Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 10 November 12 >

November 11[edit]

Category:Tangerine Dream[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tangerine Dream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization per a hundred or more precedents. Otto4711 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:2000s fads[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s fads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Aside from people adding things that are still popular (i.e. don't meet the definition of a fad), who the hell decided that any of these things are fads? Where is the sourcing? Would we have a category called "Popular x of 2000s" or "Successfull x of 2000s"? And if we did, would we entertain the idea of having them without references backing up those conclusions? AlistairMcMillan 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this category and not the reminaing similar subcats in Category:Fads? This seems as reasonable as those so perhaps the entire structure needs to be considered? Otto4711 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this one is first, but fads tend to be seen in retrospect and as the 2000s aren't done, we lack the retrospective to say certain things were fads or are more lasting in duration. Carlossuarez46 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & my comment above. Carlossuarez46 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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_American_baseball_players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was category doesn't exist, nothing here to debate. Carlossuarez46 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European American baseball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Perfect example of WP:OCAT Delete. This is a Secret account 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is a Category:African American baseball players, or Category:African American anything...I demand equal and fair treatment. SECaccount 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a PARTIAL list of African American cats:

I want Latin American ____, Asian American _____, thanks. SECaccount 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) / Check Category talk:European American baseball players for list of European, Latin, and Asian cats. SECaccount 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's self-admitted WP:POINT, can someone close this early. 131.94.55.90 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this category created? Or proposed to be created? If the latter, the nominator has failed per WP:POINT and failure to make a case for a unique topic per WP:CATGRS. Also the nominator suggests ("demand fair and equal treatment") that s/he is very confused regarding the role of categories, which is not to treat anyone or anything equally or otherwise, but to sort information according to useful and already-recognized subjects. --Lquilter 12:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category-creator has now been blocked. --Lquilter 16:05, 12 November 2007 (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:Computer hardware by vendor[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 20:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer hardware by vendor to Category:Computer hardware by company
Nominator's rationale: See Category:Computing by company. The almost consistent naming for "company" subcategories is "... by company". These requests change exceptions, vendor and owner, to company. tooold 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is now tagged. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am a long-time IT professional and generally people refer to these entities as 'vendors'. I know that there is some push in IT to change this to 'companies' instead of vendors--perhaps 'companies' sounds more respectable than 'vendor', I don't know. Hmains 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Seems to follow established conventions. Vegaswikian 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Software by owner[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 20:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software by owner to Category:Software by company
Nominator's rationale: Rename, See Category:Computing by company. The almost consistent naming for "company" subcategories is "... by company". These requests change exceptions, vendor and owner, to company. tooold 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - looks like neither Category page has the Cfn tag. Likely I never clicked save. After all, I am tooold 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is now tagged. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am a long-time IT professional and generally people refer to these entities as 'vendors'. I know that there is some push in IT to change this to 'companies' instead of vendors--perhaps 'companies' sounds more respectable than 'vendor', I don't know. Hmains 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Seems to follow convention. Vegaswikian 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Alison Krauss & Union Station[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alison Krauss & Union Station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; eponymous category for a band. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and precedent. Otto4711 15:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Yosemite[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yosemite to Category:Yosemite National Park
Nominator's rationale: Rename, the main article is Yosemite National Park, and there are other meanings. It seems like the obvious location would be Category:Yosemite National Park. NE2 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Female artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was reverse merge Category:Women in art and Category:Female artists to Category:Women artists, and purge non-visual arts practitioners. The "Women" categories include many "Women (X)es" and "Female (X)es"" categories which at some point should be standardized one way or another.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Female artists to Category:Women in art
Nominator's rationale: I cannot find a difference in the definition of these categories. Women in art has hundreds of entries and Female artists has 6. So, Female artists should be the one to be merged. Female artists has one subcategory, Iranian women artists (which doesn't even keep the same naming convention as the parent cat), but this can just become a subcat of Women in art. Clubmarx 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge to Category:Female artists, or Merge and Rename Category:Women artists, with a preference for the latter. The composers sub-cat etc should be removed, as all the parent cats apart from "Women by occupation" are visual arts ones, and "Artists" are supposed to be visual arts only. Johnbod 18:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge and rename to Category:Women artists. "Women in art" or "Women in the arts" might be a good name for a category about the history of women in the arts but it's ambiguous. Otto4711 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended mine a bit to "Merge and Rename" - technically I think it should be this as the parents for Category:Women in art are better. Johnbod 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator note- If Women in art is not the best title, then that is OK. But first we need to merge these two categories. I think Category:Female artists would be the most technically correct, as this will include girls.
  • Comments - (1) There's a problem of clarity and usage in a number of the artist categories -- "artist" is sometimes used to refer to "the arts" (music, performance, graphic, etc.); but other times it's used to refer to "graphic artists" (e.g., painters). It would be nice to be able to be consistent but I think it's not consistent or clear throughout the categories. (2) Category:Women in the arts is a topical category and Category:Female artists (my preferred variant) is a biographical category. "Women in art" certainly refers to depictions of women (at least, in books); "women in the arts" refers to women in various roles, e.g., gallery-owners, reviewers, etc., as well as artists, and maybe as subjects; also history, sociology, etc. --Lquilter 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles appear to be about artists - I have looked at a large sample & only weeded out a few (mostly pop singers). "Artist" in WP cats means "visual artist" and "art" means "visual art". "Arts" means art, music, literature etc, though somebody(ies) didn't understand this & appended music etc categories to many art & artist head-categories. They have their own tree. "Graphic" means printmaking and drawing, but not painting, by the way. Johnbod 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the distinction bw/ artist and art included in wikipedia categorization guidelines somewhere? ... I note, btw, that we also have Category:Women in music in parallel to this category. --Lquilter 12:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No (or I don't think so), but there was a lot of discussion years ago at Portal:Arts and similar places, which decided "art" by itself = visual art only, as in most everyday usage, as opposed to the arts. Most of the main categories explain this on the page. Musicians, writers, dancers & other types of artists in the wider sense have their own trees, but for visual artists there is only the "artists" tree and medium-specific sub-cats like painters, sculptors, printmakers etc. I admit artist does not currently reflect this very well. Johnbod 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been bugging me as I've been trying to clean up some of the categories like awards and organizations. I didn't see policy and I couldn't discern a rule from what I observed in practice, so I've probably done it wrong! I'll have to go back and check now. But in the meantime perhaps something useful will come out of this CFD. --Lquilter 14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With luck you will just need to add "s"s! But I don't say all corners of the structure are consistent. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts is fairly active if you want to raise qwuestions. Johnbod 14:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Entourage (TV series)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entourage (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. Everything is extensively interlinked and templated. Otto4711 17:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and change to template. If the show doesn't have much of an impact on pop cultural society to warrant other articles, then there's no reason to have a category for it. Irk Come in for a drink! 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Blogosphere[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blogosphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary layer of categorization between Category:Blogs and Category:Bloggers. Otto4711 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there should be some articles not about bloggers or blogs, but about blog tech, etc that should appear here, similar to the Category:World Wide Web, etc. 132.205.99.122 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Otto's original rationale. Recury 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Otto. ĞavinŤing 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Enemies and Allies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was upmerge to appropriate parent categories: Category:Vikings, Category:Ancient Roman foreign relations and Category:Ancient Rome, and Category:Byzantine Empire, respectively. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viking enemies and allies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ancient Roman enemies and allies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Byzantine enemies and allies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - pointless container categorization for "enemies" and "allies" subcats. The Viking one is particularly pointless as it doesn't even subdivide its constituent articles. Otto4711 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Entries like Antiochus XIII Asiaticus (or the sub-cat Tribes of Gaul) show that with allies like the Ancient Romans, one had no need of enemies - I'm sure the same is true for the Vikings. Johnbod 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. It is sad to see that Category:Ancient Roman enemies and allies also exists in nine other languages. I would have thought it would be pretty clear to most people that "Ancient Roman enemies and allies" have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, except some sort of relation to Ancient Rome. LeSnail 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IF these are to be deleted, first upmerge all their articles and subcats to appropriate parent categories so we do not create a bunch of uncategorized objects. Hmains 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Hmains. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hurricane Betsy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hurricane Betsy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Otto4711 15:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hurricanes in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:Hurricanes in the United States to Category:Hurricanes in the United States by state, and then Category:Historic hurricanes in the United States to Category:Hurricanes in the United States. The "by state" category should then become a subcategory of the "in the U.S." category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hurricanes in the United States to Category:To be determined
Propose renaming Category:Historic hurricanes in the United States to Category:To be determined
Nominator's rationale: Reorganize - There should either be two categories, Hurricanes in the United States and Hurricanes in the United States by state as a subcat, or there should be one by state category only. The existing Hurricanes in the United States category is divided by state so it's not clear to me what the most efficient way of cleaning this up is. No resulting category should include the word "historic" as any hurricane that's over is "historic" and no other weather category structures appear to use this construction. Otto4711 14:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Hurricanes in the United States to Category:Hurricanes in the United States by state as this clearly includes 'by state' subcategories. THEN, rename Category:Historic hurricanes in the United States to Category:Hurricanes in the United States as this clearly does not include 'by state' subcategories and also should not includee the word 'historic' (though I created the category, I did so by patterning its name from a pre-existing catgegory). These two categories should not be merged; looking at the various 'by state' categories for the United States finds they contain just 'by state' subcats and not a mixture of by-state and non-by-state subcats. Not all the US hurricane articles can be placed 'by state' (I know; I worked a lot on categorizing these) and this is the category in which they can reside. Hmains 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Historic hurricanes in the United States to Category:Hurricanes in the United States. That's all the work needed here. Do not create Category:Hurricanes in the United States by state - that defeats the point of the category tree.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the historic hurricanes category to the main hurricane category. I don't see a problem with having "by state" subcategories in the main one. --Coredesat 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - If the category becomes too big, I would suggest sub-categorisation by decade, not by state: may not one hurricane affect several states? Peterkingiron 09:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Editors should look at Category:Categories by state of the United States to see how articles are actually categorized by state of the United States. The reason why they are categorized in this way is so each state category can have a subcategory showing what happened in that state. Getting rid of the 'hurricanes by state' category makes that impossible and makes all the articles here much more difficult to manage. Hmains 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the historic category is merged this does not present a problem as long as the appropriate by state tags are added. If this was not done, then you would still be missing information by state so those would be incomplete. Or is the problem that some articles don't and should not be listed by state? Another question would be what happens if Category:Historic hurricanes in the United States were deleted? In looking at a few, some have all of the affected states covered while others don't and some states are listed in the category and not in the infobox. So maybe deleting Category:Historic hurricanes in the United States would clean this up in an acceptable manner. Vegaswikian 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't the dividing line between categorization and pre-category hurricanes? 132.205.99.122 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic weather events in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic weather events in the United States to Category:Weather events in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Historic tornadoes in the United States to Category:Tornadoes in the United States by state
Propose renaming Category:Historic derechos in the United States to Category:Derechos in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Historic blizzards in the United States to Category:Blizzards in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename - any weather event that's over is "historic." Little point in including the word in the name. It doesn't appear that any other weather categories use this naming convention. Otto4711 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as per nom. "Historic" is pretty much "former" and "famous." If they weren't famous, they wouldn't have articles, and categorizing by the current/former distinction is always a bad idea. LeSnail 19:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per LeSnail. Snocrates 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all as per nom. I created 3 of these categories based on one of them that pre-existed me. I followed the pattern I saw. To be correct, however, none of them should have the word 'historic' in them. Hmains 21:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 surnames[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. There's certainly no consensus to delete, but the delete arguments are very strong nonetheless.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category just seems like a bad idea. First of all, names are not inherently of a particular religion or ethnicity, at least not anymore. Today people with names on this list may or may not be Jewish, and people with names not in this list may very well be Jewish. This makes it hard, if not impossible, to say what is or isn't a "Jewish" surname. Second of all, the category may indicate that some non-Jews are Jews, simply for having a certain last name. Finally, the whole category smacks of original research, since it doesn't look like any reliable sources are used to determine what names are or are not "Jewish" (again assuming a name can have a religion/ethnicity.) Thus the items listed in the category probably won't meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. All in all, this category is probably a bad idea. -- HiEv 10:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category has a note explaining that many non-Jews have these names, which also removes any OR issue as far as I am concerned. There are dozens of national/ethnic subcats to Category:Surnames - why pick on this one? I'm dubious that "names are not inherently of a particular religion or ethnicity, at least not anymore" There may be exceptions, but a Cohen or Margules is pretty likely to be Jewish in my experience. Johnbod 13:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Re: "Why pick on this one?" Because it's the first one I've seen. Also, just because other stuff exists that is not a reason why this should exist. Finally, without a reliable source, in many cases we're left with a subjective inclusion criterion. -- HiEv 22:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "non-Jews have these names" note might help to clarify the contents, but it doesn't remove WP:OR issues. There are still WP:OR issues with defining a name as "Jewish" or not. --Lquilter 12:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What's interesting about the choice to nominate Jewish Surnames of all the subcats of surnames (there are about 30) is that Jewish surnames involve the least WP:OR. Most of the bios in Jewish surnames have sources to the subject's Judaism (most of them are Jewish). On the other hand, the names in Category:French surnames don't have sources at all that the family name was originally French or that they are originaly French. --Brewcrewer 08:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the others are all as bad as Irish and Jewish (in terms of content) I'd suggest deleting them too. --Lquilter 15:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was that Jewish surnames was better then the other subcats. --Brewcrewer 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to common Jewish surnames to make it more accurate. Irk Come in for a drink! 17:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category:Irish surnames are not full of Irish people, nor does anyone think that it's full of Irish people. The point of the categories are the origination of the surname. --Brewcrewer 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Good point, but where is the source that verifies the origination? -- HiEv 22:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irish surnames is full of disambiguation pages that are mostly full of people. This category, too, should be deleted for reasons I enumerate below. --Lquilter 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There are a number of notably Jewish surnames, like Azulai, Levin, Cohen, Ashkenazi, Ibn Ezra, Rabinowitz, Altschul, and many others, so the category should stay. Its exact contents are another matter. --Eliyak T·C 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Interestingly, I looked at the Levin (surname) article, and it currently says the name is "of non-Jewish Russian origin", coming from the Russian name "Lev", but was later adopted by many Russian Jews. So, is that name Jewish or not? This is my problem with the category. -- HiEv 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that specific case it would be both Russian and Jewish. No harm done. There are surnames with up to 4 subcats. --Brewcrewer 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Merge into Category:Jewish families because Wikipedia already has Category:Jewish families that is just fine, and this will just duplicate matters. Since being Jewish is a matter of both an ethnicity (see Jew) and a religion (see Judaism) should the following also be created?: Category:Hindu surnames Category:Christian surnames Category:Muslim surnames Category:Buddhist surnames Category:Atheist surnames? This is also an Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue as well as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. At this stage of the 21st century it is IMPOSSIBLE to use such guidelines to "identify" Jews and/or adherents of Judaism, if that was ever possible. Thank you, IZAK 09:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again IZAK, you completely misapply policies here - how is this an "opinion about a question or issue" in the sense the guideline means? Who has the opinion? Does the category categorize by the opinion? Several editors have previously pointed out your failure to grasp what these policies are actually about, but you make no effort to improve your understanding. It's very tiresome frankly. Johnbod 11:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I think IZAK is just repeating one of my worries, which nobody has allayed so far, and that is the issue of verifiability. Without a reliable source it just comes down to opinion about whether a name sounds Jewish or not, and I skimmed through a number of names in the category without seeing one source showing Jewish origin for any of them (other than the main page.) Just to pick a name at random, "Meyer" is currently listed in the "Jewish surnames" category, however the name is actually German, not Jewish, and even comes from a German word (see here or here). I don't think the guideline of verifiability should be able to be bypassed by making something into a category instead of a list. (Also, I think the name "Surnames of Hebrew origin" might be better if this category is kept.) Finally, Johnbod, you should probably avoid personal attacks and focus on the arguments instead. If you don't see how his complaint applies, ask, instead of assuming he got it wrong. Thanks. -- HiEv 12:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh dear, another one! Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue is a very specific section against categories based on an opinion (supposedly) held by the members of the category. Eg Category:People opposed to Foo. It is not about the opinion of other people about the matter, still less about your opinion. For the section to be relevant here the category would have to be called something like Category:People who think their surnames are Jewish, which it plainly is not. Persistent misapplication or misquotation of policies in these debates is strongly to be deprecated, as most editors (like, clearly, yourself) don't always look at the policy concerned and can easily be mislead. See the recent debate on Category:Kohanim for the first time round on all this. Johnbod 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am defending his misuse of "Opinion about a question or issue", rather than what I was really doing, which was defending what I thought his point was without reference to that particular rule. Thanks for the insults though. :-P -- HiEv 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I picked it up from your saying "I think IZAK is just repeating one of my worries" in response to my point. I'm happy if your understanding of the policy is better. Johnbod 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi John: I stand by my assertions. Many of the people in the categories go "by the opinion" that their "Jewish-sounding" surnames makes them "Jewish", and it may even drive them to change their surnames to sound and become less or entirely non-Jewish on the road to becoming entirely non-Jewish in real life. Furthermore it is "based on an opinion (supposedly) held by the members of the category" simply because their surnames are "Jewish-sounding" added to that 99% of Jews today are totally ignorant about Judaism and Jewish law, and have been for a long time already so they assume that based on superficialities like what their names are or aren't that they are or aren't takne to be "Jewish" by the world (Hitler has already proven how silly such think could be...) I wish you would give me more credit for thinking things through though. Thanks, IZAK 10:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category is one of surnames, not people. I wasn't aware surnames could have an opinion. Johnbod 11:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if retained this should be a category of surnames, not of individuals; its content should be disambiguation pages for people with these surnames. Category:Irish surnames is also legitimate because some surnames are identifiably Irish, and point to a person being patrilineally of Irish extraction. The problem is that Jewishness is carried by matrilineal descent, whereas surnames come from the father, so that many Jews (descended from mixed marriages) have non-Jewish surnames. On the hand, the surnames do point to Jewish patrilineal ancestry, and may thus be useful. The argument is not really about people being Jewish by religion, but Jewish by descent, after all the Jews were a nation, who retained theri identity for many centuries of exile after the Roman capture of Jerusalem. The contrast with Christian (and particularly with Athiest surnames) is a stupid one. The contrast should be with Irish, Welsh, German, Polish etc. surnames, because surnames have been formed within these countries, though perhaps with linguistic rather than national boundaries. "Muslim surnames" might be legitimate, but Arabic, Egyptian etc. surnames might be better. Furhtermore, some Muslim countries (including Iraq and Pakistan) have not routinely used surnames, preferring patronymics. Peterkingiron 09:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one and Category:Irish surnames as presently constituted, and any other "x surnames" categories used similarly. If we had articles on names themselves, their history and origins, then this would be a reasonable category. However it's a category of disambiguations of people (and as all dabs it has non-people names), and therefore serves as a classification of people by name. Problematic on many levels: (1) non-defining overcategorization for people by name; (2) non-defining overcategorization for disambiguation pages by name (why do we care about the ethnic origins of the surnames that are being disambiguated); (3) original research because there is no documentation that these names are what they are categorized as being; (4) inaccurate & misleading because disambiguation pages can include all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the surname or its proposed derivations; (5) inaccurate & misleading because, despite the "note" that appears at the top of the category page itself, the category as it appears on the articles is un-noted and serves as a label. (6) Proposed "rename to common surnames" does not work because we don't include "notable" or similar names within category names; if you have to do that then the proposed category is likely too broad.
Again, this would be a perfectly fine category tree for articles on surnames themselves, but that's not what we have here. See also the recent CFDs on churches and other items with ambiguous names, where consensus made it clear that these were disambiguation categories and not general categorization schemes by name. --Lquilter 12:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all other x surnames, per Lquilter. Another race-categorization scheme in disguise here. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- unless you all are willing to begin deleting ALL of the other categories found in Category:Surnames, this one must not be deleted either. The attempted deletion of this category is just another example of Wikipedia's censorious activities as they apply to Jewish categories and articles. Jewish onomastics has a very long history and many books have been written on the subject, many dozens at least (if not hundreds). HiEv needs sources, so here are a few recent examples of major works in the field which will show that this is a topic very much worthy of a category:
  • G. Faiguenboim, et al., Dictionary Of Sephardic Surnames. Fraiha, 2005. ISBN 8585989203.
  • L. Menk, Dictionary Of German-Jewish Surnames. Avotaynu, 2005. ISBN 1886223203.
  • A. Beider, Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names: Their Origins, Structure, Pronunciations, and Migrations. Avotaynu, 2001. ISBN 1886223122.
  • A. Beider, A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire. Avotaynu, 1993. ISBN 0962637335.
  • [NOTE: Beider has written three other books on Galician, Polish, and Czech Jewish surnames]
  • T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Paul Mohr Verlag, 2002. ISBN 3161476468.
  • N. Weiss, The Origin Of Jewish Family Names: Morphology And History. Peter Lang Pub., 2002. ISBN 3906768198.
  • R. Singerman, et al., Jewish Given Names and Family Names: A New Bibliography. Brill Academic Pub., 2001. ISBN 9004121897.

So, as I said, unless you are going to being deleting ALL of the other surname categories you shouldn't be willing to delete this one either. Why try to deprive the world of free and accurate knowledge by deleting this category? Wouldn't doing so be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia? --Wassermann 08:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we do see more nominations here to delete Jewish categories than those relating to other groups, but would point out that these normally seem to be nominated by Jewish editors (I don't know about this case) Johnbod 10:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, I am not religiously Jewish, nor was I brought up by Jewish parents, but as I am adopted so I do not know whether I am ethnically Jewish or not. Also for the record, Wassermann is the creator of and only contributor (so far) to the category being discussed, and I did notify him about this nomination for deletion. -- HiEv 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I was the creator of this category, but I'm not the only contributor. I haven't been around Wikipedia for a while, and I left the category with around 80 or so names back in August with a tag that it needed to be expanded to bring it up to speed with many of the other surname categories (since some of the other surname categories contain hundreds of entries). The category now has over 150 entries and I haven't added any since then, so someone must have been working on it. Still, the question remains...why is this category being singled out for deletion while all of the others will be allowed to remain? It is idiocy like this is what made me decide back in August to scale back the time and energy I have poured in to Wikipedia since so much of my valid and factual work ends up getting eventually undone by those with a censorious agenda when it comes to Jewish categories and articles. --Wassermann 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant only contributor to the "Category:Jewish surnames" page itself. -- HiEv 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I just added a list of sources to the category page. Hopefully this will persuade all of you naysayers this is indeed a very valid category (with much room for expansion as well). --Wassermann 09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wasserman: The books you cite (actually many are mere dictionaries) are fine as theoretical and hypothetical resources for information about the origins and meanings of names and words, but it is a quantum leap to then jump and tag the names of actual people with Jewish identity based on those names you found in books or dictionaries. (Would you seriously pick the identity of anything like that?) The study of Linguistics, Lexicology and Etymology is fine, and the books you mention dwell on "Jewish names" in that way, but it is a huge error to make the quantum leap, and it's probably quack-pseudo-science to boot (as much as Nazi eugenics is not science), to then run about and slap the label of "Jewish this-and-that" on articles on Wikipedia based on those names and surnames. It's a very risky and dangerous thing to do, because once you label someone as having a "Jewish surname" -- when many of them are not neither in practice, fact, or theory -- there are many hate groups that would conclude that that person or family is "Jewish" and indeed the people in question may vehemently object to being called or viewed as Jewish by anyone. Once again you venture into dangerous ground. IZAK 11:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just adding those references to the top of the category page does not make all of the entries there valid. I've already pointed out two apparently erroneous inclusions above. Are they actually supported in any of those books? If so, which ones? WP:CITE#HOW suggests to me that specific page numbers may be required for such references, and WP:CAT indicates that the references should be in the articles where the category is added, not on the category's page. That being said, I think verifiability is a problem for any category, so I withdraw my earlier arguments on that, but each surname page itself does need a supporting reference before it should be included in this category if it is kept. -- HiEv 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would bet that you aren't willing to say the same for all of the names found in Category:German surnames or Category:Russian surnames. Whatever your answer to that may be, your entire (non)premise for nominating this category for deletion is flawed; when nominating this for deletion you simply wrote: "This category just seems like a bad idea." WHY is this particular category a bad idea while all of the other surname categories aren't? I'll tell you what is a bad idea -- the continue effort by many on Wikipedia to single out many of the Jewish categories and articles on Wikipedia for 'special treatment' while allowing hundreds or even thousands of other similar categories/articles on other ethnic or religious groups to remain untouched. --Wassermann 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you'd lose that bet. I'd say that the addition of any non-obvious category to an article should include a reliable source that supports the addition. I've removed a few such categories from articles already. Remember, WP:CAT says, "Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there." Categories are not a way to bypass Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. Also, when I nominated that category I wrote far more than "This category just seems like a bad idea", including explaining why, which you can see above. Honestly, I think Lquilter has given plenty of other good reasons, or some with simply better wording, than mine. Furthermore, I have never said that all other surname categories are OK. I don't know if they should be kept either. I do note that this category is more problematic than others because it uses the word "Jewish" which is both a religion and an ethnicity, unlike "German" or "Russian" which are both ethnicities and languages. Depending on the results of this discussion I may very well nominate other surname categories as well, but that seems premature at this point. Rather than saying you're upset that this discussion exists, please simply quell my worries regarding the category and I'll gladly retract my complaints. -- HiEv 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasserman, the articles in Jewish surnames and Irish surnames are all disambiguation pages primarily about people. That means this is, effectively, a categorization of people by name, and WP:OCAT (and all the other issues I listed above). I think it would indeed be very interesting (I don't know about notable, but I'm pretty flexible there) to have articles about names themselves, with their histories, uses, derivations, affiliations, how they got changed at Ellis Island, whatever. And those articles certainly seem like good candidates for Category:BLANK surname. I hope that distinction makes sense to you. I would be delighted to help work on a series of articles that would do what you, I think, find interesting, and would fit within these categories. But currently the categories are not used in that way, and should not be used the way they are (to classify people by name). --Lquilter 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- that is how many of the other surname categories are built, so why should this one be any different? Certain surnames have articles of their own that contain information about the name's history, prevalence, etc., but most are just lists of names. Actually, many of these pages dealing with common Jewish surnames did once contain information about the Jewish roots of such names, but much of this was wiped out by editors who, for whatever reason, didn't like that information in those articles or lists (see Wikipedia:SU). --Wassermann 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasserman, please address my actual comments -- I never said this one should be different, and in fact I have said multiple times that if all the surname categories are used in the way this one is, then they all need to be handled -- deleted or repurposed, whichever. ... If people have been deleting surname-content from articles then that's a separate problem. I'd suggest creating two pages: "Name (surname)" and Name (disambiguation); the Name article should probably redirect to the disambiguation page which would include a link to the surname article and any articles on notable people or places with that name. That way you or other name-history-fans can revive content that should not have been deleted. The problem was probably that people were confused about original content about the history of a surname wasn't appropriate for the article or disambiguation page. --Lquilter 15:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I don't feel the category is inherently flawed. The category is for surnames, not people, so a number of the arguments listed above (both for and against) are irrelevant. Feel free to relist this nomination with all the other surname categories you find objectionable, but as nominated by itself, this category should remain. — Reinyday, 06:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - First, I feel very strongly that neither this nor any of the other sub-cats of Category:Surnames should be singled out for deletion: if any of them are to be deleted on the grounds that are under discussion here, it should only be as a result of a CFD discussion for the entire Category:Surnames. I also think it is very important to note that many (if not most) of the articles we're talking about are in multiple surname sub-categories -- i.e. Category:German surnames, Category:Russian surnames, etc. in addition to Category:Jewish surnames. The point being that there is no claim being made that these are all exclusively Jewish surnames, but rather that they are common Jewish surnames.

While both HiEv & Lquilter have raised some issues that should be dealt with -- in particular the fact that many of the articles do not currently have supporting information -- I do not believe there is sufficient reason to delete this category. I would suggest, instead, that interested editors undertake a serious effort to clean up any and all problems... with this and all of the other sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, legit category. This cat does not mean that all Jews have these names, nor that only Jews have them. An alternative would be 'Yiddish surnames', for various names that emerged in Central and Eastern Europe, but I'm sure what that would help. --Soman (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional rape victims[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional rape victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Being a rape victim is not a defining characteristic. AFAIK there is no corresponding category for real-life victims of rape. szyslak 10:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "real-life" cat went through CFD here. Lugnuts 12:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the corresponding "real life" category was deleted because of legal problems, problems with deciding whether all allegations of rape were true, and possible intrusion into people's private lives. In some cases this is a defining characteristic, e.g. Narreeman, we learn very little about her in the novel except that she is raped at one point and then seeks revenge on her rapist. The rationale for deletion implies that being raped is a trivial matter, I hear the howls of protest. PatGallacher 13:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, being raped is not a trivial matter. There's a tremendous difference between a "trivial matter" and a non-defining characteristic. szyslak 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though there is a proviso: The cat needs to be policed to eliminate articles where it is a trivial element. If the article itself presents that the rape is either a substantial part of the character, actions and attitudes derive from and are defined by the event, or that the rape was a significant plot element, yes, the category applies. If the article does not and cannot support that, then including the character in the cat is for trivial reasons, and such articles need to be removed. - J Greb 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a well defined category if it needs to be policed. It is ambiguous when this becomes a defining characteristic for the character. If the character's only role is from a rape is that a defining characteristic? If this is a lead or regular character and this is something that happens does it become a defining characteristic? Right now this is clearly a category with many individuals where this is not a defining characteristic but rather a plot twist. So delete and if someone can create a set of criteria to define when this is defining then maybe it can be recreated. Vegaswikian 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand how real life victims don't get a cat but fictional victims do. --Brewcrewer 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately, soap operas have tons of these whose victims tend not to be traumatized but are back in full swing within a week or two - just like fictional people with cancer and other plot twists that come out of hollywood. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional environmentalists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional environmentalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a defining characteristic for most fictional characters, plus there's no benefit in categorizing fictional characters based on their opinion about a question or issue. If you stripped the entries down to those for whom support for environmental causes is a "defining characteristic", you'd be left with Captain Planet and maybe a few others. szyslak 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Galveston Hurricane of 1900[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 20:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galveston Hurricane of 1900 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary single-article category. Otto4711 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LeSnail 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large disasters tend to merit categories to group items together; I've added a few other articles to the category, and yet others probably could be added to it. Carlossuarez46 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlossuarez46 Nsaum75 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Utah tornadoes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 20:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Utah tornadoes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Very small category (only one article) that is unlikely to have more articles added to it. Essentially pointless category. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 01:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Included article states that it was only the second Utah tornado to result in a fatality, the other being in 1884, so the category is unlikely to expand. Snocrates 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - category is a subcat of Category:Historic tornadoes in the United States and is thus an exception to the normal WP:OCAT guideline as a part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Otto4711 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for the reasons correctly stated by Otto. And who knows that Utah is 'unlikely' to have another hurricane hit it? Do we have claims here of 'knowing' the weather future? Hmains 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yes we do. Snocrates 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Alumni of Dublin University[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of Dublin University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I accidentally placed an article in this category, and User:Kittybrewster created it, but in fact it's redundant to the existing category Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Dublin. Choess 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Dublin. Trinity College, Dublin has an unusual structure, in that it the only college of the University of Dublin, so the category Kittybrewster created is a logical and accurate one, but a duplicate. It's likely to be created again, so the redirect seems wise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete, do not redirect, consider salt: it could equally be erroneously used for alumni of University College Dublin which to the uninitiated sounds also as though it should be part of "Dublin University". (I had no idea until reading this discussion that TCD equals UoD but UCD does not.) BencherliteTalk 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The distinction is well-known in Ireland, so any such error by a non Irish person would be quickly spotted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, there are now no articles in the cat. ĞavinŤing 15:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_November_11&oldid=1138388838"