Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28

Canadian High Commissioners

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. See the British nomination below. The format is standardized for all of these type of categories. Without the standardization, we would have to rely on the entities themselves to remain consistent, and one look at the at least three different phrasings on this government page proves that's a bad idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to Category:High Commissioners of Canada

Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to the United Kingdom to Category:High Commissioners of Canada to the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to Pakistan to Category:High Commissioners of Canada to Pakistan

Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to Barbados to Category:High Commissioners of Canada to Barbados

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Almost all of the categories for ambassadors and high commissioners are now in the format "High Commissioners [or Ambassadors] of XXX to YYY". These are some of the few that are not. Canadian ambassadors are in the "Ambassadors of Canada to YYY" format (see Category:Ambassadors of Canada), but not its high commissioners. I suspect this is because it is indeed very common to refer to high commissioners of Canada as "Canadian High Commissioners". So do we want to keep the Canadian ones unique in Category:High Commissioners (Commonwealth) due to common usage, or do we change them to be like the other categories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – per thrashed-out format for siblings. Occuli (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:commonname. It would be similarly for the British and Australian High Commissioners. Cjc13 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell, if we applied WP:UCN to the entire tree of Category:Ambassadors, probably 90% of them are incorrectly named. But we did settle on a standard format by consensus, and there were good reasons of avoiding ambiguity for the adoption of the general format, so it does seem logical to me to implement the standard format, even in cases where the same ambiguity issues are not as acute ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am curious when and where the consensus was settled. Most of the categories seem to have recently been renamed without any discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The vast majority of categories in this subject have been in the "Ambassadors of FOO to BAR" from around 2006. The ones that didn't have been the outliers. See also this discussion. (High commissioners differ from ambassadors pretty much in name only—ambassadors are called high commissioners when the two states are part of the Commonwealth (or previously, part of the British Empire).) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nearly all the articles relating to these categories use "Canadian High Commissioners" or "Canadian High Commission". (The one exception is High Commission of Canada to the United Kingdom which was moved in April 2010 without apparent discussion from Canadian High Commission, London) It would be in accordance with the Wikipedia naming policy to match the category names to the article names, in particular the article Canadian High Commissions. Cjc13 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 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:Tsumeb minerals

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 06:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This would best be handled using a list. Most minerals found there can be found elsewhere and as such being found in Tsumeb is not necessarily a defining characteristic of a mineral. Moreover, categorizing minerals through mines in which they're found is a sure recipe for category clutter. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Strickja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I don't see the usefulness of this category.Curb Chain (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Speedy Delete as only-contributor agrees to deletionCurb Chain (talk) 08:01, 29 September 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:Aircraft of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)

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 to Category:Aircraft of the Global War on Terror. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Delete~~. A well-intentioned but not really defining and rather indeterminate category. "Aircraft of the Global War on Terror" might be a better cat, as the same aircraft are used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter much to me what you want to call the category, as long as there is one. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does make more sense. Changing my rationaile to Rename to Category:Aircraft of the Global War on Terror - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged the category for renaming, and I'm voting to rename it as well. You can fill in the reason, Bushranger. ----DanTD (talk) 22:33, 3 October 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:British High Commissioners to Egypt

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. See below. Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom is very clear in its naming format. So those who desire a greater change should nominate it and its subcategories for discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British High Commissioners to Egypt to Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Egypt

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I nominated this category at WP:CFDS under criterion C2C so that it would match the standard format of "High Commissioners of XXX to YYY" that is used pretty much universally for the high commissioners categories now. A user objected and said that he thought further discussion was needed. The subcategories of Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom all use this format. There were no high commissioners of Great Britain (1707–1800) to Egypt, so using the broader "British" adjective is unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per C2C. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – per thrashed-out format elsewhere. Occuli (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The High Commissioners are generally referred to as British High Commissioners, WP:commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell, if we applied WP:UCN to the entire tree of Category:Ambassadors, probably 90% of them are incorrectly named. But we did settle on a standard format by consensus, and there were good reasons of avoiding ambiguity for the adoption of the general format, so it does seem logical to me to implement the standard format, even in cases where the same ambiguity issues are not as acute ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Any consensus was reached without my agreement. The issues of British (i.e. GB) as opposed to UK does not arise in relation to High Commissioners, becasue there were none before the union with Ireland, but it does arise for Ambassadors: see next item in list. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we were unaware that consensus decision-making required your stamp of approval. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What he said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There were British High Commissioners to Egypt only from 1914 to 1936. At this time the British Empire still existed so British High Commissioner would be the term used at the time. A google search for "High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Egypt" -Wikipedia does not produce any documents. Cjc13 (talk) 14:37, 7 October 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.

British ambassadors clean-up

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. None of the opposing arguments give a compelling reason why the category scheme for all other UK ambassador categories should not be used on these. A greater nomination may be necessary if some people want the entire scheme overturned, but these will not be outliers to it. (I also suggest the subcategories of Category:Ambassadors of the United States all be nominated for discussion.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to Luxembourg to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Luxembourg

Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to Germany to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Germany

Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to West Germany to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to West Germany

Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to Egypt to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Egypt

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I nominated these categories at WP:CFDS under criterion C2C so that they would match the standard format of "XXX ambassadors to YYY" that is used pretty much universally for the ambassadors categories now. A user objected and said that he thought further discussion was needed. Most of subcategories of Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom are now in this format; these are the only ones that remain. (Note: I don't think there's any sense keeping the "British ambassadors of FOO" format for these particular categories, since all British ambassadors to these countries were from the UK—none were from Great Britain (1707–1800). For instances where there have been British ambassadors to a country from the UK, GB, and the Kingdom of England, it can make sense to keep a general "British ambassadors" category, as with Category:British ambassadors to France. But such general container categories are simply not needed for these particular states.)Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per C2C. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – per thrashed-out format elsewhere. Occuli (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some utility in keeping British ambassadors to Germany and to Egypt as categories: List of diplomats of the United Kingdom to Egypt goes back to 1786, ambassadors of Germany can include Germany's predecessor states. The suggested targets can be created as sub-categories. West Germany and what we now call Germany are really the same country (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and should probably be merged. Luxembourg can probably be renamed as suggested. Tim! (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Egypt issue, there is already Category:Heads of the British Mission in Egypt. The nominated subcategory is merely a subcategory that categorizes those who were ambassadors to Egypt—and all ambassadors were from the United Kingdom, not from Great Britain. The sole person that represented GB in Egypt goes in Category:British consuls-general in Egypt. For the German one, there is a Category:Ambassadors to West Germany of which this one is a subcategory. The distinction does seem relevant given the context of the Cold War. I think a broader discussion would need to be had before this one alone is merged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The ambassadors are generally referred to as British ambassadors, WP:commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't be a straightjacket, especially in categories where, as there is here, there's one outlier to the entire rest of the set. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; and one of the problems, as has been discussed in the thrashing out that occurred elsewhere, is that the "British ambassadors" form is ambiguous. It could mean "ambassadors that are of British nationality". But we don't care what nationality the ambassadors are—we care what government they represented. In the past, it was common for ambassadors to represent a country that was not the same country as their own nationality. A British person could have been the ambassadors of Spain to a third country, for instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "British ambassador" is ambiguous than so is "ambassador of the United Kingdom", which could mean someone from the UK who happens to be an ambassador. Cjc13 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr...no. "Ambassador of the United Kingdom" is not ambigious in the least. "Ambassador from the United Kingdom" would have the ambiguity you describe. "British Ambassador" can be "the ambassador representing Britian" or "an ambassador from Britian", but "Ambassador of the United Kingdom" can only mean one thing: "the ambassador representing the United Kingdom". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ambassador of the United Kingdom" can also mean "Ambassador to the United Kingdom". Cjc13 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in normal usage, it can't. I challenge you to find one usage anywhere that uses "Ambassador of FOO" to actually mean "ambassador to FOO". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In normal usage, "British Ambassador" means "the ambassador representing Britain", regardless of the nationality of the ambassador. Cjc13 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose -- The ambassadors are the "ambassadors of Her Britannic Majesty", hence British. The Queen as Queen of the UK cannot send an ambassador to herself as Queen of Canada; hence the government of UK (commonly called the "British govenrment" sends a High Commissioner to the government of Canada. Since an ambassador for UK will almost invariably be a British citizen, there is no ambiguity. I think I read of a Swiss National being the UK representative to Switzerland in the 18th century, but it was considered highly irregular at the time. We (in UK) do not have a resident ambassador in every country, but I do not think we use any foreigner as representative, except where diplomatic relations have been broken off. I also wish to take issue with the distinction between British and English ambassadors at 1707. Ambassadors represetned the monarch, not the goverment. As far as I can discover, there were no separate Scottish diplomats in 1603-1707, during the period when there was a personal union of the crown, nor were there Irish diplomats. They were all dispatched from the royal government in London to represent all the monarch's realms; hence "British" is an appropriate adjective for them at all periods - before and after the union of 1717 and that of 1801. The use of "British" throughout is a convenient shorthand for all periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a nice discourse on the topic, but it kind of misses the point in two respects: (1) Ambassadors of the UK have not invariably been British nationals, especially in the 19th century, and (2) There is no good reason I can see why the UK ones should adopt a "shorthand" format that is different than the format used for all the other categories for other countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "United Kingdom" is itself a "shorthand" format. Cjc13 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The website of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses the name "British Foreign & Commonwealth Office" in the heading for the website.[1] The website uses the term "British Ambassador", (eg for Luxembourg, see [2]). Cjc13 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing wrong with using the common name the term British can mean anything associated with the United Kingdom so I am not sure what all the stuff about British nationals has to do with it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 8 October 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:3D films India

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) 19:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:3D films India to Category:Indian 3D films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose that this category be renamed to match the general format of the films categories, which is "FOOian films". I suppose it could also be Category:3D Indian films, but the format I propose seems to best match what already exists for films of other genres and types that are combined with a country of origin: e.g., Category:Indian comedy films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 28 September 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:MeTV affiliates

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) 19:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:MeTV affiliates to Category:Me-TV affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The network is referred to as Me-TV with the hyphen on its official website and when shown in plain text on the network itself. Also, several websites including Sitcoms Online and that of the Chicago Tribune (where the network originated) spell it with the hyphen. mcy919 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 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:2011 Candidates, Yukon general election

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) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Slightly different, yet simultaneously not, from my first case. Instead of being for a specific party, this category was originally constituted to contain everybody from any party who was running in this election — but again, without regard to whether the person was already an incumbent MLA or not. So, once corrected, the category now contains just one article — and if that person wins his seat on October 11, he'll have to be removed from it too and the category will be empty. Delete; Yukon general election, 2011 is already serving as the appropriate navigational hub with links to all the candidates who are notable enough for their own articles — and because he's already occupying the unusual (but not unprecedented) circumstance of being the incumbent Premier of Yukon without yet being a sitting MLA, Mr. Pasloski is already in an appropriate Yukon politicians category. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We do not allow un elected candidates. Until elected they are NN. We had a lot of trouble over this during the 2010 UK general election. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't, eh? Tell that to Category:Political candidates, because I see dozens and dozens of subcategories, some very specific. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator's rationale in full. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator removed about a dozen candidates from the category just before nominating it for deletion. He calls it "correcting" without providing any evidence that Wikipedia frowns upon the original usage of this category.Ottawahitech (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and find me one, just one, example of Wikipedia ever previously having a category of this type in a provincial or territorial election. And while they do exist for federal elections, they really shouldn't — and they aren't used the way you seem to think they should be, because people who were actual sitting members of parliament before or after the election are not sitting in them. What proof do you need besides the way similar categories are or aren't actually being used in actual practice? Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 9 October 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:2011 Progressive Conservative candidates, Ontario general election

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) 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As this category was originally created and populated, it was also being used to contain the party's incumbent MPPs who happen to be running for re-election — which isn't useful, as it leads to extreme category bloat: if we created comparable categories for each and every election, long-serving politicians could end up in between five and ten, or possibly even more, of them at once. Rather, "candidate" categories are only supposed to contain people who, by virtue of not having been elected to the legislature, would otherwise have no categorization related to the relevant level of politics at all — and, of course, given the principle that election candidates are not generally notable just for being candidates, these can rarely contain more than a small handful of star candidates who were already notable enough for other things to have articles anyway. Given those two realities, as corrected this category now contains only three people, and the parent Category:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in Ontario provincial elections is not, and is unlikely to ever become, large enough to require subcategories for each individual election. Further, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election list already serves as a navigational hub, linking to all of the candidates, incumbent MPP or otherwise, who are notable enough for their own articles — and thus this category just isn't necessary. Delete and upmerge entries to Category:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in Ontario provincial elections. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We do not allow un elected candidates. Until elected they are NN. We had a lot of trouble over this during the 2010 UK general election. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't, eh? Tell that to Category:Political candidates, because I see dozens and dozens of subcategories, some very specific. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible for an unelected candidate to be notable for other things besides their candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator's rationale in full. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to the nominators comment which says "used to contain the party's incumbent MPPs who happen to be running for re-election — which isn't useful, as it leads to extreme category bloat": the nominator took it upon himself to delete about 20 candidates from this cagtegory just before he nominated it for deletion, so extreme bloat really translates, in this case, to only about two dozen. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. Category bloat is not a question of how many articles are in this category; it's a question of how many categories would have to be added to each individual article if we created similar categories for each and every party in each and every election and used them the way you wish to. Rosario Marchese, for instance, would have to be in six of these at once; Bill Murdoch would have to be in five; Herb Gray would have to be in 13. That's what "category bloat" is about: not the size of an individual category, but the number of categories that have to be created and added to articles if a certain categorization scheme is pursued. Bearcat (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category has been viewed 208 times in the last 30 days, according to page view statistics. This compares with the main category for tomorrow's election Category:Ontario_general_election,_2011 which has been viewed 415 times in the last 30 days. Obviously then, some people find it useful. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think proof that a page has been looked at = proof that those who looked at it found it useful. No mind reading tricks, please. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt those who looked at this category, after most of its inhabitants had been evicted by the nominator, found the information useful. However, I believe that some wikipedians who patrol the elections area, would have found the original category useful in identifying new entries for candidates who are obviously not notable. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if we assume it is useful, which it may be, that's not determinative, and not very convincing either, per WP:USEFUL. Something can be "useful" and yet not terribly "encyclopedic"—remember, WP is not a universal directory of any sort. Similarly, information can be quite relatively "uesLESS" and yet be fairly "encyclopedic". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's worth noting that as far as I can tell, a lot of your contributions appear to have been motivated by the belief that Wikipedia's role was to provide news coverage of the election, rather than encyclopedic analysis. Bearcat (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you saying that news should not be covered at Wikipedia? If so, don't you think that Wikipedia may lose its appeal? Take for example the Ontario election which took place yesterday and even though it was not promoted on any of Wikipedia’s portals had a huge increase in readership according to page view statistics (one example of many pages: http://stats.grok.se/en/201110/Ontario_general_election%2C_2011). Why would so many flock to Wikipedia on the day of the election if Wikipedia does not cover news? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We "cover" news only insofar as it's encyclopedic; as I've pointed out before, our job here is essentially to focus on what people are going to need to know about the election when they're researching it five or ten or fifty years from now — it is not necessarily to provide exhaustive coverage of every individual thing that happens each and every day during an election campaign for the public service benefit of people who are trying to decide how to vote right now. Essentially, we're historians here, not journalists. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be saying that Wikipedians have a crystal ball and know in advance which pieces of the puzzle will become “encyclopaedic” in the future? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm saying that, just as one example, we don't post campaign brochures for every single candidate in the election as "coverage" — we wait until the election is over and then write articles about the people who won. And on and so forth — we're not gazing into a crystal ball to guess; we have conventions and practices to do that job for us, such as the fact that an individual candidate is not notable just for being a candidate, and the fact that we detail the broad issues of the campaign rather than exhaustively documenting the minutiae of each individual rally that happens on the campaign trail. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my concerns is that the nominator who has a clear party affiliation, contributes so much of the Wikipedia content on elections in Canada. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates)&action=history Ottawahitech (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I have a "clear party affiliation", exactly? At any rate, I've been around since 2003 and have administrator status on here — which means that I'm quite intimately familiar with how our practices for writing about provincial and federal elections have evolved and why they are the way they are, because I've been here to witness what gets done and why. But it's got jack-all to do with being biased for or against one party or another — trust me, in all of the editing I've done around this provincial election, you're not going to find one single solitary thing that reveals which party I personally chose to vote for last Thursday. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 9 October 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:Type theory stubs

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: Wrong process - thius discussion was moved to WP:SFD, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/October/6#Category:Type theory stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Type theory stubs to Category:Programming language theory stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have slightly widened the scope of this stub template, so the name of the category should be changed as well. —Ruud 15:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename C2D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 5 October 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:LGBT parents

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. This is a very shaky category, as we do not typically characterize people by the children they have. There's only one category with anything close to this type of formatting, Category:Foster parents, and that's a legal status. So this has to go. Now, I want to speak to certain voters who attack the belief systems of the nominator or other commenters. That's not ever going to play here. Don't do it, or you risk being booted out of Wikipedia for good.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic, overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined think it's a useful category, but only for those members who are raising children in same-sex relationships - so no Angelina Jolie, bisexual though she is, nor Oscar Wilde, etc. I'm not sure the intersection of LGBT and parenthood is really encyclopedic, particularly looking at "bygone ages" when even gay people generally married someone of the opposite sex and had children, but same-sex parenting is a topic. (Our LGBT parenting article mentions in passing other types of LGBT parenting, but same-sex parenting is really the focus.) I guess my vote, then, would be refine criteria and keep. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid category and should be retained. A quick glance at the profile of the person who proposed deletion suggests that religious homophobia may the the reason behind the suggestion for deletion. Information about LGBT people should not be censored and there is no place for homophobia on Wikipedia. The page is a very useful resource for those focusing on the issue of LGBT parenting and links to the main article on that topic. LGBT parenting is not a side issue of limited relevance but is a valid category and area of interest and one that is growing. The page is of use to people seeking information on LGBT parenting and parents, for example people seeking information on role models within the community. Historical figures, such as Oscar Wilde, should remain on the page because people could be interested in researching the history of LGBT parenting, particularly students as it is a theme that is sometimes explored as part of LGBT History Month. Quincunxcats (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC). — Note to closing admin: Quincunxcats (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what on Justin's page would lead you to believe that he is homophobic, but nonetheless it's not entirely relevant; there are legitimate arguments against keeping the category (saying this as someone who voted to keep), and there's no evidence the nomination was made in bad faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow WP:AGF, WP:ETTIQUETTE, heck even, M:DICK. You disagree, that's fine. You're rude and assume bad faith, that's not fine. Please restrict your comments to the merits of my (and others' arguments) without leaping to accusations of bigotry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this relevant and useful category. The other person suggesting deletion has a box on his profile saying this use is politically incorrect. We need to guard against people sabotaging valid Wikipedia articles because of homophobic motives or other forms of prejudice. Birmaniac Birmaniac (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is a category, not an article; secondly, going fishing on peoples' userpages in search of imagined prejustice doesn't help your cause. Prejustice is wrong. All forms of prejustice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Birmaniac should see my comment to Q. Same thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this useful category. Henderson30 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to admins Just for kicks, I figured I would take a look at the user contributions for

Quincunxcats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Birmaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Henderson30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And noticed that the former is the creator of the category and edits articles about cats and cat shows, the second is a user with less than 25 edits about LGBT parenting and cat shows (and hasn't edited in over a year, but showed up for this), and the final has five edits in the past three and a half years about (wait for it...) LGBT parenting and cat shows. Something's fishy in Denmark... Also, notice that all three have happened to edit LaPerm. Without having any usercheck rights or anything, I'm inclined to say that there may be some sockpuppetry involved, especially considering the aggressively rude comments placed by the first two users. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. *facepalming at my fellow keep voters or rather voter, here* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact one of the editors had been absent for over a year, and the other for over two years, is also concering. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmaniac's my partner- different person, same address, similar interests. Please don't delete this category. It is genuinely useful and relevant. I put effort into setting it up and it has obviously been appreciated and used by other people who have also contributed to it. It's a valuable resource. Thanks. Quincunxcats (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the union of two categories, one more dubious than the other. The first group, generally dating earlier, is of married folk who had children as expected, but who also had homosexual lovers. I don't see the fact of offspring as notable for these, and this category should be deleted. The second group, all modern, is of homosexuals who have adopted children. ~~This characteristic is more arguably notable and should be renamed to something more specific.~~ Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP does have an article on LGBT parenting, which seems that the intersection is a notable one - whether it's defining or not is in the eye of the beholder (is being an Eagle Scout, an American female Hispanic journalist, or a former student of such-or-another school defining? Wikipedia precedent says so, so this seems in line with our norms). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A look at LGBT parenting discloses that it covers the second group of people I listed, but not the first; perhaps a better definition of the category is in order then? Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: not all the parents in your second group adopted children, some are biological. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to a specific example? Mangoe (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Gilbert, to choose one at random. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LGBT parenting article has a section on forms of LGBT parenting, and all are represented in the list. Adoption is not the most common way in which LGBT people become parents, although it is a very significant one. If the suggestion is that the category should cover only people who have parented children in a same-sex relationship then that would be hard to make workable there are people who have conceived and started parenting a child in an opposite sex relationship and then subsequently been in a same sex relationship and continued being an active parent. Gene Robinson is an example- he is one of the most famous gay people in the world and one of the first people to come to mind when people think of gay parents, but his children were conceived in an opposite sex relationship. The LGBT community includes bisexual and transgender people. Tom Robinson, for example, has a high profile as a bisexual person and LGBT activist who had a key role in the history of the political LGBT movement. Bisexual activists try to educate people that bisexuals are still bisexual even if they are in opposite sex relationships, so it would seem wrong to strike him off if the list is supposed to include bisexuals also. Inclusivity is an important concept in the LGBT community and its politics. The article does mention that some LGBT people have children as a result of former relationships, in fact they make up the largest group of LGBT parents (albeit now shrinking in relation to other groups) so it would be wrong to exclude them. Where would the cut off come? People like Meredith Baxter who are out lesbian mothers shouldn't be excluded because they had their children in opposite sex relationships. But also someone looking at the history of LGBT parenting might benefit from having a ket figure in LGBT history like Oscar Wilde there. It is significant in the history of the LGBT movement that a gay parent like Wilde was prevented from seeing his children because of his sexuality. Quincunxcats (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that parents who have raised or are raising children in a same-sex relationship would be appropriate for the category even if the children were initially produced in an opposite-sex relationship, because it is still relevant to the topic of same-sex parenting - indeed, as you point out, it is very common. However, I continue to disagree that "LGBT people who are parents," as opposed to people raising kids in same-sex couples, is an appropriately narrow scope for the category - there simply isn't the same volume of scholarly literature on the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but in some cases it may be difficult to decide which category to put someone in. For example, if someone entered a same sex relationship when their child was sixteen would they still qualify? At what age would the cut off point come and what if that information wasn't available? At what point do you stop being an active parent? A parent still parents their child even if both are adults. Would you want to exclude someone like Mel White whose children were probably relatively grown up when he came out and became a well known LGBT activist within the church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincunxcats (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What your questions lead to here is the likelihood that the category cannot be defined without expanding it to people the fact of whose parenting isn't notable. If there is a problem establishing when parenting is occurring in a same sex relationship, it suggests that it isn't a well-defined category. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take all the various refinements to my second class, but it still seems clear to me that there are two categories, one not notable and the other potentially notable, the latter being something like "people raising children in LGBT relationships". But further consideration leads me to doubt that even this is notable: after all, isn't the argument that raising children in such a family is really no different than raising them in any other form of family? I'm coming to the conclusion that the whole notion isn't notable, and therefore I am inclined to Delete the category in its entirety. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if that's your rationale then you have missed the point. The argument is not that raising children in same sex relationships is no different from other forms of family. There are some significant differences, for example that LGBT parents can often be discriminated against in law, and this is why they have become a category of particular focus for the political LGBT rights movement. What is not different is the outcomes in terms of parenting success. Quincunxcats (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that when someone creates Category:People raised in same-sex relationships, you'll agree to its deletion? Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "the argument is that it's no different from raising children in an opposite-sex couple" holds water as a rationale for deletion. In spite of this argument, there have been studies etc. on same-sex parenting; it is a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is proof with the recent additions of people like Jared Polis to the category that it is very much a live and active topic, continually growing and keeping pace with news and events. Quincunxcats (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside Whether or not a category on Wikipedia has a lot of scholarly coverage, or is useful to persons trying to find a resource on a topic, or is consonant with an identity politics movement are all irrelevant to keeping, creating, or maintaining said category. An infinite number of categories could fit any of those criteria, but none of them have been determined by the project to be criteria for categorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is a categorizable issue hidden in here somewhere—and there probably is—I don't think it's as broad as the current category name suggests. Merely being LGBT and a parent is hardly even a notable intersection, let alone a defining one. Rather than refine, I'd be inclined to delete this and start over with a category name that is suitably defining. (There seems to be some votestacking/sockpuppeting going on, or at least meat puppeting.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 5 October 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:Spacecraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution

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 to "Individual..." and purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Delete both~~. These are examples of categories that would work much better as lists. The categories are non-defining for most, if not all of the types listed, and they also opens the question as to whether or not other museums should have their own categories. IMHO, these should be deleted and/or listified - the aircraft actually have a list page already, that should be expanded. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nondefiningCurb Chain (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. It would not be accurate to say the Smithsonian has the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, as that article is about a line of aircraft. It does have the Enola Gay, however, a notable example thereof. Almost all the current contents of the category should be removed, but I think it is indeed useful to note individual aircraft or spacecraft in the Smithsonian, at least as much as we have Category:Paintings of the Louvre, Category:Sculptures in the Borghese collection, and so on.- choster (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless it's going to be renamed to indicate that it's limited to individual spacecraft/aircraft. There's little sense categorizing entire lines by one particular museum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename to add 'individual' as the first word of the name thus: Category:Individual spacecraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution and Category:Individual aircraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution Clearly, the categories contain individual aircraft and spacecraft and the fact that they reside at this location must be defining for them. Look also at their parent categories, which show that these cats are part of an established system of such categories. Hmains (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that renaming, I could support keeping them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me as well.- choster (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Individual spacecraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution and Category:Individual aircraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution, and discard all the 'types', per choster et al. It is indeed a defining characteristic of Enola Gay. Occuli (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Hmains and Occuli. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename - I am fine with renaming the category but I do think it needs to be kept. I also want to clarify that there were 2 criteria I used when putting these aircraft in this catetgory. It was either a named aircraft or the museum has the only known surviving aircraft of the type such as the Aichi M6A. I do not agree that these should be removed from the category. --Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only-survivors are questionable; I can see the arguments either way. That might be something to be discussed at WT:AIR after the CfD closes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a little more background these categories were created when we created the WikiProject for the Smithsonian Museum which falls under GLAM. Unfortunately the project hasn't had much activity itself but I am hoping that will change in time. The categories were created to better identify artifacts and items in the museums collection so that in future collaborations it would be easier to see what articles needed to be constructed or improved. I am not opposed to the disussion being under WP:AIR but if you do so I would request dropping a line to the SI project page as well. There are some initiatives happening over the next couple months that may give some more activity to the SI project. --Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob; once this closes I'll see about setting up a thread for the "last survivor" thingy. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to include individual BUT it then should only be used on articles describing indiviudal aircraft not aircraft types even if it is the only one left. Do we start a cat for every museum that has the last one of anything? MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 8 October 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:Beşiktaş basketballers

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 and purge. I've moved the female players to the women's category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beşiktaş basketballers to Category:Beşiktaş men's basketball players

Nominator's rationale: Rename, and also move all women in the category to Category:Beşiktaş women's basketball players (newly created). Split by sex, and also use the more common term "basketball players". Dale Arnett (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (I've heard 'basketballer' is not a term (even) used in U.K. English.) Mayumashu (talk) 18:00, 3 October 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:Miscarriage victims

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 17:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, partly for the same reason that Category:Rape victims is always deleted. It's a BLP-sensitive topic that is almost never defining, and we have no business categorizing people in this way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, and it seems to me like the "victim" of a miscarriage is the one who dies. Maybe I'm just dense, but this seems like an ambiguous name at best. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cherry-picked list of no utility. Potential BLP nightmare. Agree with comparison to Category:Rape victims. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not at all defining for those included. Miscarriage is also extremely common among women of reproductive age. I also agree that it's ambiguous, as I would expect this to mean mothers who died in consequence of having a miscarriage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not News of the World... In 99% of the cases, that information (even if it is verifiable) should not even be in an article since it's so seldom relevant. Pichpich (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ambiguous as I read this as meaning "victims of a miscarriage of justice". It's only when I looked at the category and found that they were all "celebrity" women, that I realised what it was really about - prurience. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, and many others above. SarahStierch (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If I have correctly understood that this is about women who have suffered a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), it is too common a phenomenon to be notable, though the subject is not widely talked of. If it referred to an induced abortion, I would consider it almost an attack category. If it is supposed to be about miscarriages of justice it ought to be renamed and purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:03, 3 October 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:STOL

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) 19:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is one of those "seems like a great idea" catgegories, that once it starts getting populated proves to have been "at the time". The criterion is simply too nebulous: how do you define STOL? Do pure VTOL aircraft get included (some have)? What about STOLports (ditto)? At the very least it should be renamed to "STOL aircraft", but I think it would be best to be deleted as too indiscriminate and undefinable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 28 September 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:Jamaican people of Jewish descent

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. These categories have now survived multiple deletion nominations, so even though there's a split decision here, I'm giving them a keep result. I'm also overturning the decision of Category:People of Jewish descent to give these a home.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Newly added single entry category added after the parent category, Category:People of Jewish descent was deleted at a full CfD upheld at DRV. This probably qualifies as a speedy. The other option is an upmerge to Category:Jamaican Jews. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are Category:Russian people of Jewish descent, Category:British people of Jewish descent etc. Mayumashu (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did not stumble onto those, but I did add them. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep, but given that the parent category was nuked...perhaps they all should be grouped and discussed for deletion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least what Bushranger says—these need at least to be grouped together and discussed since the parent category was deleted. Personally, I see no utility to categorizing people of being of Jewish descent. If they are Jewish, categorize them as such, but if they don't self-identify as Jewish and they just happen to have some Jewish ancestors—it's not necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what applied to the deleted cat, applies to these as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's (Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs)) rationale in the original CfD: "This category specifically states it is for people who do not identify as being Jewish. If they do not identify as such why are we categorizing them based on it?"--Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that's the lot whose parent was CfD=Deleted? In that case, I'll turn on my Cyberman voice and change my !vote to Delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all -- We have numerous categories for Booians of fooain descent. It is the headnote that is inappropriate. Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. Self-identifiying as Jewish tends to refer to religion only. It may well be that the category needs purging of a lot of people with a minimal (hence NN) Jewish ancestry, butnthat does not justify felling the whole tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the parent cat has already been deleted and DRV'd with a confirmation, so this tree's roots have already been hit with Roundup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, or get rid of the whole of Category:People by ethnic or national origin / Category:People by ethnic or national descent, and not just this particular branch. Either catting by ancestry is or is not what we want to do on WP (and given the non-existence of reliable sources, it most likely the latter). Mayumashu (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with a note that I fully agree with Mayumashu. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So your logic is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? And the position you are supporting was added before all of the subcategories were added. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the comments above. Unless we are going to nuke the whole Ethnic nationality classification categories then we should leave these. Just because there is only one person in them doesn't mean that only one person relates to it. They just may not have been added to the category yet. --Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly PO'd comment. This is yet another example of why when a category is nominated for deletion—in this case, Category:People of Jewish descent—you've got to nominate all the subcategories at the same time if those categories will be orphaned without the parent! The user who nominated Category:People of Jewish descent seemed to have no problem nominating the parent category in one place and a few (yet not all) of the subcategories elsewhere. Now we have a situation where the parent category has been deleted and the deletion has been affirmed at DRV. Now a more responsible user comes along and tries to cleanup the mess that's been created, and now we're teetering on a "no consensus" decision for the subcats. Brilliant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mayumashu and per the known argument, stated again by User:BevisMarks on WT:JEW, that "Jewish" is both a religion and an ethnicity. Overturn the deletion of Category:People of Jewish descent as well. I am surprised that that one passed. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not delete, but …". Many of the categories listed here were the subject of relatively recent discussions for renaming or deletion and it is unfortunately that they should again be nominated without reference to the earlier discussions. In the case of the various categories of "American people of Fooian-Jewish descent", this (in most cases) is the fifth nomination in 18 months, the most recent being the extensive discussion of July 28, 2011, only two months (exactly) prior to the commencement of the present discussion. However, I now believe that there will continue to be problems regarding these categories so as we do not solve the conflict regarding to whom the categories refer. Generally, the categories "Fooian people of Jewish descent" refer to people who are not Jewish but have Jewish ancestry (otherwise, they would normally be listed under "Fooian Jews"). However the categories "American people of Fooian-Jewish descent" are intended to relate specifically to people who are Jewish, having been created as a result of changes of name from "Fooian-American Jews", and these categories are indirect sub-categories of Category:American Jews. To resolve the situation, I propose that all the categories "American people of Fooian-Jewish descent" (including all those listed the discussion of July 28, 2011, even if not listed above) be renamed to "American Jews of Fooian-Jewish descent". These new categories should also become sub-categories of a new Category:American Jews by national-Jewish descent (or a similar name), which itself would be a sub-category of Category:American Jews and Category:American people of Jewish descent, the latter category itself reserved for non-Jews. (In addition, it would also be preferable that in each case the appropriate "American Jews of Fooian-Jewish descent" be a sub-category of "American people of Fooian descent" in order the avoid double listing.) I also agree with Debresser that the deletion of Category:People of Jewish descent should be reviewed and overturned, and the sooner this takes place the better. Davshul (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused please someone explain again what the distinction Category:Jamaican Jews and Category:Jamaicans of Jewish descent but who may or may not be Jews is meant to capture? I can understand the descent bit in Category:British people of Huguenot descent In ictu oculi (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused If "Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity," what does that make "Palestinian"? Chesdovi (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep whole as it is, or delete all categories of people by ethnic or national origin.--Eversman (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all. It seems that there are many Jews and that most of those categories are sufficiently populated. What's the point of wiping out clarifications which have already been made by numerous contributors concerning the widespread Jewish diaspora? Rammer (talk) 03:05, 8 October 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.