Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 23 March 25 >

March 24[edit]

Category:The KLF articles by quality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The "quality" categories will need to be nominated separately. If they were in this nomination, they would be renamed to have the leading "The."--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The KLF articles by quality to Category:KLF articles by quality
Nominator's rationale: To go along with the naming scheme of the other assessment categories. Logan Talk Contributions 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Okavango Region[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:People from Okavango Region to Category:People from Kavango Region
Nominator's rationale: Merge Okavango Region redirects to Kavango Region Pichpich (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Frauenstein[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Frauenstein to Category:People from Frauenstein, Saxony
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the article. Standard in the parent category. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Esmeraldas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:People from Esmeraldas to Category:People from Esmeraldas Province
Nominator's rationale: Merge appears to be an obvious duplicate. Pichpich (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tuqan family[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tuqan family to Category:Touqan family
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This family name is spelled a variety of ways in English (Tuqan, Touqan, Toukan). I suggest that we should spell it the same way as the article Touqan. (FYI, there are currently articles about 7 individuals whose article names include the name. 3 use "Touqan", 3 use "Toukan", and 1 uses "Tuqan". So if you include the main article Touqan, 4 of the 8 articles use "Touqan".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the problem with English spellings of Arabic names; there are many variants. Honestly, I'm not sure which spelling is the most prominently used. For now at least, I recommend we use "Touqan" because the main article is named "Touqan." --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, because transliterations from Arabic take many forms. Whichever title is adopted, created a {{category redirect}} from the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ambiguous Irish towns[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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. These eponymous categories for towns in Ireland are all ambiguous, and the alternative meanings in each case include other places: see Wexford (disambiguation), Birr (disambiguation), Bray (disambiguation), and Tullamore, New South Wales. Adding the county suffix removes the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In all four cases, this would mean the category name is no longer the same as the town article. I don't see a difference in the ambiguity for the articles versus the categories. I have no problem adding the County to make the categories less ambiguous, but would favor renaming the articles first. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles are correctly named: in each case, the topic is ambiguous, but the town is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Howver, ambiguity causes many more problems in category names than in article titles, so it is now common at CFD to disambiguate such titles in category names. See for example the city of Birmingham and its Category:Birmingham, West Midlands.
    This has already been done for many other eponymous categories for Irish towns and cities. see for example Monaghan (town), Galway (city),Waterford (city), Dublin (city), Limerick (city).
    In those cases the main issue was to disambiguate the city/town from its eponymous county, but in these cases the disambiguation is from other towns of the same name, which is why a county disambiguator is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Category:Armagh need disambiguating? or for that matter Category:People from Armagh from Category:People from County Armagh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 March 2011
I hadn't examined the Norrn Iron categs yet, but I think that Category:Armagh does indeed need disambiguation. Since there is some discussion of the options here, I think it'll be work better if I create a new nomination for it rather than add it to this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 27#Armagh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the categories, do Bray and Birr need to be categories? The entries are already referred to in the articles for each town and included in relevant categories for their counties. The other two are county towns so there is more of a case for keeping as categories. Cjc13 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are significant towns in their area, and both usefully exceed my usual minimum for such categs (which is 5-10 articles). I doubt that they are anywhere near fully populated with existing content, and they will expand over time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:West Coast tall ships[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:West Coast tall ships to Category:Tall ships of the United States
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many US tall ships that the category is really in need of splitting, and association with the west coast is really only of interest to vacationers. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sligo[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sligo to Category:Sligo (town)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate from the eponymous County Sligo, which is often referred to simply as "Sligo". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish chess 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish chess players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An intersect that is clearly overcategorisation WP:OC#EGRS, this is the tip of the iceberg but a subcategory should convey additional information such as a person can be a grandmaster and a chess player but not necessarily a chess grandmaster this is not the case here. Tetron76 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other categories doesn't mean that this category should exist. Chess player doesn't mean that it is someone's career. I assume that you didn't follow the shortcutWP:OC#EGRS which explicitly covers this very situation. Categories are not lists. The category for a religious subdivision has to have specific meaning with an article that should exist (even it doesn't already) just on the category.Tetron76 (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with the guidelines. However, your nomination didn't provide any valid reason for deletion other than a general objection which is insufficient to single out this category, and was clouded by some irrelevancies about grandmasters (the categ is not limited to grandmasters).
As other editors have subsequently noted below, the topic is clearly notable, so it meets WP:OC#EGRS. I will change my !vote to an unequivocal "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BHG--I'm pleased that, after 239,000 edits, you are as you say familiar with the guidelines. Kudos on coming up to speed, with so little time spent on wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And it's only taken five years! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already the Category:Israeli chess players, Jewish chess player is purely a religious / ethnic category without seeming even to require that the person shares the faith or would technically count as Jewish from their mother being Jewish such as Garry Kasparov.Tetron76 (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link is blue, isn't it. Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche’s sources below trumps the opinion of non-notable intersection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/Snow Keep. Clearly a notable intersection. See, e.g., The Great Jewish Chess Champions, Harold U. Ribalow, Meir Z. Ribalow, 1987, ISBN 0870523058, Chess, Jews, and history, Victor Keats, 1994, Oxford Academia Publishers, ISBN 1899237003, Chess Among the Jews: A Translation and Explanation of the Work of Moritz Steinschneider, Victor Keats, 1995, ISBN 189923702X, and Can I Play Chess on Shabbas, Joe Bobker, 2008, ISBN 9652294225. See also Jewish chess masters on stamps, Felix Berkovich, N. J. Divinsky, McFarland, 2000, ISBN 0786406836. While a combination is not required to have entire books written on it to be recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic, this nomination even has that. Clearly, not what WP:OC#EGRS is all about.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what is it that makes someone a Jewish chess player?
Are you arguing that it is much more difficult for a Jewish chess player to succeed than a normal chess player?
or conversely that there should be non-Jewish chess tournaments in the way that there are women only tournaments?
I think it is safe to assume you agree with me that neither of these cases apply.
The history of chess by Harry Golombek there is no mention of any of the players as being Jewish and he is in this category. I have never seen a chess encylopedia have the entry Jewish chess players.
if you put in quotes "Jewish style of chess" in google you get 0 hits!
enter"Soviet style of chess" you get several hits.
It is not a notable overlap the categories still show someone as Jewish and a chess player no information is lost from the profile.
We are not discussing a list but a category. There could be a book on French chess players without there being an article on French chess players. Although, it could be argued that the Category:French chess players exists wikipedia recognises the difference as it allows for dividing large categories based upon geographical locations.Tetron76 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As reflected in the solid majority of reactions to your nom, your discussion points are not reason to delete a cat. Nobody is engaging in discussion of them, because they are off-topic when it comes to CFD discussions. All that is being said here, and indeed the only proper focus of discussion, is that this is an appropriate category for wp, per wp's guidelines, as reflected in the robust RS coverage of the intersection. If you wish to explore your questions further, you might go out and buy the indicated books; perhaps you will find answers there, but in any event they are not relevant to this discussion.-Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not off-topic.

If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created

I am trying to illustrate that the above discussion does not demonstrate that this article can exist. What is the introduction going to say to this substantial article? The wikipedia guidelines recognise that this is a special issue due to potential contraversy, but the guidelines could not be more clear.Tetron76 (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite has been demonstrated. As reflected in the comments of the 7 editors who have responded to your nomination here. The consensus is, I would think, somewhat clear with regard to the community's views on the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time it was stated as no consensus this is not settled.Tetron76 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant not only this specific category, but all of the Jewish cross-sections. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there have been over 2 years since the last CfD and there has been the opportunity to create the article not a list to show how this is not just the case as exactly detailed in the wikipedia guidelines on categories. I could have added WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE What is meant by Jewish, do you mean an ethnic group? or do you mean religion or cultural?Tetron76 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tetron76, you chided me above because you thought I might not have read WP:OC#EGRS. You seem to have missed that it says "Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.". There may never be such an article, but that's fine, because the test is not whether it does exist but whether it can exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you read my above responses you will see that I had already acknowledged that in brackets but the point is that can exist, is not an automatic assumption from the production of the above sources, there are substantial newspaper obituaries on some of the players in this "category" with no mention of the phrase. I agree that the sources have been produced to have List of Jewish chess players.Tetron76 (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that even the List has been deleted before Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_chess_players.Tetron76 (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering that several books have been written specifically about the Jewish contribution to chess, this category seems perfectly relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune to include only individuals verifiable as "Jewish chess players" by the provided sources, not merely "Jewish" and "a chess player." Can't have your cake and eat it too. It does seem that "Chess" is a cultural topic amongst Jews, making this a valid category for some people, but it's not an excuse -- as Tetron mentioned above -- to used this as a navigational platform for "everyone who may be referred to as Jewish by someone." If Garry Kasparov would not call himself "a Jew" then he certainly should not be in this category because there seems to be agreement here that "Jewish chess playing" is a cultural topic that not everyone who is Jewish may be a part of. Bulldog123 02:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too problematic a category to include. To take two people who are currently listed in this category, Bobby Fischer had a Jewish mother, making him Jewish according to Jewish law (and possibly a Jewish father, too), but he certainly did not self-identify as a Jew for most of his life; he joined the Worldwide Church of God, made numerous anti-Semitic statements, and demanded to have his name removed from the Encyclopedia Judaica. Garry Kasparov had a Jewish father, but not a Jewish mother (meaning that he is not Jewish according to Jewish law); I can find no indication that he practices the religion; and, while I don't know what ethnicity he put on his internal passport during the Soviet era (he could have chosen either "Jewish" or "Armenian" when he was 16 years old), I think it's unlikely that he chose Jewish, given that by that time, his father was deceased and he had changed his name from "Weinstein" to "Kasparov". Kasparov wrote in one of his books that he had been told "that it wouldn't hurt my chances of success in the USSR not to be named Weinstein", and I suspect that he would have chosen to be listed as Armenian rather than Jewish for the same reason. So if Kasparov isn't Jewish by Jewish law, or by his religious practice, or by his self-declared ethnicity, in what sense is he a "Jewish chess player"? No doubt there are other people in this category who clearly can be identified as Jewish, but having a category like this is overcategorization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Metropolitan90 has cited some problematic examples that would apply to any Jewish person category, ones that will have to be argued out, I suspect. But despite that, we still are faced with an array of published works suggesting that this is a relevant and defining intersection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far I had been sticking to the technicallity of the most relevant wikipedia. I am not going to discuss the technicallities of the other wikipedia policies but I will explain in general terms why having an apparently inoccuous category without negative conatations is never the less highly undesirable

1) The category doesn't really exist.

There have been several people who are chess players and Jewish but a category would require there to be instance in the category. Ths would be shown by preceeding the category with the indefinite article or clear collaboration as a group.
  • The New York Times has never used the phrase "Jewish chess player" [1]
  • No one on the internet has ever described themself as "a Jewish chess player".[2]
  • Only one profile from the List of Jewish chess players has the wording "Jewish chess player" in the article.
  • The overlap has no meaning in terms of chess ie no matches for Jewish chess style, movements (as you get for art), etc...
  • The stats are clearly indicating that there is no real category:
"a Jewish chess player" = 10 hits [3] (I have increased this number and wikipedia is significant to the count)
"a Jewish chess grandmaster" = 4 hits [4]
"a soviet chess player" = 20300 hits [5]
A niche published book doesn't show that there is a category merely that there is an overlap see 2) & 3)

2) Partiality (because of motivations to claim a player without definite evidence)

from "Morphy's Games of Chess, Johann Lowenthal, 1893" endorsed by Paul Morphy:

Of Paul Morphy, except as a chess player, we know but little. He comes on the father's side of a Spanish family long settled in Louisiana. The name "Morphy" certainly does not sound like a Spanish patronymic, it rather reminds an Englishman of a name not at all unusual in the sister isle; and we should not be surprised if some enthusiastic Hibernian chess-player were to propound that Paul Morphy is decended from ancestors of Irish birth. This of course is mere speculation, but it is a fact that many sons of Erin have emblazoned their names on the page of continental history, risen to a high rank in the military service of Spain, and founded powrful families. Paul Morphy's father was of reputed Spanish descent, and of his mother's family there is no question. She was of French descent, and her family had long been resident in one of the West Indian Islands.

This shows the desire for sources to claim players so for a source to be considered independent of the subject requires that they either don't share the heritage that they are defining or are writing in a general objective manner without the focus of the book being the group.

3) Dispropotionate attention

An encyclopedia is supposed to present information in a balanced manner.
Information can be factually accurate but by not presenting all equivalent facts you in effect make an argument.WP:VALID. There are many profiles where the heritage of the father is mentioned but no mention of any other heritage, such as on the mother's side. In effect, it is stating that having a Jewish relative is always a notable event.
So a collection of articles that only comment on a single aspect of heritage and doesn't give the full context is not a RS.

4)Non independent Sources with inaccurate information being produced

Too often on wikipedia the content of the material is ignored when considering its reliability. If a scientific work has no citations other than by the author this is normally an indication that a work has not undergone proper scientific reveiw.
There are several pay-to-publish books that get wrongly used to establish notability such as the above given books:
  • Chess in Jewish history and Hebrew literature uncited in 16 years [6]
Magnes Press is not a university press from their own website "Magnes Press is a privately owned commercial firm." There is no review process essential for any scientific work.
  • Chess, Jews and History 0 citations (1 citation shown due to error ie 1956 work cannot cite a book from 1990's) [7]
This is the same book as the above![8]
Bogus publisher deliberately obfuscating legitamacy by using name "Oxford Academia Publishers" google autocorrets this assuming that you are looking for one of the best known publishers in the world Oxford University Press
Claims about the history of chess in Spain within the book can be countered with any number of chess books, even translation claims are at odds from scholars such as early confusion between Go (game) and Xiangqi
Some segments still have problems with chess using abstractions from christian iconography such as the cross on the King and Bishops. Even the Isle of Lewis chessmen have crosses on the Knight's shield.
Sources with agendas will almost always be shown not to be independent and effectively WP:SELFPUB #4 & #5.

5)Inaccurate and unqualified information

  • For example Raymond Keene publically requested on his website that wikipedia be corrected after wrongly calling him a Jewish chess player [9] (non-RS but wiki history shows change at this time).
  • There are no clear qualifying criteria to decide what makes someone Jewish for this category, let alone a Jewish chess player.
  • The basis for decisions being made seems to be based on an ethnic heritage in some cases on the surname or relatives that the person will have never met.

6)Implication of greater importance of subject

A category is given undue weight by not allowing context of list to be put into perspective and suggests if you compare equivalent categorisations ie by religion or race. There is the implication that these groups are less important because they don't warrant a category and in some cases implied to be inferior without the opportunity to put the analysis in context. Even to defend against common propoganda gives unencyclopedic material
  • i.e. Chess player magazine defending against white supremicist stereotypes [10]

7)Highly unencyclopedic material

It encourages unencyclopedic material to support the case as to why it is a notable intersect:
  • Wilhelm Steinitz#Miscellaneous Jews are better at chess because of their pure breeding.
  • could lead to discussing the parentage of living chess players when there is no relevance to notability.

There have been no secondary Reliable sources produced to show an intersect WP:RS. No one on the internet has ever described themself as a Jewish chess player WP:N. It is impossible to categorise people in this way while maintaining balance WP:NPOV. But it is points 6 & 7 that give me most concern and why I have done several hours of research to support the case for delete. it leads to information and implications that are unencyclopedic. Tetron76 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very energetic effort by you, in the face of a somewhat overwhelmingly negative reaction by your fellow editors, to delete this category of Jews. At this point, I believe your comments have been already addressed by multiple comments above, and I would simply point you to Wikipedia:Consensus. No WP-guidelines-based reasons have been presented, in the eyes of the commenting editors as a whole, that would warrant deletion. This is clearly reflected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unimpressed with Tertron76's searches. For example, Tetron76 says "a Jewish chess player" = 10 hits [11] ... but by leaving out the indefinite article, I get 20,000 hits for "Jewish chess player".
Most of the rest of that post is TLDR; but I note for example that Tetron76 says "there have been no secondary Reliable sources produced to show an intersect WP:RS". Yet Alansohn posed above a list of three reliable secondary sources to show that the intersection is notable [12], [13] and [14]. I don't know whether Tetron76 posted without reading the discussion, or simply hoped that nobody would notice; but either way it doesn't help in forming a consensus if an editor posts an assertion which they should have known is demonstrably false.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it is merely a problem of TLDR. Point 4) explicitly covers the self published book and 2) secondary sources. The quotes I was using because of ontological "is a" not intending to supress results.Tetron76 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realise I have not responded to the first book that BrownHairedGil mentioned. Although having a genuine niche publisher Hippocrene books and 2 citations [15], it is not clear that this is anything more than a list. The author and hence book is clearly not secondary [16]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetron76 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 March 2011 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whaddayamean "the author is not secondary"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First point, I have found the book online [17] the points it is being used to reference on wikipedia combined without being mainstream published caused me to prejudge the book as being a list of bios. The book on page 3 basically makes my point that: "There is only one absolute requisite for playing chess: a brain." and that there are many great chess players who are Jewish but no category. The content of this book is certainly much more balanced than those that are using it to make claims and some highly dubious sources that are also being cited here. Even in this book only 5 people are explicitly described as Jewish chess (master, player, etc).
Second point, I was not regarding the author as independent for establishing the subject of notability of the category Jewish chess players because he has never written a chess or sports book or article without the focus being on Jews in sport. When coupled with being described as having "sparked awareness" of the subject, it would suggest that he wrote the book to specifically promote the subject. But there don't appear to have been any follow-up in the literature to show this spark of awareness although I think that the author probably has enough notability for a wikipedia profile.
Final point, I cannot see how the controversial inclusion criteria of who is a Jewish chess player can be resolved even with pruning when the only inclusion criteria seems to be who has traceable Jewish origins.Tetron76 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're on slippery ground here; be careful. If a Jewish person who writes about Jewish people who he doesn't know is not independent, then we should also rule out Any American sources for studies of American people, French sources for study of French ppl, etc. Unless of course you are saying that it is acceptable for a French writer to specialise in French topics, but unacceptable for a Jewish writer to specialise in Jewish topics ... and I'm sure you don't want to go down that path.
As to the suggestion that the book was written "specifically to promote the subject" ... well, that's been one of the aims of many non-fiction writers. There's nothing wrong with thinking that, for example, the sexual history of mutant dwarf frogs in Ruritania is a subject of which the world should be more aware, and writing a book on it. Unless of course you think that it's wrong for a Jewish writer to want the world to know more about the achievements of Jewish people in a particular field of human endeavour, and I'm sure you would not want to suggest that.
Your concerns about the eternal Who is a Jew question apply to the whole of Category:Jews, and not just to this category. If you want to pursue them, please do so in relation to the whole of Category:Jews and all its sub-categories, rather than trying to pick off one sub-category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/BHG -- well said.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may be on slippery ground, the difference between a scientific work is that it has to be peer reviewed and fact checked before it can be published, the journal has to make retractions if wrong. This book isn't a scientific work and I was unsure of whether it was a mainstream publisher so I was evaluating it instead as GNG "independent of the subject" mainly brought about by the impression given by people citing without context both on and off wikipedia.
While clearly Who is a Jew can be an immensely complex question of identity that I am not qualified to answer I would expect a Jewish chess player at least to have at some point in their life thought of themselves as Jewish. By using uncorroborated often partial sources this is not happening, going well beyond even traditional definitions such as matrilineal descent. Who is it that then makes these choices? Is it a source without editorial control which doesn't define their criteria for how someone is Jewish? Do you end up requoting unverified claims? If it is relevant to someone's life that they are Jewish the information is still going to be in the article. At the moment you lose important context of the "The Great Jewish Chess Champions" to cite some player mentioned once as a Jewish chess player.Tetron76 (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Tetron76: if you look for scientific works as the basis of reference on cultural topics, you will nearly always draw blanks. It's not a relevant test, becuase we are not discussing science.
As to Who is a Jew, I'll say again: this is the wrong place for that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable intersection. Quite a few writers have commented on success of Jews in chess. Sometimes they claim that there isn't any connection, but that in itself makes it notable as they wouldn't bother with that argument unless there was a significant opinion to the contrary. Total Chess (David Spanier, 1984) devotes chapter 3 to Jews in chess. The first two world chess champions were Jewish, and in fact 5 of the first 8 and 7 of the first 13 champions had Jewish ethnicity. (Boris Spassky is sometimes claimed to be Jewish but this is disputed and may be an error. He isn't included in the 7 of 13 count.) Quale (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish purity law[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish purity law to Category:Jewish ritual purity law
Nominator's rationale: 1. This category is a subcat of Category:Ritual purification. 2. To avoid the misunderstanding that the subject of the category is ethnic purity. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People raised as children in the Children of God[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 one subject who was a member into adulthood is already in the Former members category; there's no indication that the others' childhood membership meets the criteria. Individual articles can be added on a case by case basis. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People raised as children in the Children of God to Category:People raised in the Children of God
Nominator's rationale: Rename (or delete). Aren't all people raised "as children"? Alternatively, we could delete this category, as it seems to be the only one that categorizes people by what religion they were raised in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to its parent Category:Former members of the Children of God which is more standard (and makes it clear that they are 'former'). Occuli (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Former members of the Children of God per Occuli. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Should a child raised in a religion who leaves the religion immediately upon reaching adulthood be categorized as a "former member" of that religion? Most other instances I see of notable people who were "raised as" a particular religion but had nothing to do with it as adults aren't categorized in this way. I would think the former religions categories would be reserved for former adult members? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Having been raised into a particular religion generally is not a defining characteristic, and it is an especially problematic characteristic by which to categorize, so I agree that this category should not exist. However, upmerging to the parent category is equally problematic. We should not categorize individuals by their parents' religion(s), since a person born to followers of a religion is not necessarily a member or follower of that religion. For living people, in particular, per WP:BLP#Categories, lists and navigation templates:

Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

I have checked each article in the category, and only Ricky Rodriguez is explicitly identified as having been a member of COG during adulthood ("separated from TFI in 2001", aged 25 or 26). The other articles, five of which are BLPs, contain no indication that their subjects identified with COG during adulthood or that their affiliation with COG had any relevance to their notable activities. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLP#CAT this list should never have been created without good sources which (a) indicate that the individual has self-identified as a former member, and (b) this former membership can be shown to be of relevance to their notability. In fact, to take this further, I'd suggest one might need to provide a good argument as to why this should even be mentioned in a BLP either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by age of death[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People by age of death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People who died in their 40s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People who died in their 50s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People who died in their 60s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People who died in their 70s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People who died in their 80s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Can we put a final stake in these types of categories? We've already deleted People who died in their 20s, People who died in their 90s, People who died before age 50. Categories for various entertainers and sportspeople by age of death have been deleted often, as have categories for deaths at a specific age (endorsed here). Categories for year of death make sense, but not categories for age at death, because there's nothing at all that links a person who died in 1411 at age 50 with a person who dies in 2011 at age 55. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make subcategories by century, just as you suggest. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't really suggest creating anything, since what I was referring to already exists. I said "categories for year of death make sense", as in what already exists in Category:Deaths by year. The nominated categories have nothing to do with grouping people by time of death. They are about grouping people at age at death, which is completely different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all As being defining. To quote from above - "because there's nothing at all that links a person who died in 1411 at age 50 with a person who dies in 2011 at age 55." So on that logic, there's nothing to link (picking two at random) this guy and this guy, who are both in the cat of Category:2011 deaths. What could possibly link the two? Lugnuts (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why the distinction is difficult for users to understand. People research particular years all the time. The occurrences of a year are an encyclopedic topic. If two people died in the same year, they are linked as having died in that year. It's a grouping by time, which is a standard way of organizing categories in many areas. The fact that multiple people died in their 40s is not a linkage by time. So no, my logic does not lead you where you think it does. Maybe you could explain how categorizing together every notable human being who has died in their 60s would be defining for those included, let alone be useful? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – age at death is not defining; it is merely a factoid usually included in a notice of death. (On the whole we categorise by defining characteristics: we also categorise by a few 'factoids' such as year of birth, year of death and where someone is from.) Occuli (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Occuli. This is not a defining characteristic, and we have already deleted plenty of similar categories. Categories are a navigational device, and the overwhelming consensus of plenty of similar discussions is that there is no navigational utility in grouping people together in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Age at death generally is not defining, particularly when differences in life expectancy over time and across space are not considered.Category:Centenarians is an exception, since it is populated by articles about people known specifically for having lived long lives. It is, to quote Occuli, "merely a factoid" that is interesting in the context of one article but not meaningful in a broader context. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Occuli. I can't see any value in these categories. GcSwRhIc (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Valueless. Another group of categories that apply to many, many thousands of articles, will only be added to a fraction of them and are pointless anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no encyclopedic value, just category clutter. There's also limited value in the death by year categories (because they're all huge and hard to search through) but at least they may be useful for the few people who use CatScan. Pichpich (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The death by year categories are also very useful for maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. People live longer than they used to; it isn't a useful categorization. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Early Gnostic saints (Christian)[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, revisit the dab if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Early Gnostic saints (Christian) to Category:Gnostic saints (Christian)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching this category name to the article Gnostic saints (Christian). The "Early" is unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fraudulent Companies[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fraudulent Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I suppose the intent is to categorize companies that are committing fraud. However, that creates serious POV issues, and so far the category has been misused in all but one arguable case. Moreover, the title literally suggests that the listed companies are not really companies at all, so it's also a misnomer. Kubigula (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think I can see the rationale behind the category's creation, but it's too POV. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a rename to "companies indicted for fraud" or "companies convicted of fraud" (or whatever you would properly call a successful civil suit?) HominidMachinae (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I considered a rename to "companies convicted of fraud", but that still leaves it open to abuse applying to companies which have not themselves been convicted, but where one or more personnel have been convicted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Euroleague Women winners 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Euroleague Women-winning coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Poorly named, barely populated, and pretty confusing to be honest. What does "Euroleague Women-winning coaches" even mean? That can be interpreted several ways, as can "Euroleague Women winners". The "Euroleague Women-winning clubs" cat is pointless because it doesn't contain season articles, just the clubs themselves, which is overkill. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Schools of Deaf education in the United States[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: speedy rename per category creator's consent and so-far-unanimous participation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed renaming Category:Schools of Deaf education in the United States to Category:Schools of deaf education in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Assumed by User:Egberts that Good Ol’factory (talk) states this as speedy criteria C2A (mispelling?) -- Egberts (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy rename discussion
  • Keep, oppose the renaming. It was suggested that the word 'Deaf' be lowercased. This would changed the scope of the category's intended meaning. The intent is to categorized the 'Deaf education' studies (much like African-American studies).
If this suggestion were to be implemented, it would change the meaning to education of the deaf which is like 'educating deaf teachers in something not necessarily in the desired area of deaf education', which would not be our goal.
The real goal is to list the schools that offer 'Deaf education' as a study or as part of College of Education or School of Education (I'll take all capitalized Category:Schools of Deaf Education in the United States as a poor alternative (BTW, Deaf Education is US-centric, Deaf education is world-wide, the intent and meaning would be the same.
-- Egberts (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really explained why changing the capitalization changes the meaning. It's not a proper noun like "African-American" is; it seems to be jargon if anything, with "schools of deaf education" being deemed to be something different than "deaf schools" or "schools for the deaf". But I don't see how changing it from "Deaf education" to "deaf education" makes any difference in meaning at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you'd asked. It's a matter of identity. One wouldn't called themselves african, nor asian. But that's not the issue here (but it's a start). At the education institutions, they issue B.A., M.S, Ph.D. degrees out for 'Communication Science', 'Special Education', and 'Deaf Studies' (note all capitalized), also for 'Deaf Education' for bon-fide educator for the deaf. Naming it to 'communication studies', 'special education', 'deaf studies' and 'deaf education' loses its proper noun befitting of degree'd academic titls. Problem is world-view (Deaf education) vs. US-view (Deaf Education). It is not worthy of a speedy rename toward lower case. Perhaps the WP:DEAF should tackle this? --Egberts (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to objection section --Egberts (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to do WP:CfD, not sure if self-nomination is permitted. --Egberts (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the renaming.
It was suggested that the word 'Deaf' be lowercased. This would changed the scope of the category's intended meaning. The intent is to categorized the 'Deaf education' studies (much like African-American studies).
If this suggestion were to be implemented, it would change the meaning to education of the deaf which is like 'educating deaf teachers in something not necessarily in the desired area of deaf education', which would not be our goal.
The real goal is to list the schools that offer 'Deaf education' as a study or as part of College of Education or School of Education (I'll take all capitalized Category:Schools of Deaf Education in the United States as a poor alternative (BTW, Deaf Education is US-centric, Deaf education is world-wide, the intent and meaning would be the same. -- Egberts (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, educational institution issues degrees in 'Communication Science', 'Special Education', 'Deaf Studies' and... 'Deaf Education'. Problem is that of US-centric view is 'Deaf Education' vs. world-view 'Deaf education'. Renaming it to 'deaf education' would be like renaming 'African studies' to 'african studies', 'communication studies', 'special education' of which they are not proper nouns to reflect the degree'd academic studies. I proposed that we keep it, capitalized it to US-centric 'Deaf Education' or shuffle it back to WP:DEAF for internal resolution. --Egberts (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as a simple capitalization fix. In categories, we don't treat academic subjects as capitalized proper nouns unless the word is otherwise derived from a proper noun, as with "African". A quick perusal of Category:Academic disciplines indicates that this is the case. "Deaf" is not derived from a proper noun, not is "deaf education". The first letters in Deaf education and Category:Deaf education are capitalized only because they are first letter in the article/category name! When the term appears in the middle of an article or category name, it is properly written without the capital-"D". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here are the citations that treats this (arguably largest) ethnocentric society in the world, the "Deaf people".[See collapsed text below: A] One example from Chicago Manual of Style is given here.[See collapsed text below: B] Please see my additional response to BrownHairedGirl below. --Egberts (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Good Olfactory as a simple capitalization fix. We don't capitalise academic disciplines, and the evidence is that this term is not routinely categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. on the routinely not capitalising academic disciplines. Since the proposed category was serving two original purposes: 1. pronoun capitalisation as in Society of the Deaf and 2. titular title of degree'd subjects: Deaf Education. Since #2 no longer applys within Wikipedia categorisation, we're left with #1. The remaining issue is pronoun of a culture. Do these peer-reviewed citations suffice enough in justification for capitalisation of a specific subset of a society? I am not aware of any writing styles that treats such culture in a non-pronoun manner. (Society of africans, Society of asian doesn't quite read easy on Wikipedian eyes.) Citations:[See collapsed text below: A] --Egberts (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename In fact, most cultural groups are not capitalized, only those which have as their basis a geographic location which is a proper noun, e.g. Asia for Asians, Latin America for Latinos but gay not Gay, women's studies not Women's Studies or Women's studies, Christian evangelicalism not Christian Evangelicalism.- choster (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, re-stating your words that Wikipedia guideline is using ethnics as the primary criteria for its capitalisation requirement? Looks to me that Deaf is an ethnics/ethnos/society as often cited. Are we saying they are not? --Egberts (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the mere fact that a group is an ethnicity that leads to the capitalization. It's because the ethnic adjectives derive from a proper noun. "Asia", "Africa", and "Latin America" are always capitalized because they are proper nouns. Therefore, adjectives that are derived from these terms—Asian, African, and Latino—are also capitalized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Changed to rename': Those are excellent points which I trust is only used to guide the determination for WikiCategories. These justification will proved to be useful next time I have to arbitrate over future categories from within WikiProjectDeaf members. Thank you all. Please go ahead with the rename. --Egberts (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citations linked by Egberts

I have moved the citations linked by Egberts out of <ref>...</ref> tags and to this collapsed section, as <ref> tags and {{reflist}} do not work really well on discussion pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs)

A
B
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_24&oldid=1074807847"