Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31[edit]

Category:People from Tallulah, Louisiana[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 merge in the absence of any special circumstances or expressed objections. While the nomination has received no comment, the category contains only one member and is restricted to a city with a population of less than 10000. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Tallulah, Louisiana to Category:People from Louisiana
Nominator's rationale: Merge, too small a subdivision of people from Louisiana. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 31 October 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:Vice[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vice to Category:Vices
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match Category:Virtues (and it is the category naming style AFAIK) `'Míkka 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. And there was me, thinking there were only seven. Johnbod 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Vice" is better, because not everything in the category (or that could be) is a "vice." For example, a miser has a vice, but is not a vice himself. If anything, Category:Virtues should be Category:Virtue. --Eliyak T·C 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vice covers all of the categorized articles. Vices doesn't quite do it. Doczilla 06:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article is at Vice—unpluralized. Also per Eliyak's reasoning. Snocrates 07:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Snocrates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 1 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.

Orlando, Florida[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 as nominated, except rename Category:Universities and colleges near Orlando to Category:Universities and colleges in Orlando, Florida. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To match parent Category:Orlando, Florida and main article Orlando, Florida --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 31 October 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:National Hockey League players by position[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 main category and goaltenders category. All members are currently categorized by a nationality-position category, so a league-position category is unnecessary, and doesn't agree with any other sport's categorization scheme. (See the recently closed Canadian Football League players by position discussion for a similar ruling.)--Mike Selinker 15:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Hockey League players by position (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is basically an unused category. It only has one subcat for goaltenders and even it has barely been used. Its been around for over a year and has not been accepted by the ice hockey editing community. But more importantly it leads to over categorization to have cats for single positions in each league they could play in when players are already seperated by league they play(ed) in and team they play(ed) for. I definately think this category needs to be deleted. Djsasso 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be wise to keep the National Hockey League Goaltenders category as it is a good reference list for goalies who've reached the top level of play. As for the parent category and other positions it would probably be best to delete, as they would become overpopulated quite quickly and be of little use to the reader. -RiverHockey 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the reason to keep one position and none of the other 4? I guess I don't quite follow. --Djsasso 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real reasoning for categories is to allow users to search for articles with ease. Since there aren't as many goalies as forwards or defenseman in the NHL, the category might be useful if someone was looking for a specific goalie. As for other positions, the category would be so overpopulated it'd probably be of little use. If you want to delete the goalie section its not a big deal to me, but I figured it has some practical use. -RiverHockey 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the category hasn't been expanded past goaltenders yet is not a good reason to delete. I think categorizing by other positions—particularly defencemen—could be potentially useful, but it would be a lot of work. In any case the goaltenders category should be kept for the reasons given, and this serves as a nice parent category for it and any other by-position categories that may be developed. Snocrates 06:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main concern is that we are doing it by league and position. I would have less issues with it if it was an over all ice hockey position category, but it is a specific league. The reason this is a concern is that some players have played in 6 different leagues so potentially the could have a huge number of categories added that don't really help anything. Nevermind the examples of players that have played more than one position like Brian Rolston who has played 3 different positions. So suddenly you would have to triple the number of categories for him. --Djsasso 14:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that and agree that the intersection of league and position could be overkill. Snocrates 07:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that list is a PROD candidate for deletion as we speak. The list has not been well maintained and is better served by the team articles that are updated frequently. Pparazorback 20:23, 3 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.

Dutch death metal musical groups[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 both. Note: The contents were also upmerged to Category:Technical death metal musical groups and Category:Melodic death metal musical groups, respectively. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. There aren't enough Dutch death metal musical groups to require subdivision of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definately not enough dutch death metal bands on here currently to require subdivision. --Djsasso 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Some of those bands fail notability (ie: Fondlecorpse) and should be proposed for deletion. Refer to metal-archives.com, there are a million such bands and if we accept one, then all can follow suit and wikipedia could be flooded with similar articles. -RiverHockey 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I came across these when doing uncategorizedcategories and was surprised that this level of categorization was done, to what purpose? Carlossuarez46 22:03, 1 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.

Killed in action[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 as nominated. These categories are only used for military. If categories are needed for non-military people, they can be created independently.--Mike Selinker 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, for standardization and to make it clear that these are for military personnel only (see related June 24th discussion). Also change "World War Two" -> "World War II" and "World War One" -> "World War I" to match the parent cat names and article names. jwillbur 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. One of the novel features of WWII was that many of those killed in the conflict were civilians; aerial bombing on a mass claimed claimed enormous numbers of civilian lives. It appears to me that this proposal leaves us without any killed-in-WWII category for notable person killed in say the London blitz or in the fire-bombing of Hamburg. Is that correct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They are being used only for military personnel, civilian casualties aren't generally described as "killed in action". I would support the creation of Category:People killed in World War II, which would include as subcats Category:Military personnel killed in World War II, Category:Holocaust victims, etc. jwillbur 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. These cats aren't just for military personnel. --Djsasso 22:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; I take BHG's point but it seems from the definition note on Category:British World War II killed in action that it was always for military personnel. I don't think civilian bombing victims are described as "killed in action" usually - see article definition. We may need other categories for civilians. Johnbod 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Killed in action" already is a military, not civilian, term, so standardization should go ahead here. --Eliyak T·C 03:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In British English, Naval and Air Force personnel are not soldiers (Latin miles). Furthermore, what about irregular resisternce forces in France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, etc. Part of the problem is the formulation KIA is an American one derived from conflicts by regular forces, in a country that has not suffered invsasion since the war of 1812. If the change is to be made it should be to "Armed Forces" not "military", perhaps with subcategories by service (army, navy, etc.). Parallel categories may be required for irregular (WWII resistence) fighters and civilian casualties. This no doubt requires substantial work. Peterkingiron 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The London Gazette of 11 February 1764 Issue number:10391 contains this phrase - just an example - but its not an americanism as far as I'm aware. Also, if we take a default position for war casulties and distinguish the military ones (as the cats in nom have) this goes a long way to address your objections Kernel Saunters 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for standardization - but also create a higher level cat that covers deaths in conflict (that could include civilians for instance killed in the London Blitz). A lower level military KIA cat is defo required. As a point of order I'm not aware of any civilian deaths being currently assigned to the categories up for nom Kernel Saunters 11:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example - Top level:People killed in war, Next:People killed in X war with the KIAs cats above attached as subcats of the second level Kernel Saunters 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename XXXX World War I killed in action (or whatever) is not the most elegant of titles and its not like people can have more then one of these so size isn't really an issue either. In the interests of conformity and tidiness, these should be changed.--Jackyd101 17:02, 9 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:Catapults[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 merge/delete (at the moment, all three category members already appear in the target). – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catapults (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned and unnecessary duplicate of Category:Siege engines. BencherliteTalk 21:28, 31 October 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:US Dancing with the Stars participants[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 to Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants to match parent category. Reality shows have their own rules in our categorization scheme.--Mike Selinker 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US Dancing with the Stars participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization. performers by performance. Hera1187 20:28, 31 October 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:Marines[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 and reverge merge, per Vegaswikian.--Mike Selinker 07:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Marines to Category:Marine Corps
Nominator's rationale: At present we have two categories, namely Category:Marines and Category:Marine Corps, which seem to serve the same purpose. We also have Category:Marine corps personnel which is (rightly in my view) a sub category of the Marine Corps category. I hope that I am not jumping to conclusions when I note that we should merge the Marines and Marine Corps categories. The reason why I favour merging the former into the latter is that the word "Marines" is ambiguous in this situation (ie does it mean a collection of people who are Marines or does it mean the Marines as a military branch/service?). Greenshed 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. They are duplicate categories, and as Greenshed said "Marines" is ambiguous. However, the capitalization of Cat:Marine Corps should be changed to "Marine corps", since it refers to marine corps in general and not to a specific group. jwillbur 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the capitalization point. Greenshed 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge to Category:Marines. "Corps" may be the correct term for the US force, but not for others. I take the point about the individual/unit ambiguity, but this is notthe way to solve it. Johnbod 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that some non-English speaking countries don't use the word "corps" but it should also be noted that others don't use the word "marine". If we need a more general category then we should use Cat:Amphibious infantry or Cat:Naval infantry rather than the ambiguous Cat:Marines. Greenshed 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge. I think that this does make sense. I also think that we do need Category:Marine corps as a sub cat of Category:Marines since there are a reasonable number of these and they are military organizations that should be categorized under other parents. If there are no major objections, I may try and do that create and moving before the CfD closes so that the bots can do the remaining cleanup. Vegaswikian 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps it should be called ship-borne infantry or naval army forces? 132.205.99.122 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per above. While Category:Marine corps (lowercase "c") could be useful also, Category:Marine Corps approximates categorisation on the basis of shared names. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:28, 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:Not orphan[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 as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Not orphan to Category:Wikipedia images not orphaned
Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency, since most subcats in that cat are named "Wikipedia images XYZ". Also, its current name does not provide sufficient description. Esprit15d 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 19:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection, except that changing hundreds of image description pages may be a bit heavy-duty for a minor naming consistency cleanup... AnonMoos 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only five pages link to that category. The rest link there with a template. So there would be a total of six changes.--Esprit15d 21:08, 1 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:Images by subject[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 as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images by subject to Category:Wikipedia images by subject
Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency, since the majority of the subcats in that cat are named "Wikipedia images XYZ". Esprit15d 12:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Logically, then, should all the subcategories be renamed "Business Wikipedia images," etc. ? --Eliyak T·C 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 19:32, 31 October 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:Images by source[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 as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images by source to Category:Wikipedia images by source
Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency, since other subcats in the category are called "Wikipedia images XYZ". Esprit15d 12:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 19:32, 31 October 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:Images by copyright status[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 as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images by copyright status to Category:Wikipedia images by copyright status
Nominator's rationale: Rename, To keep the category names more consistent, since the vast majority of the others in that category are called Wikipedia images XYZ. Esprit15d 12:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 19:32, 31 October 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:Junji Ito[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. Whether Works by author-type categories are needed for manga in general is a topic which received virtually no comment in this discussion; however, 5 of the 8 articles would not belong in a "Works by author"-type category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Junji Ito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous category for this author; if a category is warranted for the works, an appropriately named one could be done. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename per nom's alternate proposal. Notable author with many adapted works. 132.205.99.122 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navigation between his works can be done from a list on Junji Ito. Category is redundant and unnecessary. Doceirias 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The navigation can easily be done either with a list or a template. --ざくら木 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - category is unnecessary CES 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In this case a template would be more manageable ànd clearer to the reader. Ninja neko 07:21, 2 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:Illegal immigrants executed 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 delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illegal immigrants executed in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete one entry, probably could be more, but of what purpose? It's a trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 31 October 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:Divine apparitions[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 Category:Divine apparitions and upmerge the other two. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Divine apparitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Apparitions of Mary Faustina Kowalska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Divine apparitions with church approval (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Some apparitions that were missed in the deletion discussions of October 5 and October 15. For the same reasons given in those debates, and to clean up (hopefully, all) the remaining few categories. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 31 October 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:Detritivores[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.--Mike Selinker 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Detritivores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Call me old fashioned but we have, thanks to Linnaeus, a very good and comprehensive way of classifying members of the animal kingdom. Classifying distantly related species by diet seems inapporpriate, and likely to create category clutter in such omnivorous animals as man, rat, etc. Perhaps someone of more of a biology bent than I can shed light on why this may be useful and my concerns unfounded; if not, delete Carlossuarez46 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If this was Category:Herbivores, I would outrightly vote to delete. But there seems to be few enough of these creatures where the category might be of some use.--Esprit15d 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment categorization by trophism seems a perfectly good way to do it by me. It is a defining characteristic. 132.205.99.122 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is more than one way of looking animals. Besides the natural classification by evolutionary relationships, it is common to consider them by ecological niche, ( & by geography, by chronology, and so on. ) DGG (talk) 03:23, 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:African-American psychologists[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.-Andrew c [talk] 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:African-American psychologists to Category:American psychologists
Nominator's rationale: Merge, convention of Category:Psychologists by nationality. See also discussion of February 1st, where its (former) grand-parent cat was merged. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the creator of this category, it sure would have been nice to have been notified of this CFD on my talk page. Just because, for some unfathomable reason, CFD notification isn't mandatory, doesn't alter the fact that it should be done, regardless. Cgingold 13:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also merge to Category:African Americans since this category was probably carved out of that parent to make that parent shorter/more manageable. Hmains 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 03:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if I agreed with deleted the parent, which admittedly I did not despite nominating it, this is an area of science where I think ethnicity or even religion is relevant. Many names in this category are people who dealt with how culture or discrimination have impacted the psychology of African-Americans. I think other African-American psychologists would also fit that.--T. Anthony 07:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep - and not just because I created the category. First I want to say that it's tragic that Category:African American scientists was deleted -- but that's not at issue here, so I won't go into it. However, even for editors like Carlossuarez46 (who has made it known that he would like to rid Wikipedia of as many ethnic categories as possible), this one (and its cousin category below) should stand out as obvious "keeps". So I was floored to read, "If their work is different, we should be able to have an article African-American psychologists, which we don't and probably couldn't."

Of course their work is different -- and the fact that someone could either be utterly ignorant of that, or has chosen to be blind to it, speaks volumes. What could possibly be more self-evident than that African Americans bring a unique sensibility and distinct concerns to the social sciences? Anybody who has any familiarity at all with these fields knows that they are deeply rooted in dealing concretely with the specific types of oppression, and the social & psychological damages resulting therefrom, that African Americans have suffered from collectively and individually. Outside of literature, history and civil rights, I cannot even think of fields which are more necessary as African American (sub-)categories than the social sciences & psychology. Cgingold 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have made a blanket statement that all African-American psychologists' work is different from all non-African-American's work - otherwise the category (like we've done for Christian musicians) would focus on the practitioners of the genre Category:Performers of Christian music, rather than on the characteristices of the performer (the deleted Category:Christian musicians). The idea that the work of a scientist is strictly delimited by his or her race has been roundly rejected in mainstream circles (see Deutsche Physik for an example). The idea that the work of a psychologist (psychology being a branch of science) is strictly delimited by his or her race is an astounding idea, do you have support for that? Carlossuarez46 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlossuarez, the fact that you resorted to a complete distortion of what I said rather than to engage in a serious factual discussion suggests that you simply are not knowledgeable about the subject, and are thus conflating two disparate issues which you wrongly assume to be fundamentally alike. I'm truly sorry to hear of your personal experiences, but I'm afraid your understandable anger is getting in the way of clear thinking. Cleansing Wikipedia of ethnic categories won't magically set the world aright -- it simply deprives our readers of the opportunity to read those authors and learn, for example, what unique perspectives Black psychologists and social scientists bring to their work. Regards, Cgingold 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing Cgingold statement to Deutsche Physik is bordering on an attack or accusation of racism. Psychology is largely a human-science so the culture of patient or psychologist can be relevant in treatment or research. See Filipino psychology and some elements of Community psychology might relate. (I'll admit I've also been in therapy and I'd say cultural similarities or differences with the therapist were relevant, at least in a clinical context) The physical Universe is the same everywhere, presumably, but the psychological pressures that exist in different communities can vary.--T. Anthony 13:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is that Fooian psychology may differ from non-Fooian psychology. Perhaps true, but you aren't categorizing those who study Fooian psychology here, you are categorizing people who study any old psychology who happen to be Fooian themselves. That's pure racial categorization. Majoritarian cultures often have ingrained stereotypes of minorities; often misperceiving that minorities are not monolithic, we aren't robots - just look at the foreign policy ideas of Obama vs. those of Rice.
This gets me quite hot, because I live it routinely: I have been mistaken for a waiter by Anglos eating at a Mexican restaurant I frequent; have been asked whether I've picked tomatoes or whether I have a low rider. No/No. I've been asked whether I'm an illegal alien or assumed to be so as in "Go home spick!" I was born in LA so that's about as American as apple pie. Do Anglos have to put up with that? Nope. Being a member of two minorities I see this often; even in polite, educated company in a university environment it comes: "So you're Latino in the humanities, shouldn't you be studying some Latin-American topic rather than my area of interest: the Classical geographic writers"; "So you're gay why don't you focus on homosexual issues of ancient Greece and Rome rather than its geographic writers".
So, by lumping African-American psychologists together you are either (a) just grouping by race with is OCAT; or (b) making some Majoritarian assumptions that these people all have something to say or do about African-American psychology rather than psychology at large - which is a nice pigeon hole but ultimately WRONG. Carlossuarez46 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point. Still I think there are cases where it's relevant or culturally significant. If you want an "English American psychologists" deal in response that'd be fine by me.--T. Anthony 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold, T Antony Johnbod 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply above Cgingold 13:59, 6 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:African-American social scientists[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.-Andrew c [talk] 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:African-American social scientists to Category:American social scientists
Nominator's rationale: Merge, convention of Category:Scientists by nationality. See also discussion of February 1st, where its (former) parent cat was merged. Carlossuarez46 17:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the creator of this category, it sure would have been nice to have been notified of this CFD on my talk page. Just because, for some unfathomable reason, CFD notification isn't mandatory, doesn't alter the fact that it should be done, regardless. Cgingold 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, As much as it hurts me. This should be listified.--Esprit15d 19:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be okay with that. Possibly as a section of a generalized "African-American scientists" list.--T. Anthony 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We went through a painful debate on Category:African American scientists earlier this year that ended in the deletion of the category. (I should have challenged the decision but personal issues prevented me from dealing with it. It has since been recreated, I believe.) In brief, however, African American professional categories make an important and useful category structure is because (a) being an African-American professional is in fact a defining biographical attribute and most African-American professional categories are well-studied biographical topics that could have unique cat-defining articles written (as evidenced by the existence of minority professional associations, minority-specific awards, numerous studies and writings on the absence or prevalence of African-Americans in particular fields, and large numbers of biographical studies and encyclopedias about African-Americans in particular fields. Granted that some are better studied than others -- for example, African-American scientists and inventors.); and (b) Discrimination notwithstanding, the potential members or listees are sufficiently numerous that categories are better suited than lists. --lquilter 21:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per lquilter and per WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference or delete but don't keep as is. Doczilla 03:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if I agreed with deleted the parent, which admittedly I did not despite nominating it, this is an area of science where I think ethnicity or even religion can be relevant. In the US African-Americans have often lived in social-worlds different than white America and so I think there even is such a thing as "African American social science." W. E. B. Du Bois, who is in this category, might be one case who did work in that. Besides there seems to be no category for African American studies.--T. Anthony 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep - and not just because I created the category. First I want to say that it's tragic that Category:African American scientists was deleted -- but that's not at issue here, so I won't go into it. However, even for editors like Carlossuarez46 (who has made it known that he would like to rid Wikipedia of as many ethnic categories as possible), this one (and its cousin category above) should stand out as obvious "keeps". So I was floored to read, "If their work is different, we should be able to have an article African-American social science, which we don't and probably couldn't."

Of course their work is different -- and the fact that someone could either be utterly ignorant of that, or has chosen to be blind to it, speaks volumes. What could possibly be more self-evident than that African Americans bring a unique sensibility and distinct concerns to the social sciences? Anybody who has any familiarity at all with these fields knows that they are deeply rooted in dealing concretely with the specific types of oppression, and the social & psychological damages resulting therefrom, that African Americans have suffered from collectively and individually. Outside of literature, history and civil rights, I cannot even think of fields which are more necessary as African American (sub-)categories than the social sciences & psychology. Cgingold 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have made a blanket statement that all African-American social scientists' work is different from all non-African-American's work - otherwise the category (like we've done for Christian musicians) would focus on the practitioners of the genre Category:Performers of Christian music, rather than on the characteristices of the performer (the deleted Category:Christian musicians). The idea that the work of a scientist is strictly delimited by his or her race has been roundly rejected in mainstream circles (see Deutsche Physik for an example). The idea that the work of a social scientist (being a branch of science) is strictly delimited by his or her race is an astounding idea, do you have support for that? Carlossuarez46 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlossuarez, the fact that you resorted to a complete distortion of what I said rather than to engage in a serious factual discussion suggests that you simply are not knowledgeable about the subject, and are thus conflating two disparate issues which you wrongly assume to be fundamentally alike. I'm truly sorry to hear of your personal experiences, but I'm afraid your understandable anger is getting in the way of clear thinking. Cleansing Wikipedia of ethnic categories won't magically set the world aright -- it simply deprives our readers of the opportunity to read those authors and learn, for example, what unique perspectives Black psychologists and social scientists bring to their work. Regards, Cgingold 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be appropriate, for not all African American social scientists work in that field, nor are all who work in that field African-Americans. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'd be fine by me. Having a category by race is not necessarily what I'm defending here. If this is replaced by a category that just deals with researches of the social science of the African American community, regardless of the researchers race, it might have more validity.--T. Anthony 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition if you were to merge a merge to Category:African American academics might make more sense.--T. Anthony 02:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course "Social scientists of African American society" is a completely different category from "Social scientists who are African Americans" (as Carlossuarez46 points out). The social scientists who study African American society concept is reasonably well represented by the already-existing Category:African American studies scholars. It does not capture the Category:African American social scientists, which is a biographical subcategory (African Americans) of a discipline (social scientists). It's meaningful because African American identity has a meaningful impact on professional practice in the social sciences such that a head article article can reasonably be written about the topic. (According to Cgingold.) The topic of African-Americans is completely different. --lquilter 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold, lquilter, T antony. The social sciences are different from chemistry etc. Johnbod 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: this category could be very meaningful for many people and have the potential to fight racism and prejudices among people which are not familiar with the scientific contribution to social science that been made by African-Americans .--Gilisa 08:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply above Cgingold 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agreed with every word you wrote, T. Antony gave the good example of W. E. B. Du Bois which was an American sociologist, while his work focused on the discrimination against Black Americans. This kind of examples is not unique to Afro-American scientists only, Lets take the wonderful book "The Kite Runner, been written by Khaled Hosseini, as another example which according to Carlossuarez46 logic had he been born in USA to a family of Afghans, should be categorized as an American author only-but it is very clear to me that one who didn’t live in an Afghan society/community or family-couldn’t write such an amazing work down. In the same way, no ethnic European can write about the feelings of an Afro-American which live in a racist society and to be as reliable as the one who experienced racism face to face. Ignoring this kind of facts, Ignoring that there is Chinese literature or Jewish art is actually to 'fix' evil ideas like the stupid, ridiculous and mentally handicap ideas of the German Nazis about Deutsche Physik in a wrong manner, we shouldn't let the Nazis to afraid us or dictate us to delete any thing special about different cultures which are not 'Aryans'. As I see it, Carlossuarez46 have only good intentions, but he is also a little bit dazzled by them.--Gilisa 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. --lquilter 18:22, 7 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:Delirious?[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) 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delirious? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete eponymous category for this band, OCAT and numerous precedents. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 31 October 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:St. Louis Soccer League 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 keep (now buttressed by article).--Mike Selinker 20:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Louis Soccer League players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category for players who have played in a non-notable league (the league doesn't even have its own article, so why should it have a category for players who have played in it?). PeeJay 16:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Louis Soccer League featured many of the top U.S. teams of it era, including Stix, Baer and Fuller F.C., Ben Millers, Innisfail, DeAndreis and several others. It also featured many of the best U.S. players, including members of the 1930 and 1934 U.S. World Cup teams. Furthermore, the league placed a team in the U.S. Open Cup final in 1920-1924, 1926, 1929, and 1932-1939. Also, check out the list of leagues that give players eligibility for induction into the National Soccer Hall of Fame, it's the first paragraph in the second section: [1] The reason the St. Louis Soccer League doesn't have an article yet is I've been too busy writing dozens of other articles to get around to this one. But if you could hold on, I'll get to it eventually. In the mean time, you can read more about it here:[2], [3], [4] Mohrflies 01:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an article on the league.Mohrflies 12:12, 10 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 American scientists[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.--Mike Selinker 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:American scientists, convention of Category:Scientists by nationality. See also discussion of February 1st and April 15th. -- Prove It (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is not a particularly helpful category under WP:CATGRS, but suggest that "precedent" isn't helpful here, because each category needs to be assessed individually. --lquilter 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely it should be referenced; but you can't simply say no "fooian scientists" as if it were binding precedent. That flies in the face of WP:CATGRS which establishes the test as whether a head article can be written. --lquilter 16:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- when this 'vote' ends and the category is deleted you all should make sure to merge this category to both Category:American scientists AND Category:American Jews so that all of these people don't lose their ethno-religious heritage when Category:Jewish American scientists is deleted. --172.163.238.187 05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question - Excuse me, but Prove It is mistaken: this is NOT a "repost of deleted content". According to the edit history, this category has never been deleted. In fact, the April 15 multi-category CFD he cites -- which did not actually result in the category being deleted -- took place 5 days after the April 10 CFD for this category and Category:Jewish scientists, which was closed No concensus. I'm not alleging that this was deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Prove It -- nonetheless, it has framed the ensuing discussion in a very unfavorable way, since the April 15 CFD was cited as "precedent".

On another point, I am perplexed by Prove It's request to merge only into Category:American scientists -- but not into the other parent cat, Category:Jewish scientists. Was this an oversight? Or is it perhaps because Category:Jewish scientists is next in line for proposed deletion? I just want to know where we're headed with this. Cgingold 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course it was deleted ... just check the deletion log. Why would I lie about something like that? As to the other point, I don't think there is any such thing as Jewish science and would argue that both ethnicity and religion are irrelevant in this case. -- Prove It (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time Out - Prove It, please re-read what I said. I was very careful NOT to accuse you of anything other than making a mistake. And please look at the edit history -- which clearly supports what I said, with no reference whatsoever to the category being deleted. On the other hand, I just looked at the Deletion Log, and I'm amazed to see that it says the category was deleted, since that is completely contradicted by the edit history. Either there was some sort of bizarre, inexplicable Wiki-glitch, or we are the victims of a very clever Cointelpro operation aimed at sowing discord among Wikipedia editors. (heh heh) Whatever the explanation, I'm pretty sure there's no good reason for us to be at each other's throats. Regards, Cgingold 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Perhaps Cgingold will tell us that Jewish scientists' work is different from their non-Jewish peers, as apparently he believes African-Americans' work differs from their non-African American peers. Others have thought that way before and have been totally discredited: see Deutsche Physik. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, T. Anthony. You are quite right to refocus the discussion to the fact that Category:Jewish American scientists reflects a very pronounced and noteworthy socio-cultural phenomenon that surely is beyond dispute: namely, the disproportionately large number of Jewish scientists given the tiny size of the Jewish population. This is a subject of legitimate interest, and should not be hidden away just because a few editors prefer that. Cgingold 15:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No body think that their work is different, but to say that the issue is all about it, is a little bit, forgive me, to play dumb. What is unfair is to nominate this category time after time for deletion (or merging, which is quite the same idea), like to delete/merge it is the most important thing on earth. Jewish scientist are still an Americans-there is no contradiction between the two, but they are also Jewish-the American society is a multi cultural, racial and etc society and we are already know that for many people, mostly far from being Anti-Semitic, and many times Jewish, it is important that such a category would exist- and not only for them, many Afro-Americans, at-would like to have a category about their own scientist as well, it's true also about many Germans, while Germany, for example, is basically not a multi-ethnical society- but no body would complain about a category of German scientist (or French)-why should we always go through it again and again…--Gilisa 12:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilisa, would you be advocating the same if the category at issue was Category:Jewish-American murderers or Category:Jewish-American fraudsters, or do we call out people's ethnic origins only in positive categories? Keeping this is precedent for creating those. Can't have the "good" without the "bad" - NPOV - if people in America's Jewishness is important - then it must be for all human endeavor. Carlossuarez46 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have Category:Jewish American mobsters. Granted there were actual "Jewish-American gangs" while it seems unclear if "Jewish American scientists" have formed a clique or society in the same way.--T. Anthony 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Carlossuarez46, your examples are provocative and misleading, I'm not blaming you for doing so on purpose, no offense- but it just truly look to me like that. If I understand you right, you think that it is unfair to say only good things-well, believe me, with or without wikipedia, many bad things-usually slanders only ( or common bad things which were blown up), been said about the Jewish people-so don’t worry too much for the equilibrium...Now seriously, bad categories (and actually Insulting/Offensive and here is the big differnce...), as you suggest, when it comes to ethnic origin and so on-is racism and shouldn’t be exist any way (not only or especially for Jews), while tailing good facts, as long as you don’t make any direct connection with race are ok (and actually as I see it-oppose to racism)-I mean, I was against the article about the Ashkenazi intelligence-I totally disagree to connect achievements with racial origin-you have to do the separation between the two. Example: if one would suggest to have a category for pale blue eyed, blonde hair scientists-than I would consider him as a racist (or stupid/ having bad taste) while Jewish scientist category is 1. a fact 2. there are also people who were born to non Jewish parents but convert to Judaism and hence they are included in this category of Jewish scientist (Erickson and at least one Noble scientist in Biology).More, as users wrote over and over again during different edit wars-there is a notable statistical deviation when it comes to Jewish scientists-now, please take my word that I do hate this claim, but you wrote about Jewish criminals- I don’t think that you can find the same statistical deviation here, and even if you do-the nature of the Human been is to make a generalizations, potentially with very bad implications, from such categories (I mean, category about Afro-American athletes wouldn’t make people more hostile against them, else if they are already racists, while category about Afro-American convicted criminals would). P.S-in any article about a criminal which was also Jewish there is no problem to mention that he was/is Jewish, but category for criminals by their ethnic origin is pure racism.More, There are categories about Jewish feminists and etc, not every body consider such categories as flattered, and still, they exist-Best--Gilisa 07:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have great respect for Jewish people. However, we don't have categories like 'American agnostic scientists'. Masterpiece2000 09:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I have changed my vote to neutral. Masterpiece2000 09:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Judaism is not only a religion so the comparison you made is not correct-Jewish mean History, Religion, Ethnicity and by many even a Race. (however we are not dealing with that) and while agonists are not a group, and at least not an ethnic group (Jew can be agonist and still to define himself as Jewish) Jews are a distinct group with out no doubt. Seeing Jewish people as a part of a religion group only is a kind of POV, and any way, we do have many categories of scientists by their religion, ethnicity and etc.--Gilisa 10:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not "pristine"; they're purged. It's because people don't raise silly arguments about "ethnic sports styles" and "ethnic acting styles" on the sports and acting categories, but clearly seem to understand that these are biographical categories and ethnic studies categories. In the sciences we see the confused argument over and over again -- even from editors who should know better -- that the category shouldn't exist because that "ethnic science" doesn't exist. --lquilter 18:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put "pristine" in quotes to indicate I'm being insincere or ironic. I think the people who have purged such categories don't really like them for any occupation, but for whatever reason they see them as being more offensive in the case of scientists. That they somehow "dirty" them, hence the somewhat ironic use of the term "pristine"--T. Anthony 23:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my two responses above (Time Out and Thank you) Cgingold 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to T. Anthony:May be not many but there are ( and probably many was deleted), any way-as for the Irish Criminals Cat, if any one would find it insulting and nominate it for deletion I would understand him and support him (or her) even if for my self I don’t care to have a Jewish criminals cat.--Gilisa 08:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've already explained in brief why I consider this a valid category. The suggestion that it is somehow based on some bizarre notion of "Jewish Science" is a both a canard and a red herring. It rests instead on the fact that it reflects a noteworthy socio-cultural phenomenon. In addition, Category:Jewish American scientists, with some 240 articles, serves as the major sub-division of Category:Jewish scientists, which has some 360 articles; if they're merged, we're talking about roughly 600 articles.

It seems to me that the ongoing efforts to cleanse Wikipedia of all ethnic (in particular, Jewish and African American) subcategories is a misguided attempt to impose a sort of false "colorblindess" on our categories, a willful refusal to acknowledge that people of different ethnicities bring subtly different cultural sensibilities to bear on their chosen careers. Moreover, it is entirely legitimate for readers to desire to locate articles based on the chosen careers of individuals of particular ethnicities.

Lastly, it deeply concerns me that Prove It confirmed my reluctant suspicion that his failure to include Category:Jewish scientists as a recipient category for the proposed upmerge was not a mere oversight. Apparently that's because it is, rather, a target category for elimination. What guarantee is there that a successful deletion of Category:Jewish American scientists won't then be used as a "precedent" for demanding the deletion of Category:Jewish scientists. Where does it end? Cgingold 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Without wanting to restart the whole defintion of Judaism argument, it is, to a certain extent, a descendency, as opposed to a simple religion. Would a category like Italian-American Scientists get deleted? The agnostic argument is moot since most Jewish scientists are, in religious belief, agnostic (sorry, I have no source for this).--Loodog 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for Prove It: why does Scientists by residence/Scientists by nation/Scientists by citizenship is ok? i.e. I can assume that you wont oppose to mention scientists by their residence-meaning that may be you are ok with deleting Italian-American scientists but not with deleting Italian scientists and for me there is truly no difference between mentioning one ethnicity and one place of living or birth- usually there is congruence between the two, at least in the reader mind and we all know it well, I think. The case of USA is different because we are talking about a multi-ethnical society ( to be honest, when one is mentioned as only American, the first thing that I think about is WASP and I cant know whether he/she was Chinese, Jewish, Latin, Afro-American-all are different groups with special history with in the American society) and the idea to ignore it is just not accepted by me (nor I see it as a pluralistic one). And the Jewish people is a special case by itself, again, because for almost 1600 years they were dispersed around the world-and the establishment of the state of Israel, only 59 years ago, didn't solve this problem completely for many understandable reasons. So, my question is, with this attitude, how can you be in favor of any scientists Categories apart from scientist by field, year of birth and etc...?--Gilisa 07:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I want to make clear another thing. I get into edit wars many times about the mentioning of different figures Jewishness. Once (or twice?) it was implied that I'm a nationalist- I want to make the all issue clear for once and all. 1. the users which blame me for being nationalist were highly intolerant and for one of them it was easy to build an ANI/I case ( he vote to keep every German category, including one article about Hitler, and at the same time vote to delete very similar Jewish categories. More, he once wrote about one famous mathematician, which is considered as Jewish by many scholars and known as such in most of the biographies that been written about him, that any one who claim that he was Jewish must to an anti-semic or a fervent Zionist (implying for identity between them)-an argument that was a complete lie and is to have one's, or many, reputations muddied. However, while two users on the talk page of this mathematician understood my position when I called him Anti-Semic, one other did his best to protected him and to turn the table like I’m the bad guy in the all story (later it came to my knowledge that wasn’t the first time that this user was the Wiki lawyer of the one I blamed to be anti-semic)) 2. Being Nationalist means that you think that your ethnic group have superior rights over other ethnic groups and etc, this is absolutly not the case. 3. Being proud to be Jewish/Afro-American/English is not a Nationalism and the same about being proud about your ethnic group achievements, history and etc, actually many people all around the globes do it all the time (including the BBC which is very proud about English scientists and even had a TV series about the contribution of the British Nation to the humanity) , and it’s cool, as long as you don’t use it to prove or to promote nationalistic ideas. So, there is really no reason to delete this kind of categories. --Gilisa 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid category in my opinion and we are just voting, after all. However, a good reason to retain category is for those who wish to study the contributions to society of particular ethnicities. AlbertHall 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's an additional factor that needs to be taken into consideration with regard to this and other ethnic-related categories. Here in the United States, it is entirely commonplace for school teachers to give assignments that involve researching notable individuals of one or another ethnic background. Moreover, the education standards in most (if not all) states require that particular attention must be paid to the history and contributions of different (often specified) ethnic groups. And most of the history and social studies textbooks that are adopted by school systems in the United States must meet requirements in this regard that have been spelled out by the boards of education for major states, such as California and Texas.
    I've always assumed, without really thinking about it, that most of this was common knowledge which didn't need to be mentioned. But it occurs to me that many editors -- especially those who don't live here in the U.S. -- are probably not, in fact, aware of this whole aspect of the issue. (I've never seen it referenced in any of the CFDs for ethnic-related categories that I've seen.) If Wikipedia is to truly serve the needs of its readers -- a great many of whom are American middle and high school students -- then surely this should weigh heavily in our considerations. Cgingold 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which helps perhaps contextualize for people why these are biographical categories that fall closely within appropriate ethnic studies fields. --lquilter 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Following a comment on my talk page, I thought I'd take another look here. Just one thing to add: WP:CATGRS is the relevant guideline on these matters, and it's not mentioned once. If the keep !voters are serious about wanting to keep the category, it would be useful of them to offer some evidence as to how it meets the tests set out in WP:CATGRS. All I see so far on the keep side is POV, without reference to policies or guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment--Well BHG, I think that WP:CATGRS was also been made out of what you refer as POV, it is inventible- I don't think that what we wrote was POV any more than what the merge/delete voters wrote was. Any way, here is one citation from the WP:CATGRS: "Concerns about the POV status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also be a potentially unacceptable POV" and in my comments I was trying to example why it is so in this case. More, as for Carlossuarez46 argument that if their are "good" categories of Jewish people than there is no excuse why not to have "bad" categories (I, actually, don’t mind to have them both)WP:CATGRS forbid the existence of such categories as "..derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances.." and "..a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral..". ...cheers--Gilisa 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply To my mind, the question here is fairly simple (although the answer may not be). I was refering to what I think is the crucial part of WP:CATGRS:
    Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must be at least possible to create one.
    So far, I see plenty of people asserting that the topic is notable, but not one piece of evidence that such a head article exists or could be written. There is of course a further question as to whether a category such as this has a POV effect, but that is further down the line; the first test that a category such as this has to pass is whether the head article could be written. I would be happy to consider any evidence that it can be, but all I have seen so far is unreferenced assertions that the topic is notable. Without external references, any such claim is POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BHG, my remarks above about 1) state education standards and 2) requirements for adoption of history and social studies textbooks were intended to establish that this and other related topics have "already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources", as it says in WP:CATGRS. Are you saying that you need to see references to specific documents that bear out my statements? Cgingold 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are very precise statements, so, yes I would expect to see some references. Not necessarily only-line refs (paper sources are fine!), but some evidence as to which states have imposed this requirement with regard to Jewish American scientists. I'm not sure how significant school stuff is, though, as evidence of wider cultural sinbificance: it seems to me that the most important proof would be evidence of a wide body of substantial literature in the field, whether as books or academic papers or newspapers/magazines intended for a general audience - the stuff that could be used to write the encyclopedic head article referred to in WP:CATGRS. My instinct on how to interpret the notion of a "distinct and unique cultural topic" is that it should be possible to a city library (i.e. a good one, but not of academic standard) and find that there is a wide choice of literature on the subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this category has already been mostly emptied (presumably in to Category:Jewish scientists) and will probably never be repopulated. A lesson that you all can take out of this if you wish to delete and/or rearrange categories is the correct way to merge them so that huge amounts of valid data is not lost. For instance, this is a triple intersection category as it denotes that the person is (1) Jewish; (2) American; and (3) a scientist. What I have seen time and time again is categories which are deleted without specific information being replaced, especially as it relates to a person's ethnic, religious, or national background. Many of the articles formerly in Category:Jewish American scientists were probably merged in to Category:Jewish scientists and this is appropriate -- but were they also merged in to Category:American scientists (their nationality) and Category:American Jews (their ethnic/religious heritage) or has this information been forever lost in the shuffle? For a category of this specificity to be replaced without data loss it would need to be merged in to Category:American scientists, Category:American Jews, and Category:Jewish scientists...just something to keep in mind as Wikipedia continues to chip away at the progress made in so many categories thus far. --172.167.129.204 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is being repopulated at this very moment, by the user who erroneously removed the articles. Thank you Masterpiece2000 for making things right. Cgingold 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do we have categories like 'Category:Atheist American scientists' or 'Category:Muslim American scientists'? No. According to Gilisa, 'Judaism is not only a religion so the comparison you made is not correct-Jewish mean History, Religion, Ethnicity and by many even a Race.' OK. However, we have categories like 'Category:American Jews'. This category is quite unnecessary. Masterpiece2000 10:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Gilisa "is" a Jewish person, and Jewishness is not only a religion-from any aspect you choose to put it on test. Any way, to say that the Jews are actually not a people (hence, only a religious group) is not only highly offensive but also untrue-so I see it, like many other Jews- and any way it is pure POV. And about notability-many studies already been done and books been written about the percentage of the Noble prizes in scientific fields that were given to Jewish people (which is sometimes more than 125 fold than their actual percentage in the world population-but when we mention it there are who find it offensive for some reasons) or about the contribution of Jewish people to the scientific world (which going back thousands of years ago even to the days of ancient Greek and before-but not many know about that, or, for example, at the 15-16CE 60% of the medics in Spain were Jewish, and one could fing many (i.e. few) astronomers like him among the Jews of Spain), saying that there are no evidence for notability sound odd to me, however, saying that there is no consensus for the notability reasons is something else which I can agree with.--Gilisa 11:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(And once and for all I’ve to apologize for my English. There is something that I surely don’t have-and it is talent for that language, some how I find other languages, which unfortunately are much less useful to my everyday life much easier to learn, for now I’m avoiding to make any significant edits in English written wikipedia articles)--Gilisa 12:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gilisa, you are not getting what I am trying to say. Do we have categories like Category:Jewish German scientists or Category:Jewish Russian scientists? No. We already have categories like Category:American Jews. Please try to understand what I am saying. Masterpiece2000 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well you sounded a bit cynical to me…And any way I'm not that focused so you are right, I truly didn't understand what you wrote before, even if it is easy to understand (and I must say that honestly I didn’t quite followed you). But to answer your arguments, how does the fact that there are no categories of German Jewish scientist justify the notion that this category should be merged/deleted? And why merged into American scientists cat only and not into Jewish scientists cat as well? meaning, may be their being American is some how more notable and important to their scientific work, I can understand this claim, but hey, who said that they couldn’t do the same some place else (at least in part or even more) and even if so, who said that their Jewishness is not notable (even if we assume that it less notable)? My personal opinion, and please don’t quote it for the discussion matters, else if you find it very necessary, I do think that a category of German-Jewish scientists is highly important-this people escaped Germany for Historical causes and later made Manhattan Project and the Israeli nuclear program possible and etc, and historically it's very notable category and separated from the non Jewish German scientists but it seems more correct to make an article and not a category in this case. However, I find the ethnical composition of USA much more unique and diverse than the German one and so there is a justification to have different categories for different ethnic groups (and unless or because of the special history it is much more natural and neutral than German-Jewish which could imply that the notable part was their being, by people who claim that Jewish people are only a religion (and most Jewish scientists then were non observant Jews and in many cases even convert to Christianity so they can work in German universities and suffer less from anti-semitic pressure), Germans, reducing by that the phenomenon uniqueness and the Jewish story-personally I don’t like it because of the Race theory that dominate the German society for large part of this period and I'm much comfortable with French-Jewish for example), it is called pluralism. More about the German issue, the state of Israel wasn’t established yet when Jewish scientists were extremely active in Germany (most of them left Germany to USA, many others made an Aliyah to Israel later) so there if there is a justification to any scientist category by residence, to Jewish people couldn't enjoy it for a long time. There is a Category: German scientists and a category of Category:Jewish scientists and both should exist, and it is not only the notability issue, even a Nation or an ethnic group which it's scientific community have no notability what so ever deserve for such a category. It is unfair that one ethnic group have category and the other don’t.--Gilisa 12:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess that as of yet there isn't so many German Jewish scientists that having such a category would improve things for the German or Jewish scientist categories. Also did anyone notice we have Category:Scientists from Cincinnati? Doesn't that seem a bit more strange?--T. Anthony 15:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my sampling of Category:Jewish scientists it looks like British Jewish scientists is a very substantial cohort, perhaps as many as 80 articles. I should think there are dozens of articles about German Jewish scientists. The Cincinnati category is pretty bizarre; I presume it was created by the same Cincinnati-boosting editor who has created dozens of other Cincinnati-related cats. Cgingold 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category is surely better than Category:Scientists from Cincinnati. I think Category:Scientists from Cincinnati should be nominated for deletion! All the best, guys! Masterpiece2000 15:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his non-fiction book "The Pity of it All, German Jews before Hitler" Amos Ailon (an Israeli German Jew himself) wrote that about 40% of the university professors before Hitler raised to power were Jews (while they were about 0.75% of the German population) and in "The Music of the Primes " there is a citation of David Hilbert which was asked by senior Nazi official "How is the mathematics with out the Jews?" and answered "Mathematics with out Jews? well, there is nothing left actually" but it is probably not notable enough. Just joking, any way I'm enjoying discussing too much, I've to leave now. Cheers to all--Gilisa 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it the most obvious? Why not splitting it into Jewish chemists, Jewish physicists, Jewish biologists, etc.? On a related note, I think it's wrong to have Category:Israeli scientists as a subcategory of Category:Jewish scientists. I thought Israel was a multi-ethnic state with multiple religions. What's next, listing Category:American scientists as a subcategory of Category:Christian scientists? (Oh, wait, the latter doesn't exist.) --Itub 15:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christian scientists - there's a joke there that I won't make. Anyway, "by nationality" is a common subdivision. I understood Cgingold to simply be suggesting by nationality categories to the Jewish scientists category. I don't think that's unreasonable; there's not usually controversy about by nationality categories. (Although nationality is certainly usually much less defining for scientists, of all academics, than many other aspects of personal identity!) ... Lastly, I agree with the Israeli / Jewish issue. Israeli scientists could reasonably be a "see also" at the top but it's not a parent/child relationship. --lquilter 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lquilter is basically right. It seems to me that splitting off a large group into Category:Jewish American scientists is a very straightforward way of reducing to Category:Jewish scientists to a more usable size; dividing it up by field could be considered, but I suspect that would raise more questions than it would resolve. On the issue of Category:Israeli scientists, I certainly agree, and would not have arranged the categories like that myself. Somebody just wasn't thinking clearly, a not uncommon occurrence when it comes to category relationships. Cgingold 11:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've taken care of the Israeli issue, with See also links on both pages. Cgingold 12:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" Books and articles have been written aboutthem as a group, school assignments discuss it, people talk about it. Therefore it meets the present guideline. Probably a few at least of the other deleted categories do. Guideline are deliberately intended as flexible, and to be interpreted by the community at XfD as suits the individual cases. DGG (talk) 15:36, 9 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:List of Korean television shows[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 merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Korean television shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:South Korean television series, only current member is South Korean. -- Prove It (talk) 14:06, 31 October 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.

Roller-coaster-by-amusement park categories[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 merge all. the wub "?!" 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of these by-amusement-park categories contain less than ten articles, and many contain only one. Upmergeing these categories to their parent geographical categories will simply and flatten and an unnecessarily complex category tree.
For the few large amusement parks with over a dozen roller coasters, there should be a general category containing all the attractions at that amusement park, rather than just a roller-coaster category; to facilitate navigation between the attractions at a particular amusement park, a template does the job in a way which is more convenient for the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: the roller-coaster articles are all auto-categorised through {{Infobox roller coaster}}, and I believe that this nom includes all the categories populated in this way. I hope that if these categories are fed to the bots, then the bots can add the new categories, and that the old ones can be depopulated simply by removing the auto-categorisation from the template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may need to be marked nobots unless we are sure that the bots will correctly change add the new categories. In any case, updating the template will have to be done by someone So this change should also be listed in the manual section with comments on what needs doing. Vegaswikian 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Makes far more sense than the current "system". Snocrates 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Canadian categories only added now, after Snocates' ! vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the following exceptions:
    1. Category:Roller coasters in Los Angeles should be created to include the coasters at Knotts, Disneyland, California Adventure, Universal Studios and Magic Mountain in California
    2. Category:Roller coasters in Orlando should be created to include the coasters at Disneyworld, Epcot, Disney-MGM Studios, Disney's Animal Kingdom, Universal Studios and Seaworld in Florida
    3. Category:Roller coasters at Cedar Point should remain since this park is known for both the quality and quantity of its coasters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vegaswikian 21:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have tweaked the noms for Category:Roller coasters at Universal Studios Florida and for Category:Roller coasters at SeaWorld Orlando, and for two california categories. Have I missed some? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not right now. I need to do some more digging about Disney. Their coasters are hidden somewhere and have not been part of the main category. With the new categories, I can simply add any I find to the new sub categories. A general question may be, are we missing any other coasters that are not included in the existing categories? Not important right now since they can always be added later. Vegaswikian 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm finding the Disney coasters. As I look around, there probably needs to be a parent for all of the Disney roller coasters. The question comes down to, should they be dual listed or should we keep sub categories that have dual parents. The same may be true for Six Flags and Cedar Point (both the park and the company}. If there is consensus, there could be more tweaking of the nomination. If you look around the whole categorization for the Category:Disney attractions, they might need some tweaking. If someone suggests using templates for park navigation and including that template in the park article, that could be a better solution in the long run. Seems like some of the parks already have this but not all. So except for the city level grouping, maybe the right balance is to upmerge after a template is added for each park. Vegaswikian 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Doczilla 03:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, something like this was long overdue, thanks to BHG for setting it up. -- Prove It (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- Roller coaster categories. These are automatically populated by {{Infobox roller coaster}}. Need to add the appropriate by state/country categories, then can remove the autocategorisation from the template. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 31#Roller-coaster-by-amusement park categories. the wub "?!" 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, some now have multiple categories to add where appropriate. the wub "?!" 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Many of these parks with multiple coasters have a single template for the coasters. So modifying the template would eliminate the need to modify each article. I suggest that when a source destination is done, that the line be striked out so that progress can be observed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 18 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:Bozo the Clown[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) 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bozo the Clown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization and underpopulation Rtphokie 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - half of the articles are improper performer by performance overcategorization. All of it is linakble through the main article as a navigational hub. Otto4711 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:03, 1 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:Reformed Church in America clergy[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 merge/rename to Category:Reformed clergy. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reformed Church in America clergy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and under-population. It should be merged into its parent category Category:Reformed Clergy (which should be lower-cased). Flex (talk/contribs) 11:29, 31 October 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:Christian Reformed Church in North America clergy[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 merge/rename to Category:Reformed clergy. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian Reformed Church in North America clergy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and under-population. It should be merged into its parent category Category:Reformed Clergy (which should be lower-cased). Flex (talk/contribs) 11:25, 31 October 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:London Labour Party Member of Parliament[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 merge to Category:Labour MPs (UK) and Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:London Labour Party Member of Parliament to Category:Labour MPs (UK) and Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies at BHG's suggestion.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge (in case there are any here not listed at the target category). Categorization of MPs by party and city (as well as country) is overcategorization. As User:BrownHairedGirl has eloquently pointed out on her talk page, "It's historically ambiguous (London's boundaries have been radically expanded twice in the last 130 years)" and "There is general agreement at CfD that MPs are already as heavily categorised [as they need to be], more categories are a bad idea, and that categorisation by location of seat is inappropriate in finer detail than by country. For some MPs this category will simply be a more verbose replacement for Category:Labour MPs (UK), but for MPs who have also represented seats outside London, it's an extra category. In the current parliament that includes a bunch of Conservatives — Malcolm Rifkind, Peter Bottomley and Jacqui Lait — but in the next Parliament it will include Labour's Stephen Twigg and in previous parliaments it has included lots of notable Labour figures such as Ian Mikardo, Hugh Dalton, Brian Sedgemore, and Hyacinth Morgan (that's just a few from memory)". And there we have it. No parallel categories that I can see in Category:Labour MPs (UK) or Category:Conservative MPs (UK); it's a new orphaned category and extra categories such as this are a Bad Idea. BencherliteTalk 08:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, double upmerge is a good idea. Will tweak nom. BencherliteTalk 10:53, 31 October 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:Computer research[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 relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7: the category was not tagged. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created March 2006, this category now has two entries, one of which is incorrect (a person, not a research project). Computing has many research projects, it is one of the most active areas for research and those projects are all across the computing categories. While this category may have seemed like a good idea to someone, the reality is that the user community is not using this category, thus it only serves to clutter lists and should be deleted. The two references can be deleted without any loss. tooold 07:36, 31 October 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:Chinese American scientists[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 Relisted, as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_6#Category:Chinese_American_scientists, category was never tagged. -- Prove It (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chinese American scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category was deleted two years ago see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates/2005 July index. Also other ethnic-based scientists categories were deleted see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1#Category:Fooian scientists.--T. Anthony 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the standard. WP:CATGRS gives the standard as "where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." (Field of study is already used, and this is not an either-or discussion.) --lquilter 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lquilter is right about the test, but I see no evidence offered here that "Chinese American scientists" is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this category seems less likely to pass the test. Which we can hopefuly get a good sense of if we stay focused on the actual test and not the knee-jerk "no identity / professional intersections" that unfortunately come up all to often. --lquilter 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:American scientists and Category:Chinese Americans per ProveIt. Being Chinese American is defining, being a scientist is defining, but being a Chinese American does not have a defining effect on how one practices science. LeSnail 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The effect of ethnicity on "how one practices science" is not the standard. See WP:CATGRS. --lquilter 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - T.Anthony's original proposed deletion of several of these identity/professional categories in February was a WP:POINT by his own admission and language. They should have been challenged at the time, at least for some categories, and they should be revisited now in full. A blanket rule (and precedent-based rulemaking) is inappropriate for these intersections; see WP:CATGRS. Each category needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis to see whether a "substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) [could] be written" for the category. --lquilter 21:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However Category:African-American scientists was speedy-deleted as recreation. So I feel that consistency on the matter is desirable. If someone wants to discuss all these "ethnicity/scientists" categories that'd be another matter. It would probably be one I'd be incompetent to debate at this point.--T. Anthony 07:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is not the point, since the guideline makes it clear that results will vary and be particular to the intersection. So the Feb. 1 deletion might have useful arguments to refer to by analogy but one can't simply say "delete it for consistency's sake". It's really rather outrageous that so much work that went into identifying African American scientists was lost. That's a flaw of the categorization software, that makes it so hard to recover lost data, and makes lists better. But it means that it's an even worse idea to make a WP:POINT on deleting a category, especially a very big one as African American scientists was! Still a lesson for this category can be learned, and I hope people will consider it very carefully before tossing off a casual "delete". --lquilter 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but some level of consistency seems reasonable. Besides which doesn't it seem strange to have a Category:Chinese American scientists, but no Category:Asian American scientists?--T. Anthony 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If Asian American scientists ever comes up for discussion I'll support the existence of the category because I believe a good head article could be written for it. --lquilter 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as per BHG, per precedent: no Fooian-American scientists cats. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This precedent does not exist per WP:CATGRS. The standard is (I repeat) whether a head article can be written. Scientists are not magically isolated from ethnic, gender, and sexual identities any more than other types of academics, actors, sportspeople, musicians, and so on. --lquilter 04:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeat all you want, this was deleted. And perhaps you will tell us how Chinese-American scientists' work is different from their non-Chinese-American peers. Since you think it's different, are there areas where it's better? worse? should be trusted against authorities from non-Chinese-American scientists? should be discarded against such authorities. Bottom line is you can't. The term either exalts or deprecates, either way it's POV, because reality is: the work of Chinese-American scientists as a group differs in no demonstrable way from those of non-Chinese-American scientists. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that lquilter's point is that this of interest as a cultural phenomenon, in particular to those in say Asian American studies. I don't really agree, and besides which that'd justify an Asian American category rather than a Chinese-American one. Still it's defensible and Chinese-American scientists have been an area of discussion.--T. Anthony 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46, I believe you are confusing my comments here with my comments for other CFDs, or other people's comments here. I have not asserted that there is a unique Chinese-American perspective on science, nor on experiences of science as a profession, nor any other argument that could made for this category. Regarding an earlier comment of T. Anthony's, I do think that a Category:Asian American scientists category would be quite useful and could have a head article written. There's certainly a lot of interesting demographics and social sciences data about the topic, although I'm not sure there are enough sources to write the article. However that category isn't at issue here; Chinese America scientists is; and readers should please note that (contrary to misrepresentations) I have not argued to keep this category. I have merely pointed out that some arguments to delete this category are not appropriate. --lquilter 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T. Anthony's correction to Carlossuarez46 is right: Carlos stated that the work of Chinese-American scientists as a group differs in no demonstrable way from those of non-Chinese-American scientists. But again, there is no suggestion anywhere in WP:CATGRS that a head article or category about Chinese-American scientists has to be based on a difference in the type of work that Chinese-Americans produce. In fact that's a fairly labored construction of the category. It should be obvious that biographical categories are generally about the defining experiences and identities of the subjects. There is continuous confusion between the subject of science and the person of the scientist that confuses these conversations, but the distinctions are critical. --lquilter 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without such a requirement, it can be nothing but a list or a POV page. What can we say about Chinese-American science or scientists that is any different than about any other Fooian-American science or scientists? Nada. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, one can say a lot about the impact of ethnicity on people's professional careers. To take one example: There are many, many biographical encyclopedias about African American scientists, African American inventors, and so on. That's one part of a bunch of ethnic studies fields and the history of science. In other words, it's a sociological approach to studying scientists and the sociology of science. I repeat, this is not the same thing as suggesting "African American science" or "Chinese American science" is a field of study. The argument that Cgingold is making above in the psychology/social sciences fields is a little different. Cgingold is saying that particular personal experiences are directly relevant to professional output in some fields. So African American journalists would be more likely to cover African American issues and have a distinct perspective. Either of those two arguments could form the basis of a head article that would be more than a list and that would therefore support a category under WP:CATGRS. Neither category requires POV of any sort -- simply demonstrated secondary sources supporting that the topic is studied and discussed. And again, I am not convinced that the literature is currently available to support a head article on the distinct professional perspectives or experiences of this category -- Chinese American scientists, so I haven't argued that we should keep it right now. But that's the standard, not any confusion about whether we're talking about "Chinese American science". (I mean, even grammatically this should be obvious. I'm not sure why people get so confused.) --lquilter 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chinese scientist are part of important ethnic group within the American society, they are not WASPS nor they are Latin-Americans, Jews or Afro-Americans. the Category can tell us a lot about the successive absorption of the Chinese immigrants into the American life.--Gilisa 08:45, 6 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_October_31&oldid=1138389129"