Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6[edit]

Category:United States Senate Pages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to be somewhat like a more exalted version of Former McDonald's employees or former lifeguards. No one in this category is notable for being a Senate page, let alone defined by it. In each article, it's just mentioned as something that they did in their past. It no doubt had an influence on the individuals and their future career paths, but I don't think it rises to the level of being a defining occupation for those included. (If kept, it should be renamed to Category:United States Senate pages.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a defining characteristing for anyone categorized, per nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not defining, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Acquisition[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Acquisition to Category:Military Acquisition

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is too general to be useful. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The supposed main article Acquisition (military) is a stub about the military buying stuff. The sub-cats and articles are all about different military topics entirely. Neither is about "acquiring targets" or that meaning. Rename per nom if kept. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with delete as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While military procurement is the subject of no small amount of attention (especially in the U.S., but also for instance in Australia and the UK regarding programs like the F-35 or Trident renewal/replacement), neither the category nor the article address that topic meaningfully— the category's contents seem to be more about situational awareness, and perhaps were populated by someone indeed thinking of target acquisition. Proper categories can be re-created when warranted. -choster (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Choster. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Children by ethnicity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arab children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Igbo children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kurdish children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Obvious intersection overcategorization. Of the existing subcategories and articles, all already have another children category (by occupation or by nationality or both). As noted by Kombucha (talk · contribs), we don't have categories on children with brown hair or green eyes — ethnicity is both irrelevant and redundant. Of the few articles, most are about adolescents, not children. As noted by Anewpester (talk · contribs), the age ranges are not defined.

For many years, we've rejected these excessive children categories. A quick Google yields many from the recent to the ancient:

The single Igbo example is particularly egregious. These are American citizens, of American parents. They are of Nigerian descent. Yet they named their children in an "Igbo tradition". So, these are Nigerian-American Igboian-tradition children? Where, when, how will it ever end?!?!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as overcategorization per nomination UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all OCAT by ethnicity per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and as far as the Jewish "category" (if one can even call it that) goes, it is ridiculous. Are we to have a Category:Jewish senior citizens or Category:Jewish infants or Category:Jewish bachelors ad nauseum??? How pathetic and frivolous it would be and most un-encyclopedic. And because: (a) This is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and of (b) Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. (c) Quite a few of these "Jewish" nonsensical categories have already been deleted over the years. IZAK (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Island cities in Florida[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Convert to list as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Island cities in Florida to article List of island cities in Florida

Nominator's rationale: Is this an example of a trivial intersection? Coming from an island city myself, I'd happily start a category for Island cities in Canada. However, I see that there is no global Category:Island cities master cat. We have just this one, for the state of Florida only. I also have qualms about the definition of the current category, which includes any city in Florida on an island. There are some pretty big islands out there. If this became the norm for more such categories, then every city in an island nation would qualify, would it not? If this category is kept, it would have to be redefined so that only cities whose borders are more or less demarcated by water would qualify, I should think.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per nom; probably better -we deleted Category:River cities (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_14#River_cities_and_towns) but we had no consensus to delete Category:Port cities (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_July_3#Category:Port_cities). Carlossuarez46 (talk)

I think that was more of a renaming thing than a deletion/listification. We still do have Category:River settlements and for that matter, Category:Lakeshore settlements. Again, I'd be happy to redefine the nominated cat and create a global Category:Island cities or for that matter Category:Island settlements main category. I just want to be sure first I'm not (re)creating a mess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of support to date, one other -- perhaps better -- option is to rename Category:Island cities in Florida as the global category Category:Island cities, with the stricter criteria for category inclusion, as mentioned above. If there's support for that, fine with me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish jurists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; the reasons given to delete were far more compelling, and they are well summarised by User:IZAK. Note: This deletion is without prejudice to any future creation of or discussion of a category that is designed to categorize jurists of Jewish law, e.g., Category:Halakha jurists or similar. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category — no articles found meeting criteria: "This category groups people in Jewish occupations: occupations in which Judaism is centrally defining." If populated, this would match Category:Canon law jurists (subcategory of Category:Roman Catholics by occupation) or Category:Hindu law jurists, and thus should be renamed something else appropriate.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the criteria are those of William Allen Simpson, as is the emptying of the category. The 2 categories cited both include 'law' in their titles; quite different. Occuli (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its siblings (including misspellings):
  1. "This category groups people in Buddhist occupations, i.e. occupations in which Buddhism is centrally defining, as for clergy or missionaries."
  2. "This category groups people in Christian occupations: occupations in which Christianity is centrally defining, as for clergy or missionaries."
  3. "This category groups people in Hindu occupations, i.e. occupations in which Hinduism is centrally defining, as for gurus or missionaries."
  4. "This category groups people in Muslim occupations, i.e. occupations in which Islamic identiy is centrally defining, as for clergy or missionaries."
- And its parent:
  "A category for persons who are notable for both their religion and their profession or are known for integrating their religion into their profession."
- And its grandparent:
  "Living or deceased people for whom their religious association was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability."
- (heavy sigh) As noted in the nomination, If populated, ... should be renamed something else appropriate. None of the (very few) jurists formerly in the category met the qualifications for this part of the categories.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a second nomination. The nominator should have noted the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 13#American jurists by ethnic and/or national origin. JamesMLane t c 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In which four (4) others were deleted, and this one (1) was "no consensus". Now, it's empty, and we should have relatively easy consensus.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment. I've restored the articles and subcategory to the category that were removed by the nominator immediately prior to the nomination. If you want to change how a category is used, make it part of the discussion, but don't change it first unilaterally and then say it's empty so should be deleted. I almost closed this discussion, but I still think based on what's been said so far the discussion is salvageable, since the nominator has now clearly set out his rationale for changing how the category is applied. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I proposed deletion after carefully examining all the articles, one-by-one, and determining that they didn't meet the criteria. Your blanket reversion was wrong. Please examine each one-by-one.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but you set the criteria for the category. My point is that if you want to do that—that's fine, but don't then empty it and propose deletion on the basis of it being empty. I'm not saying the definition is wrong or inappropriate, but we can make it part of the discussion, which you've already done. Even if the criteria were pre-set, it's still generally viewed as inappropriate to empty a category just prior to a nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The alternative was empty it, wait 4 days, and then speedy as empty. Sorry, I'm more of a discussion kind of guy (having helped setup this discussion process some years ago). Although in this case, I'm wishing that I'd gone the speedy route, it's so blinking obviously incorrect for this part of the category tree.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure about most admins, but I at least check to see if a category that is nominated for speedy deletion as empty was in fact emptied by the nominator. If it was, I dig a little deeper. I find it hard to believe in this case that there won't be any editors who disagree with the new definition, and already I see one below. My rule of thumb is that if something seems to me to be "so blinking obvious", it won't be at all difficult to find someone on WP who will disagree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion — Who gets to be moninated or appointed as a federal judge is inherently part of the political process. I would incorporate by reference my earlier statements concerning Catholic justices. That it is considered to be a relevant factor by the people who make or approve the appointments is a fact. e.g., the so-called "Jewish seat" on the U.S. Supreme Court. I am not writing in favor of quotas or arguing the relevance of religion to the ability to perform the job. However, political considerations of racial, ethnic and religious "balance" are a fact of life in the appointment and approval process. Here is a partial quote from a reliable authority, to wit, Eisgruber, Christopher L. The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Hardcover) : “The appointment process for nominees to the United States Supreme Court is broken, .... These senators are keenly aware of a nominee's ideology, and factor it ... racial minorities, and religious minorities is -whether you think it a. . . ”
FYI, I do not have the book, and simply googled the pertinent words, and that is what google gave me as an excerpt. I don't think one needs to see the book to know where this is going. Here is another book, although I do not have text from it yet. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (Paperback) by Jeffrey Toobin (Author). I would 'bet dollars to doughnuts' that this has something in it too. I'm sorry, but this is not 'the age of Aquarius' and 'peace [does not] rule the planet.' Our articles should openly address public concerns, whether we like the result or not. How politics (and judicial appointments are political both for the White House and for members of Congress, should be forthrightly written about. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- This is not an article. There is no "balance" here and categories are not appropriate for this rampant guessing about political considerations. Members of the US Supreme Court are not Jewish jurists, and do not use Jewish law in their decisions, no matter what you may infer from their selection process.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you define the question to be "Do American judges apply Rabbinic Court or the Talmud?" then the answer would be "no." To frame the issue in such an argumentative way is to answer it. You have stacked the deck by defining the question in an argumentative way. This is called Poisoning the well.
  1. of course, we don't have the civil equivalent of Talmudic courts in the United States. Nor do we have the Jewish equivalent of Sharia law.
  2. Are their Jewish judges? Was Louis Brandeis Jewish? Was Benjamin Cardozo? This is something that is a fact. You will say it is not relevant to their performance. That may or may not be true. Judges make judgments based on who they are, in part; this is a subconscious source of inspiration. You need only look at Cardozo's The Nature of the Judicial Process (particularly Lecture IV) to confirm that.
  3. There is in fact a new reference namely Thomas, Edward Wilfrid. (2006) Judicial Process: Realism, Pragmatism, Practical Reasoning and Principles, Auckland University Press), ISBN 9780521855662; ISBN 0521855667. Winner Publishing Awards: 2005 J. F. Northey Prize for Best Published Work and 2006 Legal Research Foundation of New Zealand. that confirms some of the same (or similar) thoughts.
  4. If we are to pretend that race, religion, ethnicity, and demographics don't matter in the political process (including nomination and confirmation) than you have a point. It would be wrong, I respectfully contend.
  5. Judges are not fungible, like so many peas in a pod. I would respectfully suggest that heterogeneity of American culture and American judges is one of our strengths. It makes us a better country with a more vibrant jurisprudence. This is something we should be proud of and foster, not 'hiding our light under a bushel basket.'
  6. We should be writing about the world the way it is, not the way we wish it would be. While one hopes that judges will themselves be judged by their performance, the world is more complicated than that. We should leave it to the readers to judge relevancy. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- You have answered the only relevant question as "no". This is not "argumentative". That is the specified criteria for categorization: "occupations in which Judaism is centrally defining."
  1. This is not a US-only category, and many of the extant membership are Canadians.
  2. Have you actually read Lecture IV. Adherence to Precedent. The Subconscious Element in the Judicial Process. Conclusion.? There is no mention by the author of applying any element of Judaism to his own legal decisions. He quotes numerous profoundly secular jurists: Marshall, Montesquieu, Saleilles, etc.
  3. Again, you have given no quotation about any specific jurist categorized here, nor verifiable application of some special Judaic religious view for any specific jurist, nor to the law as a whole. This is a violation of the first and foremost of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.
  4. This is a category, not an article about political process, and there are fairly specific requirements: "They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)...."
  5. Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage is explicit: "Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." (Before you try appealing to authority, I'll remind you that I know this requirement well. I wrote those words, a long-standing consensus for much of the lifetime of Wikipedia.)
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As discussed regarding US Supreme Court justices below, the Judaism of these individuals is and was a directly relevant matter in their legal careers and in their selection to serve as justices. This is a strong defining characteristic of these individuals and is a perfectly appropriate use of the category navigation system allowing readers to view related articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are not those who are involved with Jewish laws Halakha but are judges in secular courts who happen to be Jewish by religion or ethnicity - improper OCAT (I have no objection to a category Category:Halakha jurists, like we have Category:Canon lawyers and Category:Sharia judges, but these folks would belong to such a category). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because: (a) the individuals in these types of categories have no real formal and relevant connection with Judaism as such or with Jews and the Jewish people in any meaningful way as it relates to their notability in their given professions and subsequent articles or categories. (b) This is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and of (c) Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. (d) Quite a few of these categories have already been deleted over the years. IZAK (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Night-time arts festivals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. As Vegasw suggests, more targeted category names may be more appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Night-time arts festivals to Category:Nighttime festivals

Nominator's rationale: I happened across this category while doing some research for a semi-related CfR for Category:Entertainment districts. Anyway, couple of problems with the category name as it now exists. 1) Most of the articles categorized describe the events as "cultural" rather than "arts" festivals - to which I ask, do we even need this level of specificity? I think not. The key defining feature of all these events is they are all-nighters. 2) judging by the existing redirect page, nighttime appears to be the accepted spelling. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the probable exception of Looptopia, which should be removed, these are a distinct & useful group, which certainly qualify as arts festivals. I'm extremely dubious about "Nighttime" - our redirect page is hardly a WP:RS on the correct usage. I suspect there is a US/UK WP:ENGVAR issue here. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dubious~~ - is the time of day a festival held really categorizable? Do these festivals have anything in common beyond time of day? This seems very much like the days of the week categories that were deleted several months agon on the grounds that having happened to have occurred on a particular day of the week. If kept, I suggest renaming to Category:Night arts festivals as I find "night-time" to be rather cutesie-poo. Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact they are all (maybe except Chicago) close copies of the French or Russian originals. I'm just not seeing the problem here. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these are copies of one another then perhaps a deletion with a template might be the way to go, sort of like a "franchise" for lack of a better term, especially since two of the articles are apparently perma-stubs under consideration for merging (which if Looptopia is removed would make this a small category with unclear potential for expansion). At the very least this needs a rename because as it stands it encompasses any arts festival that happens to take place between sundown and sunup. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that at all. Normal evening concerts etc clearly don't get you into this category. I can't see that anyone would think they would. "All night" might be used, except I suppose some finish before dawn. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't a "normal evening" festival (I said nothing of concerts) get placed in this category? Are you suggesting that some festivals that take place at night are not night-time festivals? How does that work, and how does one determine that without resorting to rank subjective speculation? Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are intending humour here. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Explain why any festival taking place between sundown and sunup would not fall under the heading of "night-time festival" and explain what objective standard you would use to make the determination. Otto4711 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we have nighttime festivals, should we also have morning festivals, afternoon festivals, daytime festivals or even 24 hour festivals? Or are nighttime festivals the opposite of Festival of Lights? I really need it spelt out to me why this category should exist in the first place, what makes nighttime festivals stand apart from all the other sub-cats of festivals?--Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"daytime" and evening may be assumed to be the normal time for festivals. Are there any morning festivals or afternoon festivals? Have you looked at the articles? Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I set up the category some months ago. I do not object to the proposed renaming. For those who need convincing of the necessity of a category, festivals held during the night are distinctive. We are not talking about late evenings that e.g. extend a gallery's opening hours from 6pm to 9pm, but rather all-night cultural events that transform a city for the duration. The concept is still a relatively new one but appears to be spreading year by year. A reader who looks up their local festival would gain additional context by seeing that there are other ones. As to whether it should be "nighttime" or "night-time" or "night", I really don't mind. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BrainyBabe, you have convinced me there is a need for a category, I am still not convinced the old or the proposed category name does justice to what you want to list there. At present a lot more could be added than "all-night cultural events that transform a city for the duration" which is defining and notable in itself. The questions I ask myself are "what should go in the cat?" and "what will go in the cat?" If there is a large discrepancy then the cat name needs improving to be any kind of navigation aid. At the moment, and IMO, too much else can go in the cat that wouldn't belong in your narrower definition of what is intended. Perhaps something along the lines of "City-wide cultural events" would fit the bill better than nighttime anything? I really don't have an proposal, it's a ticklish one. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't any citywide cultural event change the city for the duration, regardless of the time of day? The "context" that could be derived from knowing there are other such festivals would be achieved through the narrower navigational template to link these various "copies" rather than a category which is in contravention of WP:OC#SMALL if it's focused on just these "copy" festivals and if taken to mean any festival held at night (as the current name suggests) is then simply categorizing on the rather tenuous connection of time of day. Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For sure, I agree that the all-night aspect is distinctive, no question. I just question the "arts" designation and think that they should be classified more under Category:Cultural festivals, a la Burning Man. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Apart from Chicago, the emphasis in all is on arts events, though no doubt the bars do well. Cultural festival just redirects to Festival, btw, & is a much more dubious category, imo, which might well be merged with the main festivals cat. I think I know what a non-arts festival is, but I don't know what a non-cultural one is. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of articles seemed to characterize them as cultural not arts events in the lead. Judging the Montreal event, which I think is one of the world's largest, it's as much a cultural happening as anything. But I see your point, if cultural is too nebulous a term then disregard. My new preference might be Category:All-night festivals, because despite some comments above, it's the all-night go-till-dawn nature of this event that sets it apart from scores of other festivals that have events at night, but aren't about staying up all night, as these ones are, per the name Nuit blanche. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Consider Rename Reviewing the articles included in the category, the fact that they are held at night is a defining characteristic of these festivals, and it would be perfectly reasonable to be able to navigate across them using the category structure. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed from "dubious" above) - I see no evidence, certainly none has been presented here, that the fact that these festivals happen to be held at night makes them distinct in any meaningful way from festivals held during the day. Being held at a particular time of day or over a particular span of hours, since it does not differentiate one festival from another in any meaningful way, is not a defining characteristic of the festivals. This category is, as previously suggested, no different from the categories for the days of the week that captured events that are unrelated to each other beyond happening to occur on a particular day of the week and which were deleted. If the later festivals were in some way inspired by the earlier ones but are otherwise unrelated, then a template that organizes the festivals by country is IMHO the best way to present this information, since this is also a small category with (since several of its articles are merge targets already) questionable growth potential at best. Otto4711 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed merges are of very short articles into the overall one; if/when expanded there would be a perfectly adequate number. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a sudden explosion of articles for night-time festivals, and if it can be convincingly explained that there is something that relates festivals that take place at night beyond the circumstance of timing, then we can look at recreating the category. But there has yet to be any indication that taking place between sundown and sunup is any more defining than any other hours of operation. Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nighttime here is somewhat of a misnomer for these festivals since the northern most of these appear to occur in the summer twilight where the sun does not set far enough to really create night. So night in the name is at best a misnomer. While I'm advocating a delete, I think there should be a category for these events that celebrate this phonominum. We also need to consider a category for festivals based on massive display of lights. We probably need a category for events celebrating the Northern Lights. Give the diversity in this area, I think that deletion and creation of more specifically targeted categories would be better for everyone. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Religions of United States Supreme Court justices[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. As with #Category:Jewish jurists, the arguments in favour of deletion were far more compelling. The fact that the religion and/or Jewishness of a member of SCOTUS is mentioned in sources is not surprising, but it also doesn't make it something that WP necessarily has to categorize people by. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. More appropriate as a list with references. List exists.

Additionally, see Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people:

"Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

"The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
"The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

In these cases, there is no relevance, other than rarity. There are no Jewish or Roman Catholic seats on the Supreme Court.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have several substantial articles:

Previous discussions at 2007 January 1 and 2007 April 24 have focused on the existence and validity of now deleted

Comment. There actually was a "Jewish seat" at one point. A perusal of the some of these links indicates that there was an idea that there cannot be more then one Jewish Supreme Court Justice at one time. Hence, Felix Frankfurter's seat was replaced by Arthur Goldberg, and Goldberg's seat replaced by Abe Fortas.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThanks for the note at my talk page. Not sure how you got my name, but it's much better to leave such notifications at talk pages of articles than at personal talk pages. I agree that these categories are inappropriate. We may as well have a category for SCOTUS justices who are avid social dancers. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. You suggested deletion on both of these talk pages, so I told you they were nominated now.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did not receive notice of this. The graph alone (at least) is worth keeping. Whether anyone likes it or not, religious affiliation has always been part of the perennial (and largely unstated criteria for appointment. The fact that we have a large roman Catholic group presently on the Supreme Court probably has more to do with their presumed position on Abortion and Right to Life than almost any other factor. I am not suggesting that they weren't well qualified for their elevation, but I am suggesting that this was an important consideration sub silentio for certain appointing presidents and some members of Congress. There was a conservative agenda to 'pack the court' with jurists who were thought to be predisposed to overturning Roe v Wade, and this became a 'litmus test' for nominees. Pretending that it wasn't (or that it should not be highlighted by a classification) only obscures what should be obvious to anyone who bothered to look. I am not being anti-Catholic (or anti-Jewish), but I think that honesty in an encyclopedia shines a light on these persons and the appointment process. It is just amazing, however -- or is it just an incredible coincidence, for the unduly credulous -- that Catholics have suddenly become de rigeur for service on the highest court in the U.S., when they were not so popular in the past. In all U.S. history, out of 12 justices who were Catholic at the time they were on the Supreme Court (Minton converted after leaving the bench), it is striking that there are now five on the court. We have gone form an historical pattern of one Catholic at t time on the court (Catholic seat) to five at once. See the graph Category:Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices.
It is true, of course, that there is no requirement that the number of any religion be the same as their percentage in the population. As Congressman Roman Hruska once pointed out, mediocrities are a group that has been underrepresented on the court. But I digress.
In short, I think that burying this relevant information would be wrong. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- That Catholic pro-life zealot William J. Brennan, Jr. must have been appointed for the same reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brennan was appointed in 1956 by Dwight D. Eisenhower, long before Roe v Wade. I am not suggesting that all Catholics will 'vote their religion' or be a representative of the pope in deciding legal questions. Brennan didn't, but the current fad is something that cannot be ignored. With due respect, it is not an adventitious fact. It is not like listing whether they like square dancing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- AFAIK, not one of the present Catholic justices takes the position that abortion is unconstitutional, and not one of them takes the position that there's anything unconstitutional about using taxpayer money to pay for abortions, and not one of them takes the position that their religion should play any part whatsoever in their jurisprudence. Right? And what's the relevance of Judaism?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only relevance of Judaism is that this is part of the larger discussion of removing religious identifications from members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Frankly, I personally don't care about the religious preferences of any member of the court. But I think that pretending that other people (who appoint them or approve them) don't is to ignore the way the vetting, appointing and approving processes work. I watched as one of our esteemed editors pulled this information out of all the infoboxes, and now you want to get rid of the classifications. This is a slippery slope where we will then pretend that the justices have no religion, and that it plays no part of the political or legal process. In an ideal world this would be true. But I think we should write about the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And then let the readers decide. If it turns out that the Catholic majority on the court never give George W. Bush what he said he wanted on arbortion, that would be a fact. But sanitation of articles to meet some agenda to hide or obfuscate the facts is wrong. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- As pointed out above, no one is presently suggesting to get rid of Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States or List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices or List of Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices. Additionally, as pointed out above, there are two criteria that need to be satisfied here: "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief ... in question" and also "The subject's beliefs ... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." So, I guess that means that we need reliable published sources that say Judaism is relevant to the subject's public life (and ditto Catholicism). Some people claim it's relevant, but that's only based on surmise and supposition.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there has been a grand and demonstrable demographic shift is conveniently being ignored. That there was a demographic shift in the make up of the court is undeniable. That fact alone is "relevant" to who is on the court, where they came from and presumably what they believe (or perhaps listen to when attending services). It is logically connected and tends to prove or disprove matters of public interest. That you find it "irrelevant" hardly settles the matter or determines whether it might be relevant to our readers. I am not saying that this will (or will not) impact on judicial performance -- indeed, you could well take the position that it doesn't. But who gets on the court and why they get on the court is a matter of public interest Query: why do you want to bury the facts? And why should an encyclopedia be in the fact suppression business? If you are right in your thesis that these justices have ignored the stereotypes or the expectations that others may have had, that certainly belongs in the article. But such a discussion makes sense only if one understands the background and context of the appointments. Again, relevance of the political part of the appointment process is clear and unmistakable.
  Relevance is in the eyes of the beholder. For you to "demand proof of relevance" is wrong. I have shown relevance (as to politics, confirmation, etc.), and your perturbations to the contrary do not negate that fact. This is not a legal proceeding. If we are to err, we should err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- No one is suggesting to bury facts. There's just a request for a reliable published source as to relevance, and you're not a relibale published source. IMHO, we should not discriminate between SCOTUS nominees based on religion, and it is a very serious mistake if either a President or a Senator does so. Likewise, I don't like us to have categories that label judges as black or female or Catholic or gay or the like. Keep in mind that the Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for public office, and I don't know of any evidence that such a test has been used here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The constitution does not say that in haec verba. In any event, speaking or relevance, I am talking about political power and process, not constitutional theory. There is a difference between what the constitution and law says and how the government works in practice. We need to highlight that difference, not bury it. That's all I've got to say. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No religious test clause is more narrowly construed, and does not purport to limit the presidential power to appoint or take into consideration whatever is deemed pertinent. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- Of course it does. Just give us a reliable published source that the religions of SCOTUS judges are relevant to their public lives. That's all. Happy editing.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your request, here is a published source.
  Eisgruber, Christopher L. The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Hardcover)
  “The appointment process for nominees to the United States Supreme Court is broken, .... These senators are keenly aware of a nominee's ideology, and factor it ... racial minorities, and religious minorities is -whether you think it a. . . ”
  Does that mean that you will give up on this?
  FYI, I do not have the book, and simply googled the pertinent words, and that is what google gave me as an excerpt. I don't think one needs to see the book to know where this is going.
  Here is another book, although I do not have text from it yet. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (Paperback) by Jeffrey Toobin (Author). I would 'bet dollars to doughnuts' that this has something in it too. In any event, I now have a published source that says that many people involved in the appointing and voting process consider religion and other demographics "relevant." That would seem to end your demand for my proof of "relevancy". Given that, how can you "prove" it is irrelevant? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
- Nope, you've merely quoted someone at Amazon.com who was rating Eisgruber's book, and that quote doesn't even say anything about the religion of the judge: "A special sensitivity to the justice claims of disadvantaged groups such as gays, racial minorities, and religious minorities is -whether you think it a good idea or not - clearly characteristic of liberal ideology, just as a focus on the justice claims of corporations and the rich is characteristic of conservative ideology."22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  - I don't have access to Eisgruber's book, and am going out of town (far away form that kind of resource ) tomorrow for a substantial period. So I can't specifically respond with a citation to the book, which obviously does discuss the questions of ethnicity, region, race, etc., in judicial appointments. If it did not, then it would be strange indeed for the reviewers to have raised the subject themselves.
    - The reviewer did not raise the religion of the judge, but rather mentioned a judge's sensitivity to religious minorities. And it was a crummy Amazon reviewer anyway, not a reliable source.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also incorporate by reference (as though set forth in full) my comments above, concerning "Jewish judges." Catholic judges bring their background to their work. This was plainly reflected in Frank Murphy's character, and was a profound influence on his approach to the judiciary and to life. As I indicated, Benjamin Cardozo wrote in Volume IV of The Nature of the Judicial Process that judges bring their lives with them in the act of judging. Who a judge is and where he came from (in a broad sense) are reflected in the judgments that are made, albeit sometimes subconsciously. Judges are not fungible, and their individuality and different roots are part of what make the heterogeneous judiciary of the United States great. We should not paint over the difference or homogenize the outcomes, but should look with ample pride at out ability to have a judiciary that functions as a chorus, and out of many voices the truth and justice does arise, with different players smoothing out the personal predilections of the others. This is the essence of Cardozo's lessons in Volume IV. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Judges have lots of characteristics, so why elevate religion above all the others? Wikipedia rules say: "do not place an article directly into a category if it belongs more appropriately in one of its subcategories." See Wikipedia:Categorization#In_general. So, do we now have to remove some judges from the broader category of United States Supreme Court Justices, and segregate them into lists by religion? By that logic, we should also segregate them into lists by state of birth, number of divorces, number of children, number of countries visited. I think we should just simply have a category that lists the SCOTUS justices. If people want to learn about demographics, they can read Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States (which by the way says that religion and other demographic factors have not discernibly influenced jurisprudence).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are intersections that are notable as the two groups are generally considered to vie for political influence, perhaps even hegemony, in U.S. society and the Supreme Court is one locus of such power. This is not controversial to anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of power politics in the intersection between government and religion. A list is useful and may contain more discussion than is appropriate for a category page, however, nominator's rationale citing overcategorization per non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference is invalid as I see it. That leaves WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the actual rationale and that's no good. __meco (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, now I'm remembering how much fun it was to be gratuitously insulted by non-native neophytes around here, that have been blocked at other *pedia projects. Before making such comments about "rudimentary knowledge of" Congressional and national politics, you might try Googling my name. Meantime, please re-read WP:AGF.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "you might try Googling my name." Are you the guy who tried to deduct a pilot lesson as a business expense on your income taxes, or was that that somebody else? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, I didn't know that was an on-line Historic Opinion, but that's me. Very odd decision, carelessly written.
    1. Cited as a single flying lesson, although it was several months of lessons. (I had concurrent contracts in Chicago and Buffalo, each about 5 hours drive in opposite directions. The IRS allowed rental and transportation costs, but not the cost of the actual instructor, contrary to published guidelines.) That tells us that he didn't actually bother to read the documents, including affidavits from various involved parties.
    2. Disallowed payments for phone bills, filing cabinets, computer software, data entry, and all the other costs of compiling the records for the tax case itself, because the payments were to a relative (then working at a law firm) and an "acquaintance" (a professional with a Masters of Library Science), rather than an established tax law firm.
    3. No specific legal rationale, other than he "found" the undisputed testimony on the record "unpersuasive" (the detailed testimony runs dozens of pages in the 3+ inch thick transcript).
    4. This broke new legal ground, as prior to that case affidavits supported by testimony were considered substantial evidence. Got written up in the tax journals! It was also fodder for the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights III" (IIRC).
    5. You'll also find the partially redacted portions of my FBI file on-line. (The many entirely black pages aren't posted, as a waste of bandwidth.) That was actually related to the (two) tax cases. They got the IRS to conduct a 7 year audit; the FBI was looking for some link between me and foreign agents.
    6. In turn, that was due to my presentation of PPP CHAP, then known as the "Cryptographic Handshake Authentication Protocol" at an IETF Santa Fe meeting sponsored by Los Alamos in 1991, where "foreign nationals" were present.
    7. Obviously, I'm pretty open and transparent. However, my legal experiences at both federal and state courts aren't directly related to this discussion. Rather, I'm referring to my rather extensive political knowledge and experience, also easily found on-line.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I'm finding more now. I guess the tax case stood out to me in my initial search b/c of my legal background. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Belated welcome. I was fairly active here in the CfD neighborhood circa 2005-2006.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep religion of Supreme Court nominees and serving justices have been a constant subject of discussion in reliable and verifiable sources for several decades. The corresponding lists make it clear that the intersection is a defining one. The existence of a so-called "Jewish seat" discussed widely in published sources shows that the real world believes this to be a defining characteristic, as has discussion of views on abortion from Roman Catholic justices. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have cited no verifiable sources, nor are they present in any of the articles extant in these categories. Especially for the first requirement: self-identification — calling themselves a "Jewish justice" or a "Roman Catholic justice". Nor the second requirement, published quotes by the persons making the selection for religious reasons. All else is speculation by uninvolved parties.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This source is one of many in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg talks directly about her selection and experiences on the Supreme Court have been molded by her Judaism. Here, she speaks about her Judaism during here confirmation hearings in the United States Senate. These are just two of the first that popped up in my search for this one current Justice, and there are thousands more out there. If you tell me exactly what would satisfy your concerns, I would be happy to prepare additional sources for you. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you actually read your 1st source?
    Ginsburg and colleague Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer are two Jews on the nine-member Court. “Our religion simply wasn’t a part of the consideration” process of President Bill Clinton when appointing them in 1993 and 1994, respectively, she said.
    Your 2nd source won't let me read it without a login, but the extract merely confirms that her parents were Jewish. I'm pretty sure that's already known, but I don't see how it's relevant.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alansohn, even if Ginsburg was saying what you say she said, Ginsburg was speaking for Ginsburg and not for Breyer, for Brandeis, or for the other Jewish justices. Here's what I suggest: we go ahead and keep the category for Jewish justices, and also add a category for Gentile justices. Not.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may want to read WP:WAX. The justices in question have identified themselves as Jewish and are identified as such. We have categories like this for minority groups where their identity is significant for the same reason we have Category:Jewish astronauts and not Gentile astronauts, we have Category:American women judges and not Category:American male judges, we have Category:African American members of the United States House of Representatives and not Category:White members of the United States House of Representatives, and why we have Category:LGBT-related television episodes and not Category:Heterosexual-related television episodes. You may start to notice a trend. I would be more than willing to consider your Category:Gentile United States Supreme Court justices when you create it. Not. Alansohn (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - :-) Okay, point taken. But...."do not place an article directly into a category if it belongs more appropriately in one of its subcategories." See Wikipedia:Categorization#In_general. So, if I understand correctly, according to your view we should have a general category for Supreme Court Justices that include ONLY the gentile justices, and then a subcategory for the Jews? Additionally, per Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Biographies_of_living_people, "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." You have only met one of these two criteria for one single justice: Ginsburg.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To quote WP:OCAT, "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career", and in this case it clearly does not. Chatter about the religiosity of the justices is one thing, but it is another to say that being a Catholic judge, a Jewish judge, etc... requires one to be marked and categorized as such. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they don't judge differently, so this is pure OCAT by religion, with a hint of POV (are we to infer that they take their orders from Jerusalem or Rome?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since Brandeis, there has been a traditional "Jewish seat" on the Court, and there was a similar idea put forth that there ought to be at least one Catholic Justice (notwithstanding the present majority). bd2412 T 02:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- My old friend, I'm doubtful that you'll find any primary source quoting a President saying or writing any such thing! (And we have a source quote above saying it's not true.) Better for that speculation to be carefully footnoted on a list page, as there are no footnotes on a category. And thank you for your new Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court justices today....
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My old friend, we don't need a President of the United States calling it a "Jewish seat"; we need reliable and verifiable sources that call it that. There are ample sources to support the claim. The standard you are trying to impose simply does not exist. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alan, I repeat, you have given no reliable and verifiable sources. In fact, one source directly contradicts your position, and that is an involved Justice. Are you calling her a liar? All the rest is speculation, inappropriate for a category.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I repeat that I have given you multiple reliable and verifiable sources that talk about a "Jewish seat" on the Supreme Court and that address identification as Jews by individual members. I'm not sure what it is that you're demanding that will possibly satisfy you, but it seems that you are calling all of these sources "speculation". The source that you insist "contradicts" my position demonstrates that religion is a factor in public perception, even if she insists that it was not in a particular case. Read through the Wikipedia articles of all of the individuals included and even the most untrained reader will see repeated references to religion, starting with Louis Brandeis and issues with his being the first Jew on the Supreme Court and with his personal identification as a Jew in his leadership of the Federation of American Zionists, through Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her personal identification as a Jew. If you can point to some standard that is not met I will be happy to find additional sources for each one you wave away with a sniff. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because: (a) the individuals in these types of categories have no real formal and relevant connection with Judaism as such or with Jews and the Jewish people in any meaningful way as it relates to their notability in their given professions and subsequent articles or categories. (b) This is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and of (c) Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. (d) Quite a few of these categories have already been deleted over the years. IZAK (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "they don't judge differently, so this is pure OCAT by religion". --Kbdank71 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT. I can see the rationale for the list, possibly even for a broader "jurist" category. But the intersection of S.Ct. justice and religion isn't justified. This is both WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#CATGRS. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:S.K. Brann players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:S.K. Brann players to Category:SK Brann players

Nominator's rationale: In line with the article title (SK Brann). Rettetast (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Northern Macedonians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Apparently invented term which was created during the events of of an Arbitration, see WP:ARBMAC2. Created by one vested editor who has created all of the links to it. A case of Original research and personal point of veiw. PMK1 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I've never heard the use of the term "Northern Macedonian" for Greek Macedonians or Greeks in general born in RoM or Bulgaria ("Βορειομακεδόνας"? "Βόρειος Μακεδόνας"?). The term is rarely (?) used in Greece to describe ethnic Macedonians (although "Slav Macedonians" or the derogative "Skopjans" are definitely more often used). To me it is an invention with no background, and no reason of existence. There are categories both for Greeks and Greek Macedonians.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the uses for the Greek national minority of North Macedonians in FYROM.
  Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 12:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comments the website appear to be nationalist blogs or similar material. Definately does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. PMK1 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not examining their politic beliefs. Maybe they are nationalists. I am writing about the use of the tirm "Northmacedonians" which is a common use to describe the Greek minority in Northern parts of Macedonia, such as FYROM, Albania and Bulgaria. Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be changed somehow -- We are suffering from the fact that Macedonia is (1) an independent Slavic republic (2) a northern province of Greece. Every one except Greece accepts the name "Republic of Macedonia" for (1), while Greece alone insists the the republic is called Skopja. In my view, its people are properly called Macedonians; despite their langiage being spoken by a minority in the Greek province, the Greek government insists that its residents are all Greeks: so there should be no difficulty. If there is really no other solution (and as a last resort only) Rename Category:People from the Republic of Macedonia. WP really cannot be asked to arbitrate on Greece's dispute with its neighbout over the neighbour's name! Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and worry about other names as they appear.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, if it is going to change: Category:Greek People from the Republic of Macedonia would be the best solution. And by the way, I don't accept the name Macedonia for the "Republic of Macedonia" because I am native Macedonian. My anchestors kept the culture of ancient, Roman, Byzantine and Medevial Macedonians, the Greek language (as ancient Macedonians spoke) etc. Those people came from another place with another culture and another language and want to be called Macedonians. Isn't this unfair or what? If they are Macedonians, what am I? Every one except Greece accepts the name "Republic of Macedonia"...: UN, EU and NATO decided that the official name is FYROM. The same France, Germany and several countries of Europe. Where is that "everyone"? And what about with the Greeks lived and still living in "republic of Macedonia"? Aren't they Northern Macedonians (Greeks)? What are they? Just Greeks of "republic of Macedonia"? Aren't they Macedonians (Greeks)? If I am Macedonian, why not the Greeks of "republic of Macedonia"? They are just Northern Macedonians (GReeks). That's because someone decided in 1913 to let this area outside of Greece and the rest of Macedonia(Greece). So the difficulty about the name dispute is the real Macedonians (like I am). And we will NEVER recognize people to be called like we and our anchestors of ancient, Roman, Byzantine, Medevial and Modern Macedonia. They have to kill first all of 2,5 millions of native Macedonians (Greeks) and then, they may be named however they want! Until then, we will keep fighting. If you have information about minorities in Macedonia (Greece), tell me about, in other case don't spread fake facts. People of Category:Northern Macedonians are real persons and the list keeps going...Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 14:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish American activists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very few in the category would qualify as activists about Jewish issues. We don't have any comparable categories for other ethnicities or religions, such as Baptists or Roman Catholics. Also, the name of the category is wrong. It should be Jewish-American activists (as an adjective per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage) or American Jewish activists (following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 16#Category:Jewish Americans).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - To begin with, the category is in no way restricted to activism vis-a-vis so-called "Jewish issues" (whatever that might mean), so that is basically a red herring. Secondly, there are indeed categories for other ethnicities, including Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Palestinian Americans -- and there should certainly be categories for African Americans and Mexican Americans, which are strangely missing. As for the category name, I would have no objection to renaming back to the hyphenated version. Cgingold (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality requires "The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [activists] of that ethnic background happen to exist." That is not the case here.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-defined category that captures a strong defining characteristic as part of the overall structure of Category:American activists and serves as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- replaced by entry at 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Activist categories should be "(Nationality +)Issue + activist" not "ethnicity + activist". Since it seems these are not Category:American activists on Jewish issues" the category should be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – there is the overall Category:Activists by ethnic group. Occuli (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All others in Category:Activists by ethnic group are involved in one set of issues, reflected in the title. Only this Category:Jewish American activists is overpopulated with activists (or merely outspoken people) of many issues, that share some unrelated heritage. Most importantly, category policy says "Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors."
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category has no criteria. It doesn't concern the type of activism, only the ethnicity/religion. We don't have "Scottish American activists" or "Amercian Catholic activists". The other entries in Category:Activists by ethnic group contains only a fraction of the articles covered in this category. If activism were a profession then it would align better with similar ethnicity and profession categories, but since activism is a nebulous term anyway this category seems unnecessary and vague. Will Beback talk 15:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless we have classifications for Islamist American Activists, Presbyterian American Activists, Episcopalian American Activists, Methodist American Activists, Lutheran American Actviists, Hindi American Activists and Catholic American Activists; not to forget African American Activists, Chinese American Activists, German American Activists, Irish American Activists, English American Activists, Ukrainian American Activists, Polish American Activists etc. there is no reason to treat Jewish American Activists separately or differently. If the rationale is that it is an aid to navigation for readers to have such classifications, then it ought to be applied 'across the board', and if it is then it should be kept. If not, it ought to be deleted as being too amorphous, with no substantial benefit to readers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Delete - "Activism" is poorly defined and nebulous, as others have noted. If it was a category for activism on behalf of or advocating for, say, Israeli interests/rights, I'd be all for it. But just being a member of a particular ethnicity o religion while being an activist in some area or another is a poor categorization. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Defining a group by ethnicity is a valid means of sorting, and aids in navigation which is the primary purpose of categorization. Categories help our readers locate other articles about people with similar interests, demographics, professions, etc. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest that these individuals would have to be activists on "Jewish issues" - which is a curious term to use - and this category gives more information to our readers than moving them to the general category of "Jewish activists" would. As for 7&6=13's comment, yes I believe there should be a category for African American activists, Catholic American activists and any others if we have articles about people who fit that description. We're supposed to be helping our readers navigate the encyclopedia - eliminating categories yields a reduction in information, surely the wrong direction. I also have no problem with adding the hyphen to the name, but strongly believe the category should remain. Tvoz/talk 18:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen a lot of WP:WAX, but very little to explain why this particular category should be deleted. Whether these are activists for Jews, Judaism or Jewish causes, or activists who are Jewish Americans, there is a clear and specific cultural connection between the individuals, their religion and their activism that is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not demonstrated any verifiable evidence of any actual connection between the many individuals (spanning many years), nor does any extant article contain such information.
  1. As an example, the preeminent extant article is Saul Alinsky. While it's been circa 30 years since I studied Rules for Radicals, I don't recall that the author mentions Judaism as his own belief, nor a part of the ethical system proposed for us. Neither article mentions this salient information.
  2. As to "their religion and their activism", that assumes Jews are uniquely activists, or activism is an inherently unique Jewish trait, again rendering the category worthless in itself — and vaguely an objectionably racist comment.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- this category groups together American Jews (by ethnic background) who were/are activists of any type; they do not have to be American Jewish activists who engaged in solely 'Jewish activism' or activism related to Judaism as the nominator asserts. The person who nominated this category, along with some of the people voting here, also seem to be confusing adherents of the religion of Judaism with people of ethnic Jewish heritage which is of course a common mistake (see Who is a Jew?). I agree with the others here that the 'American activists by ethnic or national origin' category be expanded per the suggestion of User:7&6=thirteen to include African Americans activists, Asian American activists, and so forth as well as American Christian activists, American Muslim activists, etc. Also, the nominator constantly claims to be quoting "policy" when in fact he is quoting "guidelines" -- he needs to realize that guidelines are not actual Wikipedia policy...Wikipedia is a constantly evolving project. Finally, for the constant quoters of guidelines and policies here I'd point you to WP:Ignore all rules...which is of course the original and quintessential official Wikipedia policy. --Wassermann (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions are policy (I'm well aware of the differences). In particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) were formally approved as policy on 2005-09-25 13:30:49 UTC. Category titles are impossible to move, and time consuming to rename (demonstrated here at CfD). I see that somebody mistakenly listed them on the wrong page at Wikipedia:List of guidelines. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. (You won't have much traction at CfD for IAR.)
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a master category Category:Jewish Americans by occupation and I've yet to see anything compelling as to why the activists subcat doesn't belong. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The fact is that many highly biased/POV users want any and all Jewish-related categories permanently deleted (completely censored) from Wikipedia. We used to have many more Jewish Americans correctly categorized by occupation (see here) which took a lot of the strain off of the main Category:American Jews by keeping it from getting too large and chaotic, but those categories were unjustly deleted by very POV people who eventually want to see all such Jewish-related categories permanently deleted (i.e., completely censored) from Wikipedia. --Wassermann (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you help your case -- or help convince me, anyway -- with accusations like this. I haven't seen any arguments that "any and all Jewish-related categories [be] permanently deleted." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "activist" an occupation? Is that what their business cards say? Who pays their salaries? That's their occupation in any objective view. Mostly lawyers as near as my browsing seems to indicate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "activist" is meaningless - I suppose it's opposite is "inactivist" (and other than some nobility and Homer Simpson, we don't have their biographies here). And then there's the race/ethnicity/religion component making it even more useless - what does a Jewish American activist mean? someone who is active is Jewish American things? When will WP wake up and stop pigeon holing people by such characteristics? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to take a look at activism, where your fellow Wikipedians have shown no problem with defining the term, and the "inactivist" nonsense only further undermines the basis of this vote. I do appreciate the persistent claim that we are unable to identify anyone's "race/ethnicity/religion component", but we in the real world have no problem providing reliable and verifiable sources showing that these categories do exists and that individuals are described as fitting these categories. It is truly disturbing that an admin, entrusted with the authority to decide on these deletion proposals, can present a vote that is so utterly devoid of anything other than IHATEIT. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep no valid reason provided by nominator for deletion. Maybe valid reasons for renaming. Confused purpose in nomination. Hmains (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why not a category called "Blonde American activists"? This category could be populated with activists for an unlimited number of unrelated causes whose sole commonality is their religion. Why would we put Winona LaDuke and Meir Kahane in the same category? I would, however, support a category like "Jewish American Judaism activists". shirulashem (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially as Winona LaDuke says she wasn't raised as a cultural or religious Jew. Why did Cgingold decide that a non-Jew was a Jewish American activist? Because of a "Jewish activist" gene inherited on her mother's side? Is there any proof of this inherent genetic trait? Again, objectionably racist.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My goodness, LaDuke is also listed in other Jewish categories, such as Category:Jewish American politicians. Where we inexplicably find Madeleine Albright, raised a Catholic, convert to Episcopal? <sarcasm>Apparently, there's some recessive grandparent's Jewish gene that skips generations, and arises again among people that didn't even know they had it....</sarcasm> Carlos is correct, these categories are so badly abused, they should all be eliminated!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because: (a) the individuals in these types of categories have no real formal and relevant connection with Judaism as such or with Jews and the Jewish people in any meaningful way as it relates to their notability in their given professions and subsequent articles or categories. (b) This is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and of (c) Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. (d) Quite a few of these categories have already been deleted over the years. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bowl Championship Series critics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of people by opinion on a question or issue. This is not defining for anyone, and it's probably better dealt with in an article, either here or here. (Incidentally, on 60 Minutes Barack Obama was famously critical of the BCS (and then he mentioned it again when congratulating the BCS winner), so I guess that would mean if kept this could be yet another category for him.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this seems to be an opinion on something of underwhelming significance, unlike say Vietnam or Iraq (both with recently deleted categories, I think). Occuli (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form. If a category, just "BCS critics" would be shorter and better despite the disambiguation issue on "BCS" per se.

I agree with Good Olfactory that the concept is what is really of significance and that, at least possibly, the controversy could be dealt with in an article indicating some of the names (but more importantly the pro and con arguments).

I only caution that, rather than lacking viability, the issue as such is so vibrant and widespread that a "category" may get overwhelmed. Besides Obama, some university administrators, and various pundits, the Associated Press explicitly divorced itself from the BCS and continues to conduct its own championship.

Personally I am not necessarily for or against the BCS. I'm just an observer of differences of opinion and the need for the collegiate sports world to make a decision as to whether to continue the BCS or to go to something else. Rammer (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and per WP:OC as categorizing based on opinion. It's not really our role to help the collegiate sports world make a decision about continuing the BCS. Otto4711 (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, our role is not "to help the collegiate sports world make a decision about continuing the BCS." No one has said that. Our role is to chronicle what happens and who is on which side as the NCAA makes the decision. Rammer (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming arguendo that we have any role regarding the fate of the BCS, creating and maintaining categories for who is on what side of the question is not the way that role should be fulfilled, per WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a cut n dried case of WP:OC#OPINION. This could even go into the examples section once we're done here. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, as cut and dried a case of WP:OC#OPINION as one is likely to find. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people by opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rest of y'all are right. With an article on BCS controversies and recent modifications to Bowl_Championship_Series#Criticism, this category can be wiked out, its intended purpose being served by those and other articles. Rammer (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pakistani Intellectuals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The term "intellectual" is quite vague and the category has uncertain inclusionary criteria. We've never had Category:Intellectuals, probably for this reason. Anyone who is commonly referred to as an "intellectual" can easily be categorized into a more specific category relative to their occupation (eg, Category:Pakistani academics) and/or accomplishments (eg, Category:Pakistani writers). Similar "intellectual" categories have been discussed once before, that I know of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (there is only one article). Occuli (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I added the Pakistani academics cat, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective criteria, who is an intellectual? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British people of Bangladeshi and English descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. In the past we've limited categories like this to 1 nationality per category and 1 ethnic descent per category. We've deleted the ones that go beyond this into the "mixed ethnicity" business. This is a more specific version of People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity, which was deleted not too long ago. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – (the criteria are even more specific) but it seems we do have Category:British people of English descent, which at present appears to include no-one in Wales or N Ireland. Occuli (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Afghanistan wicket-keepers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afghanistan wicket-keepers to Category:Afghan wicket-keepers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nationality subcategories of Category:Wicket-keepers use the form "Fooian wicket-keepers". Propose using the standard adjective for people from Afghanistan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match others in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Musical technology and genre categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close - articles weren't tagged. If you would like to discuss the purpose/scope of the categories, you can do so at their talk pages. You may consider contacting the music noticeboard for their input as well. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is considerable overlap between the categories Category:Music hardware Category:Music technology Category:Sound technology and Category:Audio engineering. I'd suggest some merger is needed but (if you will excuse me) do not advocate any particular outcome but submit all for discussion as at present categorisation is haphazard. A clear and helpful heirarchy of sound, technology and music needs to be achieved. There are further problems with Category:Sound production since it is frequently understood to mean "record production" rather than "making a noise".

2) Category:Music genres and Category:Music by genre are also producing confusion. It seems to me that both may be useful, so (again, forgive me) I would simply propose discussion rather than offering a prescription. Redheylin (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a section heading for these; feel free to modify it if it's not to your liking. Cgingold (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on (2) – Category:Music by genre is a subcat scheme for Category:Music, and appears to be working properly (although I don't personally think that the various subcats such as Category:Albums by genre should be there as say Category:Jazz albums is already there under Jazz). Category:Music genres ought to be a list category for articles such as Classical music and should not contain the likes of Category:Classical music (which is a topic category). In conclusion both categories are indeed useful (and there are plenty of such pairs) but their uses are not fully understood and editors are likely to misuse them (and revert edits intended to improve the structure). But this is true of the entire category system, as editors can come in, create categories and devise bizarre category inclusions without any prior test of competence whatever, other than the ability to create a user-name. Occuli (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree with you, Occuli. However, "Music by" contains a few genre categories, like Ska and HipHop, whereas Rock and Calypso are in "Music genres/popular and /contemporary". There seems some resistance towards rationalising this. It seems also to be felt that "popular" is either meaningless or pejorative. Further Category:Musical forms is often understood to be the same as "genres" and, further, some see a distinction between genre and style - as in "American music styles" etc. Category:Musical forms I'd propose for deletion, myself, but mainly I am thinking, if we can obtain a consensus about genre classification and paste it to the top of the pages, it may help. It does not matter much how, but surely closely-related genres like rock and reggae should not be differently classed. I note that "music by genre" is a subset of "categories" and therefore, I think, ought to contain only categories. Redheylin (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that a coffee and possibly a walk outside is needed to reflect fully upon Category:Musical subgenres by genre (which contains subcats for Rock and much else, but also some articles at the top level, which I think should be in Category:Music genres in the absence of Category:Music subgenres or Category:Musical subgenres). And then, further down, there is Category:Dance music by sub-genre. Occuli (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my contributions: you'll see I have catalogued a few hundred of those articles inserted at top-level. What is left is there for a variety of reasons, of which sorting this out is the chief. There are a few hundred more lurking in the music technology cats I mentioned and I thought it best to sort that out first as there seems no way to decide which to choose. Yes, you have to do a few mathematical problems to get in the mood for figuring out some of these categories. The word "by" is ambiguous. General category improvement suggestions welcome - or just do it. Redheylin (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Basic Intelligence Technology (SnakeBIT) Page[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedied per G2 along with related. –xeno ^talk 03:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Category for fake software someone made up, no encyclopedic purpose. Anomie ⚔ 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Category:Users supporting SnakeBIT[edit]

The result of the discussion was: speedied per G2 along with the other related made up things outside userspace. –xeno ^talk 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: "User" category for supporters of fake software someone made up. Anomie ⚔ 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Films directed by Olexandr Dovzhenko[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Olexandr Dovzhenko to Category:Films directed by Alexander Dovzhenko

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To agree with the article on the director that uses transliteration Alexander which is the more common one and is used by most printed sources. Henry Merrivale (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Films directed by Mark Donskoi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Mark Donskoi to Category:Films directed by Mark Donskoy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To agree with the article on the director that uses transliteration Donskoy which is the more common one and is used by most printed sources. Henry Merrivale (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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