalet in Saas Fe).Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the meaning is I think those where the inherited wealth is a considerable part of the notability.Seems a sensible category. DGG (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been the intention, but the category name of "American heiresses" in no way mandates that limitation, which is why this is not a sensible category. Postdlf (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per prior deletion of Category:Heiresses; would literally apply to far more people than is interesting or useful. Postdlf (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A category for an obscure pseudonym is too narrow a scope. Currently contains just a single article. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge and delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. (I would have thought that what nurses do varies considerably from place-to-place and health-care system to health-care system, but never mind ....) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge - there do not appear to be a sufficient number of articles that are specifically about "nursing skills" that are not also "medical skills" to warrant a separate category Full disclosure, I just created the target category today. Otto4711 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These seem distinctive enough. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone convince me that skills as used here is not rather ambiguous and POV. Why is Category:First aid included here? This is something that everyone probably has, especially anyone in any medical profession so exactly how is that defining for nurses? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is considerable difference between the skills required to nurse and those required to be a medic. In answer to Vegaswikian, not all members of the clinical professions are trained in first aid and as a result I agree that Category:First aid does not belong as a subcat. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nurses and medical staff undergo different training and have different areas of responsibility; although with a significant overlap. 'Medical skills' is probably too vague: is it intended just for doctors or the whole area of medicine? Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nursing is a particular barnch of medical work with its own spceific skills. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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/delete as nominated, and leaving the door open to future nominations on draft pick categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Toronto Blue Jays draft picks seems to be without an appropriate parent except for the general team category. Is that a category we want kept, rather than listifying? Is there an intent to categorize the draft picks of all teams? Though (as far as I understand this subject) this would result in at most one category per player, they would then be categorized by the same team twice—first for being drafted by it, and then for playing for it. Except to the extent that draft picks don't end up playing for the teams but are instead kept in the minors...how often do we have articles on such players? Postdlf (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fairly extensive draft picks categorization scheme although unless I missed them these are the only two team-specific 1st round categories (there are some league-level 1st rounder categories, though). Per WP:ATHLETE baseball players are notable if they "have competed at the fully professional level" which minor league AFAIK qualifies. I have no idea how often a player is drafted at the major league level and never advances past the minors. At some point the draft picks category structure should be discussed, but since it's so large I didn't want to muddy this nomination by trying to address it in its entirety. Otto4711 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete per nom; being a first round pick isn't defining for the person. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Yes, I know there is no opposition to this, but seeing as it is part of xfd and currently contains over 10K images, I would like to get more input before making the change. Kbdank71 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - current name is too generic as "green" is shorthand for anything or anyone considered environmentally friendly. Rename establishes that this is for politicians who are members of a party called "Green". Now technically this category could be seen as overcategorization by shared name as the Green party of one country may have nothing in common with the Green party of another so deletion or merger may also be on the table. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have with not specifying that this is a party affiliation and not a political orientation is the generic nature of "green". Al Gore undoubtedly considers himself to be "green" in the "environmentally conscious" aspect of the term but shouldn't be categorized as a "green politician" because of the muddle it would cause. Otto4711 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Agree that the current name is potentially confusing. After looking at the mess of cross-categorization, it seems these are already well categorized.
Each of the "Category:Green political parties in Foo" has "Green politicians in Foo" or "Fooian Green politicians", also intersected with "Fooian politicians". No need for this Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
Delete coincidence of same name has no bearing on one another should Liberal Democrats in Japan be equated with that label in the United States and lump the two together? Hardly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:deleteErik9 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the above categories are largely or entirely redundant to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Korlzor, as Korlzor is confirmed as the sockmaster of the accounts to which these categories belong (per various SPI case pages). It is unclear why there is any reason for these redundant categories to exist, and per the discussion at WT:SPI#Question over tagging sock IPs, it seems rather clear that these categories should be depopulated and deleted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No CfD needed. Delete or correct {{IPsock}} templates and categories will automatically be deleted as housekeeping once empty. --Pascal666 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if CfD is not the proper place to bring this issue, but there's a bit of a reason why I brought this to CfD. I had previously depopulated these categories using AWB, but another editor disputed depopulating the categories. While it seems to me like an uncontroversial, obvious decision, said editor has proceeded to revert the depopulation, and so I'm hoping to establish a binding consensus via this process so that I may avoid suggestions of editorial malfeasance. If this is unnecessary, please let me know and I'll just depopulate the categories via AWB again. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking WP:VPP may be the best place to take this. This appears to be a policy dispute with User:Tennis expert spanning far more than these few categories. I would suggest you post your interpretation of the policy regarding the use of multiple {{sockpuppet}} and {{IPsock}} templates and when to use them, Tennis expert can make a counter argument, and consensus can be established. --Pascal666 03:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a policy dispute (especially as there is no specific policy to govern the use of sockpuppet templates), and the matter at hand is not one that should require a policy discussion. It is established via Checkuser that Korlzor = Wikitestor, at the very least. So then, why should any single IP talk page have {{IPsock|Korlzor}}and{{IPsock|Wikitestor}}? Here is a more severe example. There is nothing more complicated here than deleting and depopulating categories that are literally redundant, as they all cover the same instances of abuse by the exact same person. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more ridiculous example. I happen to agree with you, but Tennis expert obviously does not. Until policy is written and has consensus, Tennis expert has every right to revert your changes. --Pascal666 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It seems an utterly ridiculous thing to need to be codified. As to the page you've just referenced... wow. The editor referenced on that page just happens to have an unusually large number of legitimate alternate accounts, and is otherwise an editor in good standing. Perhaps you're correct that this needs to be codified... however, I see the Bluedogtn issue as being bad enough to merit taking that one directly to WP:ANI and requesting that something be done. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom - Only one sockpuppet category per user is needed and/or practicable, we don't need one for every username. We've previously deleted these types of categories even as redirects, let alone its own regular category, so these are going well beyond what I would imagine consensus is on these types of categories. VegaDark (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Whitenoise123[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:deleteErik9 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No CfD needed. Delete or correct {{IPsock}} templates and categories will automatically be deleted as housekeeping once empty. --Pascal666 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if CfD is not the proper place to bring this issue, but there's a bit of a reason why I brought this to CfD. I had previously depopulated this category using AWB, but another editor disputed depopulating the category. While it seems to me like an uncontroversial, obvious decision, said editor has proceeded to revert the depopulation, and so I'm hoping to establish a binding consensus via this process so that I may avoid suggestions of editorial malfeasance. If this is unnecessary, please let me know and I'll just depopulate the category via AWB again. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Only one sockpuppet category per user is needed and/or practicable, we don't need one for every username. VegaDark (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article; current name implies it's about the hotel, not the scandal at the hotel. Sceptre(talk) 11:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Rename, although it appears there are no articles in this category that are merely about the Watergate complex itself and not the scandal. Maybe there are no such articles to begin with. --Closeapple (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for clarity & to match main article. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above; the creator clearly wasn't thinking carefully. Postdlf (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename so that water supply gates to medieval fortifications are not categorized in it. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, "Watergate scandal" is the proper classification. --Astor Piazzolla (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary category - it only includes six entries: the two films, the soundtrack, the film studio, the director (why not the stars?), and cellar door, which briefly mentions the film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add Smurfs to the category. No, wait, the other thing: DELETE per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an article for it/them. Any cross-references can easily be covered in ==See also==. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category. Much of the contents are inappropriately categorized anyway. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge - There do not appear to be any articles other than Nursing ethics that are specifically related to nursing ethics that are not medical ethics articles. There is no need to separate the two, as evidenced by the fact that three of the four articles are doubled-catted in the medical and nursing ethics cats already. Otto4711 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - although there are minor differences in the wording of the codes of ethics for the various clinical professions in the end they are the same. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - "disaster" is subjective and POV. "Accidents and incidents" is objective. Renaming would parallel the Category:Aviation accidents and incidents structure. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a better suggestion is found. An "aviation incident" - a pretty subjective term itself, I'd have thought - has a fairly clear suggestion, but an "industrial incident" could mean anything, & suggests industrial action more than anything else. There is a large hierarchy above and below this category leading up to Category:Disasters, and a discussion of this top level would be a better way to proceed than picking away at categories half-way up the tree. The Disaster Research Center, the World Bank, and all the governmments and academics who use the term presumably think they know what it means, and more thorough research would be advisable before embarking on that nomination. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the entire disasters category tree needs to be considered at once. I'm not an expert in the field but my guess is that there is more likely to be some objective standard as to what constitutes, for instance a natural disaster than what constitutes, say, a mining disaster or a fishing disaster, so some portions of the tree are acceptable while others may not be. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think!!! What do diplomatic incidents and aviation incidents have in common? Your talents would be better exercised taking that one on, I'd say. Categorization by coincidently common words, if ever I saw it. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant about having a handle on hat "incident" means for categorization purposes. What I'm saying is that there appears to be no rush to add run-of-the-mill actions by businesses to the nominated category. Otto4711 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That will be because it has the term "disasters" in the title, I expect. Change it to "incidents" & who knows what will happen. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course there has been, as noted, no mad dash to categorize run-of-the-mill activities or actions within any category currently named "incident" so your evidence that such a dash will take place if this is renamed is...what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is articles and subcats meet the common use of the word 'disaster' and the WP definition of disaster. WP should not spend its time watering down names to make them feel nicer. Hmains (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about making anything "feel nicer", whatever that might mean. It's about trying to be as objective as possible in category naming. A disaster to one person or organization is not a disaster to another. South Korea probably thought that Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was a "disaster" but the USSR apparently didn't. Otto4711 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such politically correct thinking would mean WP have to poll the guilty of creating the disaster to see what they think about calling it. Laughable on its face. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's been over a decade since someone played the PC card on me! Nostalgia, good times! Political correctness has nothing to do with it. It's about NPOV. Please, offer up an NPOV definition of "industrial disaster". Otto4711 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Industrial disasters are tragic events with at least one victim, occurring at industrial companies, and caused by accident, negligence or incompetence". Hmains (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Tragic" is POV. "Occurring at industrial companies" is overly limiting. "Caused by...negligence or incompetence" requires original research and is POV. Otto4711 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, then: "Industrial disasters are events with at least one victim, occurring in industrial settings, and caused by accident, greed, negligence or incompetence". If not 'accident, greed, negligence or incompetence' that you object to, what other causes do you want to consider for events that happen in industry? Magic spells are probably out; nothing from nature is in; I suppose you could add malicious intent--'just for fun, let's release a cloud of poison gas today', huh? It is not, in any case, original research or POV as categorization is based on the [sourced] content of articles, not something an editor pulls out of the air. Hmains (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition excludes for example Three Mile Island accident as there were no known "victims" (if by "victim" you mean "someone died"). If "accident" is part of the definition, why not just use "accident" in the category name? Why require editors to decide on their own whether an incident is disastrous enough to be considered a "disaster"? Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Victims' may be dead, injured, neighbors forced to evacuate, those who lose their homes or property, employees those who lose their jobs, employers who lose their profits, etc. The parent category of this Category:Man-made disasters does not say the victims must be dead and neither do sibling categories, such as Natural disasters Think about the real world, not the artifice of WP nicety. Hmains (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; "disasters" is POV - how many people need to die for something to be a disaster? I guess it depends; we make a big deal about an avalanche in Austria in our main page where there were 4 deaths, but events involving 4 deaths are routine in most of the world - is it that white people or rich people or first world people are move valuable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; the word "disaster" in this context is subjective and unnecessarily emotional. Postdlf (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm worried about how to use "incident" as a reasonable qualification for inclusion — though it does seem that it's doing OK in other subcategories of Category:Incidents. I think there is more precise consensus, among the general population, of what a "disaster" is, even though I don't know how to define it. In the majority of cases, only public relations shills and other people with specific, non-neutral agendas appear to be out of line with the common use. Maybe the Three Mile Island accident is a borderline case, because, allegedly, nobody was visibly injured. But it's worth noting that the Three Mile Island accident is in a subcategory of this category without much complaint. On the other hand, the word "incident" has been used as a euphemism so much in the recent past that the word has taken on the connotation of "a probably-bad event someone doesn't want to judge as bad", which I guess is what WP:NPOV is about — or does that actually make it doubly non-neutral, since it judges something as bad and then judges it as a cover-up? Also: How is one going to set criteria for "industrial incident" so that it's WP:NPOV yet more specific than "thing that happened in industry"? Are non-disaster scandals also "incidents"? And will every notable labor union strike now fall under this category, even the ones that weren't disasters in a WP:NPOV sense? Some people might decide that "incident", strictly speaking, can include good things too; it's not much more precise than "event". Is there consensus on Wikipedia that "event" is the more general term and "incident" refers to not-so-pleasant things? If so, this rename is probably OK. As Johnbod also mentioned, this category is already pretty well embedded into the Category:Disasters hierarchy. How are surrounding categories to be split out? --Closeapple (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "accident" or "incident" is this context is a very general term, referring to very small events also--and very small events should not be having Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very small events should not be having Wikipedia articles - wow, can I quote you on this in the endless stream of trivia articles you want kept at AFD? Seriously, I never thought I would see the day when you would acknowledge that something was too unimportant for its own WP article. Sadly, "smallness" is not the criteria for WP articles. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: how do editors decide, in a manner that is POV-neutral, when an event is disastrous enough to be categorized as a disaster? Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I'm not happy with either name. However the current one has more problems. Small events clearly can be added to the category, but if they are, then they are notable and belong. Another point is that while these may be a disaster, they are the direct result of an accident or incident so that is what defines them. The fact that they became a disaster is another issue. I could live with Category:Industrial accidents, but that may be artificially limiting and cause other problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Disasters is POV. Why jump through such hoops as Industrial disasters are events with at least one victim (dead, injured, neighbors forced to evacuate, etc), occurring in industrial settings, and caused by accident, greed, negligence or incompetence to define "disasters"? Just name the category properly. --Kbdank71 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
This page lists Argentine citizens of partial ethnic Jewish ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "Argentine Jews" or "Jewish(-)Argentines," see Category:Argentine Jews.
This page lists Canadian citizens of Jewish descent. The main category is for those who do not identify as Jews for whatever reason including having paternal but not maternal Jewish ancestry. Active Jews should be placed into subcategory Category:Canadian Jews.
This page lists American citizens of partial ethnic Jewish ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "Dutch Jews," see Category:Dutch Jews.
This page lists Mexican citizens of partial ethnic Jewish ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "Mexican Jews" or "Jewish(-)Mexicans," see Category:Mexican Jews.
This page lists Russian citizens of partial ethnic Jewish ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "Russian Jews" or "Jewish(-)Russians," see Category:Russian Jews.
This page lists Spanish people of partial ethnic Converso ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "conversos" see Category:Conversos.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.
In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.
Keep, or at least keep most of them. These are actegories for people of Jewish descent who do not have any confessional connection with Judaism; of course, people included on a dubious basis have to be removed, but this does not mean the whole category is meaningless. There is absolutely no consistency in the arguments for deletion: why keep the category Italians of German descent, and remove Italians of Jewish descent? If your argument is that this category is already subsumed in the category Italian Jews, I object on two basis. First, Italian Jews (as well as American Jews, Spanish Jews, etc.) refers only to people who are Jewsih not only by ethnicity but also by religion or at least of some sort of conscious religious Jewish affiliation. The category Italians of Jewish descent, on the other hand, refers to people whose Jewsih ancestry is self-recognized and important, but do not belong to the Jewish community. This is not an exceptional case. For example, we have the category Italians of Slovenian descent, and we also have the category Italian Slovenes. These two almost never overlap: Italian Slovenes are members of the Slovenian community/minority in Italy, while Italians of Slovenian descent is used for individuals who do not belong to this community, but whose Slovenian descent is nevertheless important, in some cases crucial, part of their identity. On the same line of argument, the category Hungarians of Slovak descent is for those Hungarians nationals who primarily identified with the Hungarian nation, but consciously acknowledged their Slovak ancestry (such as Sandor Petofi). On the other side, the category Hungarian Slovaks (which does not yet exist, but might be created in the future) would be for the members of the Slovak minority in Hungary. Both are Hungarian citizens, but there is a clear difference between the two. I see a clear parallel between these examples... As for the notion of partial descent, it should be used cum grano salis, as virtually nobody is of pure-blooded ancestry, so to say. Partial ancestry is referred to cases of over-categorizations when a small and non-important geneological data is elevated to the level of a category. I agree that these cases must be avoided, but this can only be established inidividually. You can't just remove a whole category because of potential abuses. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If somebody doesn't self-identify as a Jew, Wikipedia shouldn't categorize them as such. — Malik Shabazz(talk·contribs) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are people who don't identify themselves as Jews, but acknowledge their Jewish descent as an integral part of their identity. Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Viator: It is hard to see any logic in your argument. There are people who claim to have met space aliens but that does not mean that obejectively, truthfully, rationally and logically speaking aliens exist or that people's claims to have seen them are true. People claim all sorts of things about themselves, but they are neither experts in Judaism nor are they truly Jewish quite often by any meanigful standard. Wikipedia must strive to function by the objective and accepted standards of each recognized field that can be verified and sourced according to the field in question, such as relating to Jews and Judaism in this case, and not by hearsay or allegations by non-experts. There are people who claim to be the descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes and there is even a Category:Groups claiming Jewish descent, but for an outside editor on Wikipedia to sit in judgment on notable personalities and place people in "definitive" categories of being "Jewish" when it is just an arbitrary, illogocal, irrational, untruthfull guess or assumption often based on ignorance of both what classical Judaism terms a Jew according to its own laws, history and customs or what all scholars can agree upon is a Jewish person and most often that too is based on Judaism's own classical 3000+ year-old strictly Biblical criteria and not by what a category-happy Wikipedian editor decides in blogger-like carelessness. And there is absolutely no connection between the supposed "Jewishness" of most of the people in these categories and their professions and vice versa. IZAK (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may not see the logic in an argument, but that does not mean people do not do it. People are often illogical. I clearly recognize that I have Jewish ancestry, but would never describe myself as being a Jew and few others would. Anyway, we have most other groups recognized as having descent, so why not Jews. Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion, so there are people who clearly have Jewish ancestry, will accept such, but in no way, shape or form are they Jews. The fact that there are people who get put in these categories means that there is a value in having them. This is cearly true of the French and the Polish categories.67.149.100.213 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 67.149.100.213: Why not register and get a regular user's name or use your regular ID if you already have one, that way your comments will carry greater credibility. Appealing to the emotions is not an alibi or excuse when conducting a rational discussion or when composing an encyclopedia. For far too long there has been ongoing abuse on Wikipedia (mainly through crass ignorance) of the notion that Jews are an ethnicity (which is true in an abstract manner relating mainly to strict Jewish law) but it has been flogged to death in the wrong way and stretched far beyond any reasonable and logical standards so that if someone allegedly had a Jewish ancestor a hundred years ago or was called "Jewish" by a celebrity magazine or in some journal or book in one line (that totally disregards Judaism and what being Jewish really means in an active meaningful way) they become "notable" Jews no less than the chief rabbis of Israel or the rabbis of the Talmud. Jews and Judaism are connected so that to place anyone in these categories implies that they were fully aware of this connection, subscribed to it and presumably fully (self) identified as such, which they did not. It would be safe to say that 99.99% of the "Jews" in these categories did not have much to do with Jews or with Judaism during their lifetimes. Many of them are in fact not considered Jewish by classical Jewish law and they had little or no formal or even informal contact with the Jewish people or with Judaism, yet now they become enthroned as examples of full-fledged "Jews" on Wikipedia no less than the most fervent of Hasidim -- what kind of logic is that? A category is valid to be labelled as Jewish if people in it are either CLEARLY profesionally and directly spiritually, and logically and historically, tied in with Judaism, Jews and the Jewish people, such as Category:Rabbis, and one can then have Category:Rabbis by nationality and Category:Rabbis by geography, who are both directly part of the Jewish religion (Judaism) and/or are clearly Jews by (self) identity and profession that's accurate. Ethnicity is a nice notion but it has limits when applied to Jews and right now it's being applied in ways that neither Jews nor Judaism, and not even by most accepted academic scholarship (except for the Nazis of course), ever meant it to be or become as it has so far with these mistaken categories. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user IZAK, if you don't see any logic in my argument, I suggest you try harder. There are people who have a Jewish ancestry (say, a Jewish father), and while not professing their Jewishness, acknowledge it as part of their identity.
Theodor W. Adorno is one case among many (in the Englis wp, he is categorized simply as a German Jew, shich I think is somehow problematic).
From my own national context, I could point out the writer Dušan Šarotar, whose maternal grandfather was Jewish. He is himself not a Jew, but his Jewish ancestry plays an important role in his literature, and he frequently emphasizes his family's story as a source of reflection and inspiration. I believe it would be incorrect to categorize him as a Slovenian Jew, because he is objectively and subjectively not; but he IS of Jewish descent, and this is an important part of his identity.
As for your arguments, you pointed out possible misuses of the categorization; but potential misuse is not a strong enough argument for deletion. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't logic, it's encyclopedic value.
Theodor W. Adorno mentions only that his father had an unknown Jewish grandparent, that his father followed "Protestantism" (unspecified sect) and mother was "Catholic" (unspecified sect), with no encyclopedic references. Certainly, he may have been classified a German Jew by a Nazi (no reference to that, either), but Wikipedia has a policy not to classify folks in such a way. There's no information on self-identification, nor its importance to his work!
Dušan Šarotar is a stub, with no encyclopedic references of any kind to his ethnic self-identification. It refers to a novel "based on the true story of Šarotar's grandfather." So, maybe the grandfather was a Holocaust survivor, but we don't know of what kind. Therefore, categorizing him "of Jewish descent" is original research of the worst sort, a violation of at least 3 different formal Wikipedia policies!
Dear User:William Allen Simpson, I'll provide the necessary sources for Šarotar; he has frequently pointed out his family story in interviews, and the impact of the (belated) awarness of his partially Jewsih ancestry on his work. As for the importance of Adorno's partial Jewish ancestry to his work, I think it's evident for anybody familiar with it, so I believe the authors of the article will have no problem in providing the necessary references (I might suggest you mention the issue in the talk page of the article). Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Partial ancestry of subjective criteria is of no use to anyone and is certainly not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You always say that on these topics. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jewish descent may be purely an ethnicity or it may refer to practising Jewish religion. These are disticnt concepts and might have separate categories. There are hundreds of categories for Booians of Fooian descent. Jewish descent should be no different from any other. It is legitimate for a person to be categorised with several different such categories if of mixed ethnicity. The illegitimate aspect of the categorisiation scheme under discussion is the "partial descent" aspect, which I consider overcategorisiation. British Jews should be for British people of Jewish religion or self-identifying as Jewish. British people of Jewish descent would include those not of Jewish reliogion with Jewish ancestors (but without the <50% test). The child of a Jewish mother and other father is regarded by Jewish law as a Jew, even if the maternal grandfather was also non-Jewish. Note: British ethnic categories are not usually split into English, Scottish, Welesh and Northern Irish. Accordingly, these categories should be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not"legitimate for a person to be categorised with several different such categories if of mixed ethnicity." Many things are possible here, but that is explicitly against policy. While your part of the world may consist of editors above reproach, there's a reason for the many detailed restricts on such categories (detailed above):
No African or Caribbean or Asian or Indian immigrant is referred to as "English", no matter how long they or their generations have lived here.
IIRC, that comment turned out to be from somebody in the US. A few months later, a Virginia political candidate was disgraced after publicly calling a person "Macaca" twice.
Folks with 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 Black ancestry have been categorized as "African American" without any verifiability. I don't want to go back to the days where folks were called "mulatto", "quadroon", and "octaroon".
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trying to get the 1.0 Assessment bot working, need these categories in a consistent and clear hierarchy. Skomorokh 01:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete or Rename - either delete as a small category whose lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub or rename to Category:Radio Television Hong Kong to match the lead article and expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to clarify the scope. I see possibilities for future expansion. --Stepheng3 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
