< July 17	July 19 >

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. I'm closing based on WP:SNOW and WP:POINT as other recent closes used in this area. It is not likely that there will be any short term change in past closing consensuses for this reason. This last series of nominations is digressing into areas other then the actual proposal. Nothing in this close shall be interpreted as a keep for supporting future nominations. Other editors are free to nominate this category for deletion using a different reason at any time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish explorers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "explorer". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to explore. Beganlocal (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not helpful - all you're doing is guaranteeing that even the people who might agree with you will align against you because they see your actions as disruptive. Do you really think, given the comments at the astronauts CFD below, that a sudden groundswell of support for deletion is going to materialize? I suggest you withdraw these nominations and the astronauts one below and let things cool down for a while. Otto4711 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for this. I undertake to nominate no further Jewish categories for deletion for the next three months. I do not support withdrawing my nominations as people ought to consider the issue, but I appreciate that there is other work to be done on wikipedia and this is not the only issue. I will therefore leave this point of categories alone for the time being. I may revisit in a couple of months. Kind regards. Beganlocal (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, as a long-time Wikipedia editor and secular (and non-Zionist) Jew, I am sickened by the rankly anti-Semitic nature of this individual's edits. To recap: he worked long and hard to accentuate the uniquely Jewish nature of Madoff and other's criminal activities. But when that was soundly rebuffed by the community, he set about seeking to expunge from Wikipedia all categories related to positive contributions by Jews in various fields. Only Jews as criminals and con artists appears to satisfy his prejudices. His abuse of CfD to advance a racist agenda must be stopped.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the appropriate forum for discussing the editor's history or patterns of action, and leveling accusations of racism just aren't good for anybody. You can try to talk to the editor on his talk page about the situation, or if you feel the situation warrants it you can take it to WP:AN/I. Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this editors actions point to wp:point, which in it's turn is a valid reason to oppose a nomination, Shawn in Montreal exposure of this editors actions is very to the point. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I would be appropriate -but I suggest waiting to see whether Beganlocal is as good as his word and stops this nonsense. Beganlocal, if you wish to create discussion on the way things are categorised, making a bulk nomination like this is far from the best way to do so - all it does is clog up the page and disrupt the normal business of CFD. The place to raise such an issue would be somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Categorization and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, not here on the process page. That's what talk pages are for. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in taking it to AN/I: I have no wish to waste any more time on this garbage than I have already. This kind of stuff makes me sick. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you read through the articles included in the category, their Jewishness and their exploration are in almost all cases their distinct defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep - Highly notable and well-sourced category about explorers of Jewish heritage ("Jewish" being a cultural group as well as a religion); important for the navigation of our users; numerous categories such as these have been nominated several times before over a period of years by WP editors fixated on removing Jewish-related content from our encyclopedia. Such editors cannot and must not be allowed to continue depleting navigation for Jewish-related subjects for our users, who must be foremost in our minds with every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your accusations against editors are no more helpful and no more true than the nominator's. There is nothing in the category history to support your claim that this has been nominated previously. Otto4711 (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My observation, based on four years of experience here, that a small number of highly active and dedicated WP editors edit WP primarily in an effort to obscure, dilute, and damage our encyclopedia's categorization system as regards Jewish-related subjects, is, contrary to your claim (though unfortunately) quite accurate. I hope we can work together to build our encyclopedia in a positive, collaborative manner rather than constantly attempting to damage our categorization system for our users in such a manner. Badagnani (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. I'm closing based on WP:SNOW and WP:POINT as other recent closes used in this area. It is not likely that there will be any short term change in past closing consensuses for this reason. This last series of nominations is digressing into areas other then the actual proposal. Nothing in this close shall be interpreted as a keep for supporting future nominations. Other editors are free to nominate this category for deletion using a different reason at any time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "sportsperson". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to play sport. Beganlocal (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. How much more WP:POINTyness are we going to have to put up with here? Grutness...wha? 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are dozens of books on the subject that demonstrate that the media, our ultimate arbiter, define this as a notable intersection based on ample reliable and verifiable sources, as this Google Books search shows. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep - Highly notable and well-sourced category about sportspeople of Jewish heritage ("Jewish" being a cultural group as well as a religion); important for the navigation of our users; this has been nominated several times before over a period of years by WP editors fixated on removing Jewish-related content from our encyclopedia. Such editors cannot and must not be allowed to continue depleting navigation for Jewish-related subjects for our users, who must be foremost in our minds with every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my last 2 arguments in the Category:Jewish inventors nomination. One of which is expressed here eloquently by Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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: Already closed as listify. Users do not have the option to change a previous close by an admin. If you have a question with that action, you can take it to deletion review Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish inventors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "inventor". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to invent. Beganlocal (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, for all the reasons given in the other recent category noms made of this type. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep - Highly notable and well-sourced category about inventors of Jewish heritage ("Jewish" being a cultural group as well as a religion); important for the navigation of our users; this has been nominated several times before over a period of years by WP editors fixated on removing Jewish-related content from our encyclopedia. Such editors cannot and must not be allowed to continue depleting navigation for Jewish-related subjects for our users, who must be foremost in our minds with every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_20#Category:Jewish_inventors. Badagnani (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of the 'colorful' language? I doubt anyone truly cares how "strongly" you might actually feel about a deletion, but this basic template which goes "Strongest possible keep - [something about how notable and well-sourced the article is with sophisticated adjectives followed by a bad-faith assumption of/personal attack directed at a user]" regardless of whether it was deleted because it wasn't notable or badly sourced or not has got to stop. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all, history seems to show that there is a (perhaps unexplained) connection between Jewish and inventor. Like it or not! Apart from that keep as an intersection which is well documented (which shows its relevance), or even just for navigational purposes. Or all of them together, don't care. Didn't we ask for a stop of nominations of "Jewish categories"? Debresser (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my post above where I agree to stop nominating Jewish categories. Beganlocal (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When you stop, most likely the others of the few highly active WP editors who edit in such a manner will step in to fill your place. Badagnani (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if good-faith editors continue to nominate Jewish occupation categories for deletion. I might even vote to delete. My problem is with the above individual, who admits on Otto's talk page that this is a WP:POINT campaign because he didn't get his way with Jewish fraudsters and the uniquely Jewish nature, in his own sick mind, of their criminal activities. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Albania to Category:Christian monasteries in Albania

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Austria to Category:Christian monasteries in Austria

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Belarus to Category:Christian monasteries in Belarus

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Belgium to Category:Christian monasteries in Belgium

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Denmark to Category:Christian monasteries in Denmark

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Finland to Category:Christian monasteries in Finland

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Germany to Category:Christian monasteries in Germany

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Hungary to Category:Christian monasteries in Hungary

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Iraq to Category:Christian monasteries in Iraq

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Lithuania to Category:Christian monasteries in Lithuania

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Moldova to Category:Christian monasteries in Moldova

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Montenegro to Category:Christian monasteries in Montenegro

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Norway to Category:Christian monasteries in Norway

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Poland to Category:Christian monasteries in Poland

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Romania to Category:Christian monasteries in Romania

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Serbia to Category:Christian monasteries in Serbia

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Slovakia to Category:Christian monasteries in Slovakia

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Slovenia to Category:Christian monasteries in Slovenia

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Switzerland to Category:Christian monasteries in Switzerland

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in the Netherlands to Category:Christian monasteries in the Netherlands

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Christian monasteries in Macedonia

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Ukraine to Category:Christian monasteries in Ukraine

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Scotland to Category:Christian monasteries in Scotland

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Wales to Category:Christian monasteries in Wales

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Northern Ireland to Category:Christian monasteries in Northern Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Christian monasteries in the Republic of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up nomination to this alike and passing CfD. The categories only contain a the type of monasteries indicated. This will greatly clarify the contents and allows for better categorization of the categories. The renames will serve to match sibling categories ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a non-Christian monastery in any of these countries? AFAIK, there is not such thing as "Islamic monasteries", and if I am not mistaken the only other monasteries are Buddhist. And in those countries I know of no Christian monastery. So, aren't we going to fer with this? Dc76\^talk 09:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: None of these countries have non-Christian monastery articles or non-Christian monasteries that I know of. Some day there maybe a Buddhist monastery that is becomes notable in them-- or even one now, that just isn't written about-- but for those counties with one or more of each, the standard is to create all three categories...

• Category:Monasteries in Australia
• Category:Christian monasteries in Australia
• Category:Buddhist monasteries in Australia

By the way, the category tree includes Hindu monasteries-- in India only: Category:Hindu monasteries in India. All others are Buddhist or Christian . ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree I already stated in the previous discussion, that I will endorse all other categories of this type that the nominator hadn't listed yet. Per the outcome of that discussion, this should be a clear rename. Debresser (talk)
• rename all to match the parent category Category:Christian monasteries by country and for clarity so the reader can know the category contents without having to guess. Also, it is POV to assume everything is Christian so we need not have to bother using the word 'Christian' in the name. Hmains (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to reflect the fact that there are multiple religions that use the term and to more finely track these by country. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames for clarity. Occuli (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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 per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films featuring Peking opera to Category:Films featuring Beijing opera

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Beijing opera master category and main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems like an overly narrow basis for a category. It's also rather vague; how "featured" does the opera need to be to qualify? Otto4711 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films featuring Chinese opera. The renaming from "Peking opera" to "Beijing opera" would make sense, as per nom. Including other types of Chinese opera like Cantonese opera would make the category broader and still relevant. Many Hong Kong movies in the early days were filmed Chinese opera, and later a good number of them have featured this theatrical form. To address the "vagueness" mentioned above, the best would be to define the scope of the category in the category page. It could read something like "This category includes films that feature Chinese opera. It can be the main theme of the film or just a subplot involving a few scenes". Such a category definitely makes sense, as a complement to the Chinese opera range of articles. There are webpages dedicated to this specific topic across the internet, so a category would be a good way to collect this information. It is not of interest for everyone, but those interested tend to have a strong interest. olivier (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine with me, and address the concerns about narrowness raised above. Category:Chinese opera is a master category for Category:Beijing opera. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article for a category that fits well within the film by subject hierarchy. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. No objection to a later nomination if a better name is found. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Psychiatrist films to Category:Films about psychiatry

Nominator's rationale: If this category is to be kept, I believe it should be renamed. These are not films exclusively about psychiatrists. In many cases they're about psychiatric patients. Of course, the landmark One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a film about resisting authority, based around the conflict between an inmate and a psychiatric nurse, where psychiatrists play only supporting roles. So, anyway, rename. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The proposed "Films about psychiatry" is just as far from the truth as "Psychiatrist films". Anybody have a better idea for a new name for this category? Debresser (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename and Prune The name is not perfect, but it does better capture the content of the category. I'm not sure that Casper is about psychiatry, so we may need to do some pruning. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Just in case that was not clear from my previous post. I just am not sure what would be the best new name. Debresser (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• how about Psychiatry in film?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps split them: "films with phychiatrists" and "films with psychiatry themes". Just don't know. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of the split -- it's a needless complication, IMO -- but I do also like the Psychiatry in film suggestion. There are a lot of similarly named FOO in film categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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/no consensus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminator films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup. Appears that it was suppose to be a part of this nomination which resulted in a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I nominated the cat originally and somehow didn't list it with the group nom. Same arguments apply. Small category, slow if any growth potential, films linked extensively through the various articles. Otto4711 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous group nomination. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A strong defining characteristic that groups one of film's most successful series for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me it's a necessary sub-division of Category:Terminator. Without the films category, they'd be hard to find within the master cat, along with all the other Terminator media, and the films were the heart of the franchise. So keep, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. Jafeluv (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is growth potential, per Terminator_(franchise)#Planned_sequels. With the success of the last picture, more films are planned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The future film has a tentative release date of 2011. One new article in the next two years hardly seems like the sort of growth potential that would justify a category. A couple of the categories deleted in the last round had a sequel contemplated for release at the same rate, which was not seen as sufficient to keep. Otto4711 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a completely sensible subcategory of both Category:Terminator and Category:Science fiction films by series. Four seems like a not-quite-small-enough number to justify going out of our way to delete it, particularly given the benefit in sorting the contents of the Category:Terminator category pertaining to the media franchise as a whole. Even if its navigation and sorting utility is considered minimal, even a minimal usage outweighs zero drawbacks. Postdlf (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The handful of articles in Category:Terminator, several of which are of questionable notability, will hardly make the film articles difficult to find. Otto4711 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Futbol Club Atlas to Category:F.C. Atlas

Propose renaming Category:Atlas footballers to Category:F.C. Atlas players

Propose renaming Category:Atlas managers to Category:F.C. Atlas managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the club's main article, F.C. Atlas, per consensus. – PeeJay 19:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per consensus and per spreading convention. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Irish Republican Army films to Category:Films about the Irish Republican Army

Nominator's rationale: The "ORGANIZATION films" structure is most often used to identify a film as by that organization, per categories in Category:Films by studio. It's unlikely that users are going to think that these films were produced by the IRA but for consistency's sake I recommend renaming, to match other categories in Category:Films by topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Beganlocal (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to more accurately reflect content of category. It appears that we should pursue the form "Films about Foo" wherever possible in the parent Category:Films by topic. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename per nom, as it more accurately reflects the nature of the films in the category. Since it is already in subcategory Category:Films about terrorism, it should be removed from Category:Films by topic. Cjc13 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Escambia class fleet oilers to Category:Escambia class oilers
• Category:Neosho class fleet replenishment oilers to Category:Neosho class oilers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match naming style of other U.S. Navy oiler class categories. All other categories of USN oilers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) follow the class article naming conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ship classes about not being overly specific with class names. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy Armadillo class tankers to Category:Armadillo class tankers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no other Armadillo class of tankers which would require the use of the 'United States Navy' disambiguator, nor does there appear to be any other Armadillo class of any type of ship. New name matches the consensus category naming style for ship classes: "[class name] class [ship type]". — Bellhalla (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds logical. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article Armadillo class tanker. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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: Upmerge to Category:Films by topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by occupation of the protagonist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete I question the need for this category. The master Category:Films by topic already does a more than adequate job of categorizing films via a wide variety of protagonists' occupations. If retained, however, the category needs to be more fully populated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary scheme, and just beause a film is "about" a person in a particular profession doesn't mean that person is automatically the protagonist. Frost/Nixon for example is "about" a President of the United States but Richard Nixon is certainly not the protagonist. Otto4711 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films by occupation (or variant) Arguing that a category is "unnecessary" is yet another argument that applies to any and all categories, without any explanation of why it couldn't be used here. The parent Category:Films by topic has become a hodge-podge in desperate need of structure, and a rename would address the issue. Alansohn (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Films don't have occupations. "Films by occupation" is nonsensical. Otto4711 (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The occupation of the protagonist is not a very defining characteristic of a film. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete meaningless and trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only way i see to allow it is to rename it: films by character occupation. i think this approaches trivia and bad organization, as then films will have multiple character occupations. unless someone wants to review all the "films about foo" and find out whether its the protagonist who is the foo, or the antagonist, or everyone, or its just a theme. "films about foo" should be enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films about an occupation as this would seem to descibe the category properly and would provide a sufficient subcategory to films by topic. Cjc13 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing protagonists from the category name might actually worsen things, opening us up to a situation whereby films with, say, three principal characters in different professions might be categorized in three different 'films about an occupation' categories. I still think that Category:Films by topic does a fine job of containing however many "Films about FOOists" catergories we wish to have. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to the parent Category:Films by topic. Unnecessary layer of confusion which contains no 'loose' articles anyway. Occuli (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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 except for the first. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory to Category:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory

• Category:Alberta sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Alberta
• Category:British Columbia sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from British Columbia
• Category:Manitoba sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Manitoba
• Category:New Brunswick sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from New Brunswick
• Category:Newfoundland and Labrador sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Newfoundland and Labrador
• Category:Northwest Territories sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from the Northwest Territories
• Category:Nova Scotia sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Nova Scotia
• Category:Nunavut sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Nunavut
• Category:Ontario sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Ontario
• Category:Prince Edward Island sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Prince Edward Island
• Category:Quebec sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Quebec
• Category:Saskatchewan sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Saskatchewan
• Category:Yukon sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Yukon

Nominator's rationale: as for the parent cat Category:People by Canadian province or territory and occupation, as not everyone listed has Canadian citizenship (case in point, Stephen Hart (soccer), the head coach of the national men's soccer team, has lived in Halifax for over 25 years, making him from the city (at least in one arguable sense), but is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago.) And for sub-cats, as per the recent change of alike cat pages for each U.S. state, for clarity of meaning. (eg. Category:Michigan sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Michigan) Mayumashu (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match title of other similar categories. As to the issue of the parent Category:People by Canadian province or territory and occupation, there is no evidence that it is restricted to individuals with demonstrated citizenship, rather than residency. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Actually, I didn t complete my rationale statement, looking at it now. Since residency and not citizenship is the criterion, the naming should not be 'Canadian sportspeople', which implies citizenship more than simply residency, but the suggested renaming, which entirely allows for both Mayumashu (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• do not change Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory; change the rest. Comments above are based on false information. Following the category tree upward, we find Category:Canadian people and like all such categories for all countries, it includes only those people having Canadian citizenship. 'Residency' of non-Canadians citizens counts for nothing here. Hmains (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone listed in a subcategory of Category:Canadian people in fact has Canadian citizenship. Stephen Hart, who again is not a citizen of Canada but a notable resident, rightly is under Category:People from Halifax Regional Municipality, which is under Category:People from Nova Scotia, which is under Category:People by province or territory in Canada, which is under Category:Canadian people. The tree upward needs to be changed too, ultimately, to reflect that residency does count. If it didn t, we would have kept eg. Category:Natives of London, but instead changed it to Category:People from London, to match Category:People from New York etc., to include both natives and residents. Mayumashu (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That some articles have been sloppily categorized is no reason to honor and perpetuate the error. Article categorizations are to be corrected, not the categories. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have not been incorrectly categorized. Mayumashu (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. I'll note that this is another one of related categories that keep reappearing. As noted in the discussion, even editors who agree with the deletion of this and related categories are opposing this nomination for technical reasons. This keep should not be used as justification in any future nominations as supporting the existence of this category. I'll further note that the last two discussions on June 11 and May 9 were closed as no consensus. So given the current dissension by both supporters of the category and opposers, it is simply too soon to expect a consensus to develop. In fact one could argue that the constant nomination of this and related categories is polluting the water and preventing a fair and reasonable discussion as evidenced by this discussion so far. I'll also add that tempers are so high that editors are actually ignoring other closes and actually reverting admin closes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish astronauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.

There is a Wikipedia Policy on this at WP:OC#CATGRS which states:

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.

Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their race or sexual orientation. While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.

I do not think we can write an article about Jewish Astronomy, so the cat presumptively fails this test.

Please see further the arguments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_14#Category:Jewish_mathematicians

I would respectfully remind editors of the inappropriate arguments in WP:USELESS, caution against ad hominem arguments, WP:NPA. I would also point out that we are not voting.

Regarding WP:POINT arguments, these are not sufficient to defend the category. I am not "disrupting wikipedia to make a point", and the point is not (in)valid simply because of how it is presented.

Finally, I would be grateful if a more experiences wikipedian could advise me on hw to protest the over categorisation and labelling of Jews at a WP policy level.

Thanks

Beganlocal (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:POINT. This category was retained following a CfD just one month ago. While I voted to delete at that time, I don't see the value to Wikipedia in continuing to enable this editor's rather tiresome vendetta against Jewish occupation articles other than his prized Category:Jewish fraudsters creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not per WP:POINT - this policy discourages editors from disrupting wikipedia to make a point. It is not a reason to keep a category. Creating "Jewish Fraudsters" may fall under WP:POINT, and I realised it was not the most appropriate way to make suggestions, so I am now trying to stimulate discussion on the matter in order to reach a consensus. (Unfortunately the only consensus seems to be that I'm a dolt and should go and do something else.) Beganlocal (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep and close - while I agree that the category should be deleted and believe the recent close was in error given the number of similar categories deleted on the same day's CFD page, the nominator is engaged in "campaigning" against what he sees as "unfair" categorization of ethnic Jews by a number of professions. As much as I may agree with the desired outcome, I cannot endorse this sort of activity. Otto4711 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being asked to. Instead you are recommending that this category should be kept, even though you believe it is correct to delete it, simply because you do not agree with what I am doing. I am attempting to have a problem at wikipedia addressed. Getting rid of irrelevant labelling created for dubious motives actually helps the community. It is clear to me that no attention has been given to the deletion proposal or the wikipedia policies in favour of it. If an article cannot be written about Jewish Astronomy, then it is not reasonable to categorise astronauts by ethnicity. Beganlocal (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:POINT. It would be nice if the nom could find some other aspect of wikipedia upon which to fixate. Occuli (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "oppose per WP:point". Advice to editors not to disrupt wikipedia is not a reason to keep a category. Opposing deletion without giving reasons could be seen as disruptive and making a point about an editor. Beganlocal (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel there was something wrong with the close on 9 July 2009 of the last cfd on this category, then take it to DRV. It is disruptive to keep bringing the same categories to cfd. (An astronaut is nothing to do with astronomy, by the way.) Occuli (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References in reliable and verifiable sources have seen such individuals defined as Jewish astronauts, the most relevant criteria in determining if the characteristic is defining. The persistent and disruptive nomination of categories until the demanded result of deletion is met needs to be dealt with once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apart from the wp:point aspect of the nomination, which the nominator stated clearly in his last sentence, we just had a discussion about this category not so long ago, and the argument I brought forward then, as I do so now, is that I know of at least one astronaut (Ilan Ramon) who made a whole point out of being Jewish and keeping the shabbath in space. One person is not enough to justify a whole category, but I have seen a clearly defined stress on Jewish aspects in the articles about other Jewish astronauts as well, so in all, this category is justified. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:English country music songwriters to Category:English songwriters

Nominator's rationale: Only two, very little chance of expansion. Country music is almost nonexistant in England. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I think "almost nonexistent" is overstressing the case. There is country music in England - it's simply not as populr a music form as elsewhere. I think this could be expanded. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As part of the overall structure of country songwriters by country. Lugnuts (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it would be appropriate to have an article English Country Music so therefore appropriate to have categories of artists related to this style.<ref>http://www.concertina.net/rd_ecm.html</ref> Beganlocal (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Following up on Grutness's comments, it is useful to look at the Charlie Landsborough page (though he's Welsh) and especially the table in the Awards subsection, which shows this as a present genre and therefore one in which it is useful to situate English songwriters. AllyD (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Country music songwriters from England - the category is ambiguous given the existence of English Country Dance, which I assume (although it is not clear from the article) has associated traditional music. Exceptions to the general naming conventions should be made to clarify ambiguity. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category is well-defined as part of an overall navigation structure by nation, and no evidence that there is no room for further expansion. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category now has 7 entries after doing a simple search. The category is consistent with categories for other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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