< November 24	November 26 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As with Category:LGBT criminals, this is a grouping not supported by the proposed consensus on race/gender/sexuality categorization -- which is that such groupings should only be permitted if they constitute a unique and distinctive cultural context about which an encyclopedia article could itself be written. It would be impossible to write an article about gay murderers as a distinct phenomenon from straight ones, so accordingly I'm proposing delete in this case. Bearcat 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useless category. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Here we go round two. I guess Category:LGBT criminals wasn't satisfying enough for the people obsessed with making a point. Next stop should be Category:LGBT rapists, Category:LGBT sex offenders and so on. Really sad. -- JJay 20:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Or delete all the positive LGBT categories too. It is the gay rights activists who are making a point on a massive scale, intruding their agenda into every subject area at every conceivable opportunity, when it need only be covered in articles about sexuality. CalJW 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I kind of resent that. I voted for delete on the other one and I'm not any kind of gay rights activist. My reasons there were certainly not gay rights activism as should've been clear. In fact I pretty much stated I voted for deletion on the grounds I'd vote to delete a Category:Promiscuous criminals or Category:Polygamous criminals. I don't see how comparing the three is what an activist would do. If you want positive LGBT categories deleted put them up and I might go for that. (Although I do believe in fairness. If their LGBT status really is related to them fitting a positive category I might vote abstain or keep. I'm going case by case here.)--T. Anthony 07:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't respond to your impeccable logic CalJW. For those looking for other groups that may have gotten too uppity, suggest Category:Disabled criminals, Category:Environmentalist criminals, or why not kill two birds with one stone via Category:LGBT Jew criminals see List of LGBT Jews for ideas. Just trying to be helpful. -- JJay 22:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I've already stated, the tentative consensus in the race/gender/sexuality discussion is that such a category should only be implemented if that combination constitutes a unique and distinctive cultural context about which an encyclopedia article could itself be written. If you want this category to be kept, you therefore need to prove that one could somehow write an encyclopedic article on gay murderers as an identifiably distinct phenomenon from non-gay ones. The onus is not on me to prove that such an article could not be written; it's on you to prove that it could. And it's not about positive vs. negative groupings; there are positive LGBT groupings that would be invalid under this criterion and negative ones that would be permissible. The defining criterion is whether one can actually write an encyclopedic article about the topic. Bearcat 23:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:After some thought I think I'm also for delete. The names should be placed in Category:LGBT criminals, as it survived, if this issue is important enough to have a category. Also the LGBT criminals category has a more restrictive note now.--T. Anthony 08:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW. — Instantnood 22:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously biased POV nonsense. This is the part where I would normally compare this to other obviously moronic hypotheticals but JJay has already done that for me :-) Soltak | Talk 23:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone creates and fills up a heterosexual and transsexual murderers category before the end of this cfd debate (I wouldn't bother because it will get deleted pretty soon). Arniep 23:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I could see some sense in categories that deal with criminalisation of Homosexuals, like "People convicted unter anti-gay laws", but people murder for all kinds of reasons, most of which are tied in no way to sexual orientation. -- Mkill 00:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough sub-category.DocOck 08:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Upmerge because overcategorization. But move the names included (if verifiable and germane) back up to the parent Category:LGBT criminals. There's something subtly better about the parent too: if done right it can be used for stuff like Sethmahoney's hypothetical "The Gay Bank Robber". But the murderer tends to suggest a looser association between the descriptions: anyone who is both LGBT and a murderer, which is prejudicial. I only want (per current parent cat desription--that I wrote :-)) people whose criminality is somehow associated with being LGBT, if only in pubic consciousness of their crimes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge the articles to Category:LGBT criminals and delete the category. Oh, and CalJW: cut the crap. Aecis ^praatpaal 11:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and put all gay murders in it. Golfcam 12:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golfcam, this is the second time in less than a week that you've cast a confusing and ambiguous vote on a gay-related category. I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say. Who are the gay people in your understanding of what the category means: the killers or the victims? Could you please clarify? Bearcat 18:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant murderers. What else would I have meant. There must be loads more. Golfcam 23:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same reasons as the criminals category. Honbicot 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as above. Radiant_>|< 16:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vague definition, useless compared to LGBT criminals.Otus 22:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Less problematic than the criminals category I would have thought. In any case the argument that in some periods people could have earned a place in it merely by being gay doesn't apply. Carina22 00:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The current subcats of Category:Murderers are by nationality, by the type of crime, or by what happened to the murderer (i.e. Category:Executed murderers). There are no other subcats by ethnicity, sexuality or any other "cultural" factor. I see no encyclopedic reason for creating a full hierarchy of murderers by sexuality (or by ethnicity). This being the case, there is no basis for this cat independent of such a hierarchy. Valiantis 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and, make a list of all criminals, subract the LGBT ones and we'll have a "List of Hetrosexual Criminals" :) Sethie 07:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: cat name is unclear. Is an LGBT murderer someone LGBT who murders, or someone who murders LGBTs? Or both? Radiant_>|< 16:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: pointless. Jonathunder 17:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A category for LGBT murders is just as legitimate as having a category for lesbian or gay actors or for other "professions". -- Crevaner 21:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If we are to have this, I insist on having categories Category:Baptist pornographers and Category:Heterosexual traitors. Oh, and Category:Wikipedian bigots, from which people may not remove themselves. Delete, of course. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Rather pointless and biggoted to have this category, if we have a category for LGBT murders, how about add the following categorys: African-American Murderers, Caucasian Murderers, Heterosexual Murderers, and Hispanic-American Murderers. Those categories would be equally biggoted, and there would be no question that they do not belong on Wikipedia because of their racial overtones. Furthermore the LGBT Murderers do not reflect part of LGBT culture like say LGBT actors do. [[Hypernick1980 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
• Keep It is important to vote here as the selection of users who have voted delete is doubtless rather skewed. Osomec 14:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and delete. FCYTravis 02:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—a random intersection of two unrelated facts about an individual. Postdlf 02:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this cat is inherently POV --Rogerd 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm not sure if I'm too late, but this category is important because it assimilates information making it easy to travel from article to article. Chooserr
• Keep: factual and useful category. Why only good people deserve categorization? Murderers, etc. must be classifed as well. There are too many of them mikka (t) 20:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of unease with classifying murderers. It's more that this is maybe not the best way to do it. Categories involving mass-murderers, serial-murderers, rapist-murderers, kidnapping-murderers, murderers by nation, or even murders by non-murdering occupation could maybe be valid. This is more like a random cross section that I don't think improves efforts to categorize. If this were Category:Evangelical Christian murderers I'd be just as strongly against that.--T. Anthony 13:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added to that most of the murderers in this category are already in a subcategory of murderers.--T. Anthony 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons stated already. --YHoshua 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. That's it. Enough's enough. You've done it now. Wikipedia is over. -Silence 07:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If the decision is to delete it, move content to category:LGBT criminals (or category:gay, lesbian or bisexual people) and category:murderers. — Instantnood 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One article. Upmerge and delete. - SoM 19:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• yah, upmerge and delete Sethie 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. Osomec 14:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Hiding talk
• Merge and delete per nom --Rogerd 03:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groups people based on alleged attendance at San Francisco club retreat. Can't find a similar category and associated bios do not seem to mention club. Do we really want to set up categories based on attendance at Political or social clubs? What's next? Category:Communist Party meeting attendees, Category:Ravenite social club attendees, Category:GLAAD weekend retreat attendees -- JJay 19:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there is only 1 article listed.DocOck 08:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP IT. Attendance at Bohemian Grove is very informative to researchers about historic public figures and their influence over public affairs of their time and afterwards. Historically, many key decisions affecting global business and politics appear to have been made by attendees at Bohemian Grove, or through contacts made possible there. For instance, at minimum Presidents Eizenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, attended Bohemian Grove in the months prior to launching their successful campaigns for President. Innumerable other examples in other fields exist. The problem then seems that not enough is known about this crucial fact that this category makes easier to know.

There is also controversy about alleged activities inside Bohemian Grove, including public protests, such as it's ban on women and allegations of occult ceremonies. Since these congregations involve attendance by important public figures, and all public figures should be accountable for their actions, figures including both Presidents Bush, other former Presidents, Cabinet Officers, and recently the current Governor of California, etc., this category serves an important purpose of showing in one place who attends these functions.

The above objector to this category states that these names of attendees are "alleged" as if questioning their validity. If he/she wishes to object to any specific names, that is one thing, and if based on objective facts, welcome, but he/she uses that logic to imply that the whole category should not exist. On that basis very few categories in Wikipedia could exist!

The entries in this category are valid based on documentation from past newspaper articles, published interviews, doctoral thesis', and other research. If there was a way to cite sources for category inclusion, I was not aware of it, but would be happy to conform these entries to such format. If such a format exists, please notify me of it and the link. Please KEEP "Category:Bohemian Grove attendees", leave it alone! Thank you. Nfgii 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I’m sure Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan did many things before launching their campaigns. They may have visited Bohemian Grove. Their thinking may have changed as a result of these visits. They may need to be held accountable for their visits. In fact, it just occurred to me, they or other historic public figures may have become robots controlled by the Bohemian Club, or even have been replaced by identical clones created by the Bohemian Club. They may now be owned by the Bohemian Club. This could have easily occurred at Bohemian Grove while other attendees were distracted by human sacrifice rituals or servicing from Gay porn stars, activities discussed in our Wiki article. Think about it. Every leading institution in the USA may now be run by Bohemian Club robots or clones, and the influence may be spreading internationally. Thankfully women are excluded from Bohemian Grove, possibly because they might object to the snuff films being made, but who knows, that could change, meaning Bohemian Club indoctrination could start at birth. As most of the Grateful Dead were members, maybe Jerry's death was faked, because he knew too much. These crucial facts are not widely known among the public. I welcome a discussion of this, but do not try to use logic to imply that these ideas should not exist. Hm, maybe I should withdraw the nom... -- JJay 00:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It says in the article The club's membership includes many artists, particularly musicians I can't see many, actually, any of those in this category, why? Arniep 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JJay's comments. Also, the comment from Nfgii sounds like this category exists to satisfy conspiracy theorists. OCNative 07:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cover it in an article. Honbicot 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: KEEP IT. (repeating my above vote) User OCNative implies Wikipedia is not for everybody and IS for censorship when he states: "the comment from Nfgii sounds like this category exists to satisfy conspiracy theorists" Apparently, whatever simple factual information (such as this category in question, of simply who attended some event and when) constitutes "conspiracy theories" to him and should be banned!!! OK, is that how it works in Wikipedia, that to get something I don't like banned from it, all I have to do is call it a "conspiracy theory"???? Good little trick, I'll have to remember it.

Seriously, if users like Honbicot and JJay object to an out of the way and unobstrusive category as this being in place and would prefer this same information be inside a separate article as user Honbicot suggests, or within the Bohemian Grove article itself, this is fine with me too. However, this FACTUAL CONTENT that these users seem to object to would then really be more "in your face" in these articles, and in time make the whole articles unnecessarily large. But as it is, it is viewable only by those who specifically look for it because they think its relevant.

User JJay makes what to me appear sarcastic comments about how many people MIGHT interpret the names in this category. He MIGHT be right, or MIGHT not be. My point is, let people INTERPRET FACTUAL DATA on their own. It's not your job, or my job, to do it for them. Nfgii 14:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Above comment edited to reflect the fact that user has already voted above. Nfgii, you get one vote. You can post further comments if you wish, but you are not permitted to vote a second or third or fourth time. 06:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Conspiracy theory trivia. CalJW 16:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Non-trivial information about notable people. Attendance at Bohemian Grove is not the same as JJay's other examples. Although conspiracy theory nonsense DOES target Bohemian Grove, that does by itself render the category not of historical interest. Herostratus 03:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. This is of incidental conspiracy-theory interest at best. An article on the conspiracy theory is fine; a category grouping people linked to it is simply POV overkill. Bearcat 06:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From WP:CG If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? No and no. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Rick Block. Osomec 14:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat --Rogerd 03:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nonreasonable without conspiracy mania, which is nonverifiable. mikka (t) 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Instantnood 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wacko nonsense. Golfcam 23:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be pluralised in line with naming conventions. Carina22 11:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Honbicot 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Herostratus 03:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Alabama rivers --> Category:Rivers of Alabama
• Category:Alaska rivers --> Category:Rivers of Alaska
• Category:Arizona rivers --> Category:Rivers of Arizona
• Category:Arkansas rivers --> Category:Rivers of Arkansas
• Category:California rivers --> Category:Rivers of California
• Category:Colorado rivers --> Category:Rivers of Colorado
• Category:Connecticut rivers --> Category:Rivers of Connecticut
• Category:Delaware rivers --> Category:Rivers of Delaware
• Category:Florida rivers --> Category:Rivers of Florida
• Category:Georgia (U.S. state) rivers --> Category:Rivers of Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Guam rivers --> Category:Rivers of Guam
• Category:Hawaiian rivers --> Category:Rivers of Hawaii
• Category:Idaho rivers --> Category:Rivers of Idaho
• Category:Illinois rivers --> Category:Rivers of Illinois
• Category:Indiana rivers --> Category:Rivers of Indiana
• Category:Iowa rivers --> Category:Rivers of Iowa
• Category:Kansas rivers --> Category:Rivers of Kansas
• Category:Kentucky rivers --> Category:Rivers of Kentucky
• Category:Louisiana rivers --> Category:Rivers of Louisiana
• Category:Maine rivers --> Category:Rivers of Maine
• Category:Maryland rivers --> Category:Rivers of Maryland
• Category:Massachusetts rivers --> Category:Rivers of Massachusetts
• Category:Michigan rivers --> Category:Rivers of Michigan
• Category:Minnesota rivers --> Category:Rivers of Minnesota
• Category:Minnesota streams --> Category:Streams of Minnesota
• Category:Mississippi rivers --> Category:Rivers of Mississippi
• Category:Missouri rivers --> Category:Rivers of Missouri
• Category:Montana rivers --> Category:Rivers of Montana
• Category:Nebraska rivers --> Category:Rivers of Nebraska
• Category:Nevada rivers --> Category:Rivers of Nevada
• Category:New Hampshire rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Hampshire
• Category:New Jersey rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Jersey
• Category:New Mexico rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Mexico
• Category:New York rivers --> Category:Rivers of New York
• Category:North Carolina rivers --> Category:Rivers of North Carolina
• Category:North Dakota rivers --> Category:Rivers of North Dakota
• Category:Ohio rivers --> Category:Rivers of Ohio
• Category:Oklahoma rivers --> Category:Rivers of Oklahoma
• Category:Oregon rivers --> Category:Rivers of Oregon
• Category:Pennsylvania rivers --> Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania
• Category:Pennsylvania streams --> Category:Streams of Pennsylvania
• Category:Puerto Rico rivers --> Category:Rivers of Puerto Rico
• Category:Rhode Island rivers --> Category:Rivers of Rhode Island
• Category:South Carolina rivers --> Category:Rivers of South Carolina
• Category:South Dakota rivers --> Category:Rivers of South Dakota
• Category:Tennessee rivers --> Category:Rivers of Tennessee
• Category:Texas rivers --> Category:Rivers of Texas
• Category:United States Virgin Islands rivers and streams --> Category:Rivers and streams of the United States Virgin Islands
• Category:Utah rivers --> Category:Rivers of Utah
• Category:Vermont rivers --> Category:Rivers of Vermont
• Category:Virginia rivers --> Category:Rivers of Virginia
• Category:Washington rivers --> Category:Rivers of Washington
• Category:West Virginia rivers --> Category:Rivers of West Virginia
• Category:Wisconsin rivers --> Category:Rivers of Wisconsin
• Category:Wyoming rivers --> Category:Rivers of Wyoming
• Rename all. Wiki-standard is "Rivers of Foo". See: Category:Rivers by country. - Darwinek 11:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to conform to standard. Carina22 11:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all let's keep up the progress on these U.S. and Canada categories. CalJW 21:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all save our endangered adjectives. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Honbicot 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to conform to standard. Gjs238 21:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename looks better, sounds better MONGO 09:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Someone is going to have a lot of work cleaning up redirects. --StuffOfInterest 13:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but are two categories really necessary for Pensylvania? older≠wiser 13:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agreed. River vs. Stream is a subjective distinction, and I think technically, rivers could be regarded as a subset of streams... Just because something isn't called a River doesn't mean it should be shuffled off to some garbage can category...unless there's a serious proposal to also have Category:Runs (waterway) of Pennsylvania, Category:Creeks of Pennsylvania, Category:Brooks of Pennsylvania, Category:Rivulets of Pennsylvania, etc., and for each state (!)... Without some objective criteria for what goes into which category, it all becomes a matter of the mood the person who named the waterway was in, on that fateful day back in 1633 (to pick a random year) when they decided it was a "river", not a "stream". This probably isn't the time or place to make such a proposal, but I think Category:Natural waterways of Foo would be a better idea (see below as well, where I repeat some of this...)... Tomer^TALK 08:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any reason why the proposed rename for the VI isn't Category:Rivers of the United States Virgin Islands Caerwine 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This wasn't my proposal (although I half support it...I'd rather see the preposition "in" rather than "of", but I'm not gonna gripe)...but I think a better category name would be simply Category:Waterways of the United States Virgin Islands. Either that or simply Rivers... Just because something isn't called a Foo River doesn't mean it can't be included in the Rivers category. None of the waterways in the USVI would be described as a "river" by the vast majority of people in the mainland US anyways... so maybe just Streams of the USVI. :-p Tomer^TALK 08:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the other English "Wikipedians by county" categories use full county names. I wondered why i couldnt' find the Buckinghamshire one... this was why - the one exception to the pattern. Grutness...wha? 11:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Carina22 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Arniep 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but frankly I would enjoy seeing this and other "Wikipedians" categories Deleted. I don't see a reason why we take up space talking about people who are only notable for using Wikipedia.Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WIkipedian cats as first preference, rename as a second. -Splash^talk 17:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I actually find these things quite handy: if you have a question about a place in that county or (especially) need an image of something nearby it's very handy to be able to pinpoint someone who lives in that place that can get it for you. -- Francs2000 14:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 23:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See notes on Category:Christian scientists page. Rnt20 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per discussion at category talk:Christian scientists. It's confusing enough. — Instantnood 22:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Arniep 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename When I saw that name I thought you meant people who follow Christian Science! This category name needs to be used for people who follow Christian Science, not for scientists who are Christian.Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Golfcam 12:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename because of confusion with members of Church of Christ, Scientist. Herostratus 03:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• rename Sethie 07:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I made the same confusion as several others when reading the title. --StuffOfInterest 13:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Obvious confusion for the Christian Science religion when it's actually about scientists who are Christians. -- Crevaner 22:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename-I sort of proposed this awhile back, but at the wrong place and then I got confused on instructions. Although maybe a Category of Christian Scientists(the religion) could also be useful.(Or not, I have no strong feelings there)--T. Anthony 13:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun.Joshbaumgartner 06:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename as category:aircraft carriers of the People's Republic of China. The PRC has never, until this moment, had any serving aircraft carrier in its military. Varyag may be being used for military purpose (in a dry dock), while Minsk is part of a theme park. — Instantnood 16:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's why I proposed the China category as opposed to a PLAN or even PRC category. The broader category makes it unnecessary to delve into the intricacies of the ownership and operational histories of the Minsk and Varyag, which haven't always been clear or stable. Readers can read the articles to learn the detailed stories. Joshbaumgartner 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlike submarines, there's little use of aircraft carriers functioning as such outside of military. Both Varyag and Minsk are not being used as aircraft carriers, and Varyag has never been used as such. That was why I suggested to delete the category. If the category is to be kept, it'd better be renamed to avoid possible ambiguity, and to go in line with naming conventions. — Instantnood 21:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The so called convention is wrong. I wish I hadn't started this process. CalJW 21:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete China has no aircraft carriers. It has a former aircraft carrier parked in a theme park and rusting hull in a dock. What, if I write up some articles about the history of the original boats in Submarine Voyage can I create Category:Submarines of Disneyland as a sub-cat of Category:Navy of California? If I browse to a sub-cat of the Chinese military, I expect to find military ships. Not theme park rides or a rusting hull that were military ships for other countries who eventually were retired in China. There are mothballed ships in the US that came from the Eastern Bloc too, there was a former Soviet sub docked in Elliot Bay for several years, but even if they had Wikipedia articles they wouldn't belong to a military of the US category. SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I see no reason not to have Submarines of Disneyland if you can make the submarines in Submarine Voyage notable enough to have articles. A systematic bias against commercial submarines is a bad idea. I don't see why you would have it as a subcat of Navy of California, instead of ships of California (if somesuch category exists). As for military theme-park, if it's a museum display, sure, keep it as an aircraft carrier. If it's a "demonstration" ship, ditto. As for rusting hulks... we have the USS United States, an aircraft carrier that has never been in service, that was never completed, in the aircraft carrier categories, and the HMS Queen Elizabeth never started construction. The Varyag is intact, such as it is, and was not shipped to China to be sent to the breakers, and is owned by Chinese interests. 132.205.44.134 02:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agreed with above. The category need to be retained because it is a subject people will be looking for information on. They can then read the individual articles to learn the real stories behind these supposed aircraft carriers. There are numerous articles about proposed or half-built ships and the like which never entered service, but they still are notable for researchers. If the category simply doesn't exist, then some may conclude that Wiki has no articles on the matter. Joshbaumgartner 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but these ships have other categories they belong to - indeed, that they are better known for. It's not like these two articles will be lost without this category. SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why have a category page for one article? MONGO 09:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: There are in fact two. — Instantnood 18:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename .--Jondel 09:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country" for official policy. Aircraft carriers (being military equipment), should conform to official "... of country" format. Joshbaumgartner 16:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Varyag, which building as a carrier has not completed, may arguably be using for military purpose (in a dry dock), Minsk is simply part of a theme park. Perhaps we can categorise Varyag to the military category of the PRC, Minsk to a theme park category, and both to category:aircraft carriers. — Instantnood 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Minsk can be placed in both "aircraft carrier" and "theme park" categories. Joshbaumgartner 16:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about Varyag? :-) — Instantnood 15:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remame as proposed. --Vizcarra 15:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. - TexasAndroid 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not to sysops: Renaming to China instead of the People's Republic of China may not be going in line with the naming conventions for categories and the naming conventionsfor Chinese-related topics. — Instantnood 15:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun, plus fixing the spelling error. Joshbaumgartner 06:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment err hello!!!? It says CANANDIAN!! Arniep 23:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wish I hadn't started this process. The "of" form is pointless for ships. CalJW 21:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The path to this category is from Category:Naval ships of Canada, from Category:Ships of Canada and Category:Military equipment of Canada. The of Foo form you refer to is no more 'pointless' than the Fooian form, inherently. The of Foo form has the distinct advantage of avoiding the confusion of national adjectives (American v. United States, etc.) by using the proper name of the country to which it refers. The only argument I've seen for Fooian form is that it 'sounds better' to some people. Since the of Foo form 'sounds better' to some people as well, this gets us nowhere. Joshbaumgartner 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Arniep 23:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country" for official policy. Aircraft carriers (being military equipment) should conform to official "... of country" format. Joshbaumgartner 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. --Vizcarra 15:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. - TexasAndroid 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun.Joshbaumgartner 05:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose as above. I wish I hadn't started this process. As I recall most of them were "Fooish ships" to start with and they should all move that way. CalJW 21:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What are the criteria in the choice between Fooian something and something of Foo? — Instantnood 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: good question. i don t know what the need to not use Fooian something is?? -Mayumashu 03:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main criterion is consistency. If all categories related to fruit are in the form "Apples from Germany", then you should not create "Spanish bananas". Radiant_>|< 16:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then what decide how the majority should be named? — Instantnood 15:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Happenstance, mostly. Discussion on CFD, otherwise. Radiant_>|< 10:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Arniep 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Jondel 08:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country" for official policy. Military equipment (of which aircraft carriers are a descendent) are to be in the "... of country" format. In fact, official policy even states this matter should be a speedy. Joshbaumgartner 16:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. --Vizcarra 15:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. - TexasAndroid 15:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Joshbaumgartner 05:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete unless it is populated, but I hope it will be back. CalJW 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless populated.Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is that really he correct name? Do such things exist? Arniep 23:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They do, but service as a barracks ship is usually unrelated to the commissioned service of a vessel (often the use for a hulk or other hull destined for scrap). However, there is no reason to assume that this couldn't be populated at some point. Until it is though, we shouldn't have an empty category sitting around. Joshbaumgartner 03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus to delete these type of Jewish categories was reached earlier in 2005 [1] and these categories should either have been deleted or not been created in the first place (probably, they were introduced by users unaware of the earlier decision/s), following the consensus to delete reached at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people. IZAK 02:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Please note: a consensus was reached to delete all Jewish categories which link ethnicity with country not with occupation The original reasons cited are still the same: "The splintering of categories about Jewish people is getting out of hand, and must be tightened. Too many "frivolous categories" (as in "Frivolous lawsuits") for Jews are being created on Wikipedia. The [above] sub-categories about Jews (many of whom did not even care to be identified as such!) are proposed for deletion because they are either empty/orphans, or their contents can correctly be found in other similar categories Category:Lists of Jews of lists -- or of [for example] Category:Lists of Jewish Americans, or they are basically duplicates of "List" articles in categories by country such as Category:Jewish Spanish history that can include the information [if needed]." IZAK 02:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. mikka (t) 03:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Third. Tomer^TALK 08:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above are duplicate votes, please vote below the list.

They're not votes. Go read Roberts Rules of Order. Tomer^TALK 08:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Americans

This category should have been deleted following the consensus to delete reached at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people.

Category:Austrian Jews

This category should have been deleted following the consensus to delete reached at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people.

Category:Jewish American actors

Category:Jewish baseball players

Category:Argentine Jews

Category:Jewish Canadians

Category:Hungarian Jews

Category:Jewish Mexicans

Category:Jewish chess players

Category:Jewish musicians

Category:Jewish classical musicians

Category:Jewish film directors

Category:Jewish scientists

Category:Jewish visual artists

Category:Jewish philosophers

• Delete all the above as stated above. IZAK 03:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. mikka (t) 03:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as per previous consensus. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Moving to abstain. Looks like I misunderstood what the original consensus was. I'd be happy to revisit these nominations on an individual basis, but this group nomination contains a mix-and-match of keeps and deletes. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness: It's not a "mix and match" at all. Take a careful look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people, of which all should have been deleted, and you'll also see that the vote then also included Jews by occupation. IZAK 05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's exactly the problem. The nomination mixes Jews by occupation with Jews by nationality. Some people are voting for/against one, the other or both. And it's a mess now. I am not convinced that the consensus was to wipe all traces of Jewish people categories, because if it was then all ethnicities would have to disappear as well. --Vizcarra 12:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Look guys, if you delete this you have to delete every single other "ethnicity-American" category out there (and we got one for every major group, believe me). No fair otherwise. And "Jewish American actors" just survived an AFD, I'm not sure why there's another one. You can't delete, say, "Jewish Americans", without deleting "Irish-Americans", "Norwegian-Americans" and so on. And yes, those other categories ALSO have already-existing list versions. Gee, I wonder why Jewish Americans always gets nominated for deletion first...Vulturell 05:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: So if I read that correctly, you would change your vote to delete if the others were nominated too? --Kbdank71 17:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I absolutely wouldn't. I'm say you CAN'T delete "Jewish Americans" without deleting "Irish-Americans" or "Norwegian-Americans". It's singling out a particular ethnic group for deletion. We are supposed to apply the same standards for every group.Vulturell 18:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vulturall: You seem to have missed the point that there already is a huge category for Jews in Category:Lists of Jews (not nomintaed for deletion). The idea is to limit the repetition! IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete ... take out the garbage already. Tomer^TALK 08:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anti-Semitism on the rise. :( - Darwinek 10:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not call IZAK antisemite. Even if you were joking, please check your facts. mikka (t) 17:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Darwinek: You obviously know nothing about me! Furthermore, there is already Category:Lists of Jews that contains all the names of Jews. Wikipedia does not need repetition! IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, This is anti-Judaism, and If these categories deleted, we can't make list (for example, Category:Hungarian Jews). --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 13:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes we can. If the vote to delete will prevail, you may go and in 2 minutes do cut'n'paste (ou even may it leave to someone else to format the list). 17:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sheynhertz: It's not "anti-Judaism", there already exists the plentiful Category:Lists of Jews not nominated for deletion! IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I find I'm very confused by these categories, they are in the category tree as both an ethnicity and a religion, which to me doesn't seem right. Hiding talk 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all except Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Jewish baseball players, the first due to the reasons I argued before against that category, and the second as being too specific. I don't think it is right that all these categories are nominated together just because they contain the word Jewish as they really have different merits and deserve individual discussion. Arniep 13:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arniep, your complaint is not justified, it was successfully done in the past (to delete these kind of categories), see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people IZAK 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep. Unbelievably antisemitic to single out Jewish-related Cats/Subcats for deletion in a site awash in religious/ethnic/racial categorizations. 12.73.194.50 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What silliness, there is already the huge Category:Lists of Jews which is very extensive, no need to "stress" the Jewish ones. IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I'm not against categorization by ethnicity per se, but such categorization has to a) have some meaningful purpose (left-handed Norwegian-Americans, for example, would not serve any useful purpose); b) not be redundant to lists; and c) bear some relationship to the individual. For example, Karl Rove has identified himself as a Norwegian-American, so categorizing him that way is fair game. But there are undoubtedly other celebrities with Norwegian ancestry who think it's entirely incidental. (And I'm using Norwegian-Americans as a strawman to make this a principled discussion, rather than one about whether someone is Jewish or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 November 2005

I understand your objection to the Jewish American category, as some people included do not identify themselves as a Jewish American. However, this applies to all the (ethnicity) American categories so I propose that either all the (ethnicity) American should be renamed Americans of (ethnicity) descent to remove any problem with giving a person a label which they do not apply to themselves or make those new categories and only put people in the (ethnicity) American categories when we are absolutely sure they identify as such. Arniep 14:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second idea would really be a matter of debate, again and could be POV for certain individuals because we are not sure. However, I'm not sure exactly why you think Karl Rove is a good example. He's something like 1/4 Norwegian, and just because he's spoken about it doesn't mean he thinks of himself as "Norwegian". Obviously, for most of the people in ethnicity based categories, we wouldn't even know about their ancestry unless they've somehow identified themselves as such publically.Vulturell 18:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on most, but strong delete for Category:Jewish American actors - overcategorisation. I am saddened that some people have made comments assigning anti-semitic motives - without any evidence - to those who wish to delete these cats. Do we no longer work on the basis of assuming good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette? Valiantis 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basic premise behind this vote for deletion is that there already exists Category:Lists of Jews that includes these names. IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per previous consensus and above comments. --Kbdank71 14:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This blanket nomination is somewhat dishonest and misleading in claiming that there was previously a consensus to delete these categories. IZAK claims that a consensus was reached to delete Jewish categories in April, however, the vote was only on categories which tie Jewish and country together, the vote was not on any categories which list Jews by occupation only. Arniep 14:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, so now it's "dishonesty"? So then it must be you who is now being truly dishonest because if you bother to look at the history of the last vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15 you will see it included SEVEN categories that included occupations, such as Category:Jewish American artists and it was agreed that the List of Jewish American artists which was part of Category:Lists of Jewish Americans was enough (same for the rest). So get your facts right BEFORE hurling false accusations. Please apologize! IZAK 04:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per the above. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It seems to me that what IZAK and others are, perhaps unintentionally, saying, by deleting these categories, is that if you are not Israeli you cannot identify as Jewish, thus saying that all the Jewish people before the creation of Israel cannot identify as Jewish- Stella Adler, Jacob Pavlovitch Adler, Sigmund Freud, Moses Mendelssohn you are officially not Jewish, by decree of Wikipedia!!! Arniep 15:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is not what is being said at all. People are merely stating that it is perhaps not a useful distinction to make at such fine levels through the categorisation tool, but rather these distinctions are better suited to lists. I don't see anyone suggesting Category:Jews for deletion, where such people as you accuse Wikipedia of decreeing not Jewish can be suitably categorised. Hiding talk 16:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment As I said before, Jewish people have a cultural identity akin to that of nation so they should be allowed their own occupation categories as nations do, otherwise we discriminate against Jews who lived before the creation of Israel. Unfortunately, the Jewish lists are being deleted with the reasoning that the equivalent categories exist so there seems to be a bit of a mess here. Arniep 17:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment Category:Jews is not very helpful; it would get too big and cumbersome if it were the only appropriate category. - Poetlister 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep, stop your silly arguments please, see Category:Lists of Jews, this has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with not repeating information listed in categories already. IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Such lists are sensible encyclopaedic information - RachelBrown 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and lists are different things, even if arguments overlap. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel: are you saying that it makes to have double categories, such as these here and also Category:Lists of Jews? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. Why in the world would we want to delete this? It is a perfectly valid categorization and does not imply any kind of racial/religious segregation. It is just another way of grouping people, in the same way Category:Argentine footballers does. There is no reason for deleting jewish groupings by country. Category:Argentine jewish footballers would be too narrow. But, IMHO, being jewish is not very much different (in some aspects) on being a footballer. It is a choice you make, something voluntary and something that can be used to describe you. Deleting this category is wrong. If you nominate this one and not all other descriptive categories is inconsistent at least. Needless to say, I would oppose that one too. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite...because you already have Category:Lists of Jews. IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I never thought I'd vote in one of these beauty parades, but this proposal is so shockingly, obscenely racist that I could not abstain. All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. - Taxwoman 18:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Racism it is not! Why do we need to have these and the duplicates of names at Category:Lists of Jews? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain More than enough people have voted already. Could some of you please consider voting on other proposals on this page, as much of it gets little attention. CalJW 21:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people don't care about the others. - Poetlister 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they would. On any objective assessment the overall category structure of wikipedia is much more important than the arrangement of wikipedia's coverage of Jewish issues. This is a clear case of systemic bias towards a focus on certain sensitive issues rather than overall work on creating a general interest encyclopedia. CalJW 11:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep for all. Same goes for every other religion. -- JJay 21:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names of these people already exists in Category:Lists of Jews not nominated for deletion. IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What part of Strong Keep do you not understand? Are you calling me stupid? I want more of these lists and categories for every religion that exists or has ever existed. Put then in duplicate or triplicate. I don't care what religion or what list. If there is any religion in the title I vote strong keep. Every possible permutation works for me- List of Christian American employees- good stuff and an obvious keeper. List of living Buddhists- tells me what I need to know. Keep It. Strongly. I have already outlined this policy. The list could be empty- still strong keep. I voted strong keep today for an Amish bakery. Why? Amish, that's why. It could have been Unverified list of some non-notable Quakers. Same thing. I am fed up with having to vote every day on Jew lists, then Catholic lists, then back to Jew lists, with some Christianity lists thrown in for spice. Sometimes the same list over and over, submitted by anons, new users etc. etc. Is that clear? Is there something else you'ld like to badger me with?-- JJay 07:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJay: A lot of what you say here runs counter to the present way things work at Wikipedia. If you will list categories in "duplicate or triplicate" then they will most definitely be nominated for deletion (of duplicates/triplicates...in fact I am doing so right now), no question about it. "Every possible permutation" is not encyclopedic and not notable and not scholarly, this is not Google, we are trying to cut back on Internet clutter and organize information, not add to the craziness of the web. An empty list is an orphan and will be deleted. If you think that "everything goes" then it sounds more like a blog (?), but I doubt that Wikipedia will tolerate having tons of repeat, useless, or empty space on it. If you don't enjoy voting about something, so then don't. No-one is obliged to stick around and vote all day on subjects that drive them bats. IZAK 08:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You are right to point out my error. I actually didn't mean duplicate or triplicate. I meant duplicate or triplicate squared. I want carbon copies of the results. I didn't mean "every possible permutation". I meant to say "every possible permutation + sincere attempts at the impossible". With and without content. Wasn't that clear from my previous examples? Try this logic out. I did not create these lists. I do not use these lists. I have never contributed to these lists. Religion does not even interest me very much. But I want more lists. I want them kept as strongly as anything can be kept. I may employ a service to warn me if any item with a known or unknown religion in its title is nominated, so my Strong Keep can stand proud and brave at the head of the pack. If Wikipedia has to hire temp workers to man the shredders 24 hours a day to get rid of the excessive religious lists that now clog the hallways and byways at Wikipedia HQ, like a diseased heart, well so be it. I call them as I see them. Thank you. No-one is obliged to nominate these lists. Have I questioned whether they enjoy it? Do you enjoy browbeating me with your authoritive knowledge of Wikipedia policy? I have voted, I have tried to respond to your inquiries, I hide nothing. Good day. -- JJay 08:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Pointing out now, as I always will, that EVERY SINGLE OTHER ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS GROUP HAS A DOUBLE LISTING IN THE SENSE THAT YOU TALK ABOUT. If you don't nominate at least one of those for deletion before (as no doubt you will) you re-nominate the Jewish cats separately, I will remove any new Jewish-related CFD by you on grounds of Extreme Annoyance.Vulturell 08:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, will you also undo what was voted and decided upon in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people? The fact remains you have TWO categories for Jews as in the case of Category:Jewish Americans and Category:Lists of Jewish Americans which is ALSO (i.e. it doubles as) a CATEGORY of Jewish names. No other group has this, and it's not needed, as other groups don't have it. Other ethnic/religious groups do not have this. Are you about to ignore all the users who are expressing themsleves on this page and do something BEFORE the expiration of a VfD? I will ask for arbitration then. IZAK 08:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously things have changed since April 15th, since right now the "Keep" votes outnumber the Deletes. Back then there wasn't a single "Keep". Category:Lists of Jews is NOT A LISTING OF NAMES. It's a LINK to various Lists. Not its own category. We don't add names to this category, just lists. That's the difference. What I said was that I would remove any FUTURE CFD's on these same Jewish categories (I.e. separate ones) by you, not the ones under current discussion because I am tired of you relentlessly nominating Jewish categories exclusively.Vulturell 08:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatver the outcome of the vote here, we will all abide by it as per our rules. However I do not get your "threat", what "AFD"s are you talking about? What kind of statement is that? Why are you using threats? How often do I get involved in "AFD"s? You are insulting my skill as a Wikipedian and my devotion to maintaining a high standrd for its articles. Stick to the point of the present CfD will you and we'll cross future bridges when we get to them. IZAK 08:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not talking about these CFDs or the outcome. What I am saying is that no doubt, based on this discussion, someone is going to CFD these categories AGAIN (separately this time) in the very near future and I am not threatening, I am stating as fact that I am going to remove that future AFD on grounds of extreme annoyance at this special attention to "cleaning up" Jewish categories, attention which is not given to any other ethnic or religious category or list.Vulturell 08:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Errr, this page is for C fD (C ategories for deletion) and NOT A fD (A rticles for deletion) which has its own section/page on Wikipedia. No wonder you are getting me confused. You are mixing up cfd with afd. So you are saying you will be on the lookout for the categories and/or for articles? Or both? (I guess since "Lists" go under "articles" you are getting confused.) Anyhow, as I have said before, I am not proposing that "Lists" be deleted. I think that lists are neater work better than categories in many instances. But others may differ. Just we don't need double categories for the same people for now. IZAK 08:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • • I was talking about removing any upcoming CFD's from these same categories that are nominated right now. I also said that if you want to nominate Category:Lists of Jews go ahead because it isn't actually a list and I don't care about it. In my opinion the category "Jewish Americans" is better than a List.Vulturell 08:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. — Instantnood 21:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have double mentioning of the names within these categories and also Category:Lists of Jews? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please be reminded ((cfdu)) should be used instead. — Instantnood 22:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for all. - Poetlister 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, you already have Category:Lists of Jews? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for all. Please not that the consensus was not to delete all sub-categories of Jewish people but instead to delete their sub-sub-categories, for example Jewish American actors/baseballers/writers, etc. --Vizcarra 23:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, you already have Category:Lists of Jews? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same can be said about most lists and categories. The purpose of keeping them as categories is for navigation. The purpose of lists are to include people, objects that do not have a wikipedia article yet. Both lists and categories have different purposes. And I feel you are being overzealous by responding to every "keep" vote with a mention of "why if we already have lists". You've made your point. Let people vote. If we don't have these sub-categories (by nationality) the Category:Jewish people will grow so large it will be useless. --Vizcarra 12:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for all. This is what categories are for. LISTS are useless User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ejrrjs: Yet, the lists themselves are so large that they have their own Category:Lists of Jews which cannot be brushed away either. IZAK 05:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So should we nominate everything in Category:Lists of Jews for deletion? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. (all) Lists are a poor substitute of database functionality (they allow for redundancy, lack of consistency, etc.). Categories are a step in the right direction. User:Ejrrjs says What? 07:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. If I had to chose one I would pick the categories. Categories and the people's entries are tied together nicely (but the lists and entries aren't), and you can't add someone completely non-Jewish like John Updike (who I've seen added - and removed myself from a Jewish list) to a category like "Jewish Americans" without the regulars on his article noticing and taking it down as non-factual. Also please nominate the other lists (Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans) for deletion if you do the Jewish lists. I am not making an ultimatium here or anything, I am just asking you politely because those lists suffer from the exact same problems as the Jewish lists and are also better in category form, and because we have to be consistant and not keep any of these lists around if we delete one or a group.Vulturell 07:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep country categories; this has previously been determined to be a valid categorization scheme, and Category:Jews would be unfathomably large and unwieldy without some form of subcategorization. Per category discussion on gender/race/sexuality/etc. categorization, keep occupational categories for which encyclopedic articles about distinctively Jewish contributions in that field of endeavour could realistically be written, and delete ones for which that type of article couldn't be written. I leave it to those more knowledgeable about Jewish topics to determine which is which, except to say that "Jewish baseball players" is almost certainly the latter kind and "Jewish philosophers" is probably the former. This really should not be a mass nomination. Bearcat 23:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat: Group nominations are done all the time for categories, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people. How can you justify also having List of Jews by country in Category:Lists of Jews? IZAK 05:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that group nominations are done; I'm suggesting that this particular instance is not one where it was an appropriate approach. They're not all equally deletion-worthy. Bearcat 07:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, except for Jewish baseball players. All of the other mentioned categories tell a story to some degree, but I don't see anything special about being Jewish in a baseball player. -- Mkill 00:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a system called Category:Lists of Jews so why double the info? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - please don't throw accusation of antisemitism lightly. I don't see what's the problem. For example, why could Waldemar Haffkine be included into Category:Indian doctors , Category:Ukrainian scientists, but not Category:Jewish scientists. Of course certain cats/lists are too compartmentalized or contain wrong/questionable names, but that's another story. I am against wholesale removal. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all - It's time to put an end to this massive array which has piled up beneath our noses. Antidote 06:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish + state (Category:Argentine Jews, Category:Jewish Canadians, Category:Hungarian Jews, etc.). Neutral on others. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jmabel: So then what do you make of the earlier vote to delete such categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people? IZAK 05:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I make of it what I made of it then:

Delete all of the "Jewish American such-and-such profession" categories, if they are being used at the expense of including Jews with other Americans. Jewish culture in America is not that distinct from American culture in general. I certainly agree with Hooperbloob about making sure these are added to the corresponding "American such-and-such profession" categories. Perhaps retain Category:Jewish American: I suspect that if we get rid of it, it will simply resurface, anyway. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all - ESPECIALLY Category:Hungarian Jews, Category:Jewish Canadians, Category:Jewish Americans and Category:Austrian Jews -- as they all have their own lists and repeating them is just another case of enormously repetitive listing of jews thats been going on lately. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 07:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - except for Baseball Players, all these categories are well filled with people and certainly warrant being kept. DocOck 08:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why have them listed twice, both here and at Category:Lists of Jews? IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some, delete some. Utter and complete mess to group nominate all of these. However, it strikes me badly that there are so many more Jewish Foos categories than there are for any other groups of people. It's bothersome to me that the Jewish Foos have been sliced and diced in every imaginable micro-category, while everyone else who did anything is uncategorized (well, less categorized). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone who voted with a some insulting comment about the alleged anti-semitism of other editors is violating WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and generally being a schmuck. Just stop it!

I can sympathize with whoever made that comment because they are most likely tired of the weekly nominations of these categories and lists. Obviously, based on the votes above, these categories aren't getting deleted. Yet you know that in about two weeks to a month they'll be nominated for deletion again (probably in a couple of days, actually, as we can now expect separate nominations for each category). And again. And again. It's boring and stupid and pointless and I'm sure that whoever made those comments is just as tired as I am of this process, which miraculuously only ever seems to involve categories relating to Jewish people. I really hope they nominate an Irish, Albanian or Norwegian category next time too. The Presbyterians category wouldn't hurt either.Vulturell 08:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Jewish categories and lists keep getting nominated because they have the most numerous amount of pointless articles? Also, most Jewish lists that have been nominated recently HAVE been deleted - it's only these categories that (from the looks of it) won't because they are all grouped together. IMO, Category:Hungarian Jews and Category:Austrian Jews seriously needs to go. There was already a deletion of a duplicate Austrian jewish list recently - I can't believe there's yet another duplicate article. StabRule 10:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! There are two aspects here. There are so many more Jewish categories than any other ethnicity/religion, that if you throw a dart you're practically assured of hitting one. But also, I think some deletion nominators find something wrong with this very multitude, and that unconsciously (or consciously) prompts them to try to prune some of the individual ones that seem excessive. You can't nominate an Albanian category for deletion if it doesn't exist in the first place. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The goyim have not been completely excluded- let's not forget all the Catholic lists that have also been nominated recently. This is all fairly sickening and is driving people away from the wiki. I feel like citing Martin Niemöller here but that might not be kosher. -- JJay 16:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem here seems to be that there are categories AND lists for Jewish people. But that is also the case with Albanians, Norwegians, etc. However, the Albanian caegory more or less has 3 people on it (the two Belushis and Eliza Dushku) and I have to say it is more or less complete (Dushku said in an an interview "I'm the one" when it comes to Albanian celebrities, I think she forgot the Belushis). It is true that there are more famous Jewish Americans than Norwegian or Albanian Americans, but it doesn't mean their category has to go first.Vulturell 18:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There might well be more famous Jewish Americans than Norwegian Americans, and certainly than Albanians. But there are far fewer Jewish Americans than there are Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, or Mexican Americans (even if you limit things to the "famous" ones). And yet those other groups have barely any categories associated with them. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case for Polish-Americans, although you are correct about Irish/Italian. Those groups have all have a separate list i.e. "List Of Irish-Americans", etc. and they have plenty of categories including the obvious "Italian-Americans", "Irish-American Politicians", etc.Vulturell 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to a quick search [2]:

In 1970 [...] statistics for the Polonia coming from the same source are 4,941,000 Americans of Polish descent (2.4% of the population)

So maybe "far fewer" is a slight overstatement for Polish Americans, but definitely fewer Jewish Americans. Neither group has had much new immigration to the USA since 1970, but I'm pretty sure the birth rate of Polish Americans has been slightly higher than for Jewish Americans since 1970 (and there's been a moderate Jewish emmigration, but essentially no Polish emmigration). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nono I don't think you understood me. No doubt there are more Polish-Americans but I am saying there are less NOTABLE Polish-Americans. For example, I am huge actor/movie buff and I've added the "Polish-Americans" cat to just about every actor of 1/4 or more Polish descent - and there are a lot less people than "Jewish American actors".Vulturell 08:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of no informational value, potentially stigmatizing, often not supported by fact. JFW | T@lk 20:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I guess. Seems like reasonable info for an encylopedia.Herostratus 03:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and it's enough to have these names already included in Category:Lists of Jews. IZAK 04:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I just love how you keep saying that. Yes, these names (well, most) are included in the lists as well. Just as the people under Category:Irish-Americans are included in "List Of Irish-Americans", Category:Roman Catholics in "List Of Roman Catholics", etc. I also just love how you managed to exclude any of those lists or categories from your ever-watchful, deletion-minded eye.Vulturell 06:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, Vulturall: It is you that is confusing things. I am not talking about deleting the "Lists" of anything, but when in fact there is also a CATEGORY for Jewish lists, as in Category:Lists of Jews we DO NOT need to have the Jews mentioned TWICE in categories: For example to be once in Category:Jewish Americans and then a SECOND time in Category:Lists of Jewish Americans. I say keep the latter, and delete the former, because these individuals do not have to be mentioned twice in categories of who is Jewish when just once will do. IZAK 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you get it. The names are NOT MENTIONED in Category:Lists of Jews. Lists of Jews is just a link to, indeed, the various Lists of Jews. Thus the names are mentioned TWICE, once in the category "Jewish Americans" and once in "List Of Jewish Americans". Category:Lists of Jews is just a LINK to the various "List Of Jewish Americans". The same for Irish-Americans, their names are mentioned TWICE, once in the list and once in their cat. Please stop trying to make Category:Lists of Jews seem like a THIRD time that the names are mentioned. It's just a navigational tool.Vulturell 08:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WHat you call "just a navigational tool" is a matter of interpretation and familiarity with using Wikipedia. Any intelligent user will be able to do a search on any name and see where they belong, first on the list, and then with the list as part of category they can search for more names and lists. I am not underestimating the intellignce of Wikipedia users, whereas you seem to want to create zillions of categories for a few million Jews. IZAK 08:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you don't like this navigational tool nominate it for deletion. I don't really care because it's NOT A LISTING OF NAMES, it just makes it easier to navigate. If you think it doesn't make it easier for smart people go ahead and nominate that category (as in Category:Lists of Jews for deletion). All I want is a cateory called "Jewish Americans" (which already exists and which I doubt will be deleted). I realize there is also a "List of Jewish Americans", but I have no strong feelings towards it because that's the case with the Category "Irish-Americans" (i.e. the info is duplicated in List of Irish-Americans"). That's all I want. It's not unreasonable because if the category "Jewish Americans" is deleted than Ben Stiller would only be listed under "Irish-Americans" which is not completely accurate without the Jewish Americans category also there and the same for Jennifer Connelly and so on and so on. You can't take one of these categories out but leave the rest.Vulturell 08:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. These reproducing sub-categories often represent the worst of Wikipedia. We don't use a consistent definition of who is Jewish, we've no idea what sources were used by the articles listed or what definition those sources used, inclusion in the cats is potentially stigmatizing, we're categorizing as Jewish people who may not self-identify as such, they have no informational value, and the number of sub-categories makes things hard to find, when the point of categories is meant to be to help people find things. I'd delete all the Lists of Jewish ... (philosophers with blonde hair who smoke Camel) for the same reasons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all that already have a list - like List of Jews in visual arts, List of Jewish musicians, List of Hungarian Jews, List of Austrian Jews, List of Jewish Americans OR delete the corresponding lists and keep the categories. Strong delete for Category:List of Jewish classical musicians <--- way too specific. StabRule 06:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This vote was made as a personal attack on me, because this user is a multiple sock puppet user whose been carrying out a campaign against Jewish lists, he specifically singled out the classical musicians category because I created it. Arniep 13:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I singled it out because about 10 other lists exist exactly like it - and it's way too specific. I also would like for you to act at least minimally more mature as I have explained to you perhaps 100 bazillian times that I have not sockpuppeted (in fact, you introduced me to the term) and don't do anything to spite you - in fact, you certainly do much more to spite me. StabRule 21:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete plenty of lists covering these same people for the most part.--MONGO 09:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - a list does some things a category can't, and a category does some things a list can't, so saying "delete this category because there is a list" is clearly faulty reasoning. I believe that the entire VfD situation for religious categories and lists has gotten absurd, with no attempts whatsoever to establish a remotely consistent, orderly schematic for what lists and categories are worth keeping and when in these situations. I propose a massive vote on this issue in the style of those Gdansk/Danzig votes and other much-needed consensus polls to determine what we should and shouldn't aim to keep and thus keep the VfD pages from being daily flooded with countless ambiguous, isolated, disorganized, and poorly-reasoned-out nominations for religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation + x. Otherwise we'll just keep going in circles and waste valuable time that should be spent improving our important categories, lists and articles, not going back and forth and back and forth over which to annihilate. -Silence 12:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone is in a category for Americans, and Jews, and Visual Artists, it is pretty easy to figure out that they are a Jewish American Visual Artist. If others insist on subcategorizing to such a degree, then you end up with x*y*z subs where x is the number of countries, y is the number of religions, and z is the number of professions. Oh, and of course we can throw in a few more groups like gender and sexual orientation just to knock the number of further. --StuffOfInterest 13:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sensible ones, delete the frivolous ones. For instance, keep Jewish-Americans or Jewish Physicists, delete Jewish left-handeds. (for example only). Gzuckier 22:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Since the site already has numerous categories for the ethnicities of people, the above categories are completely appropriate. -- Crevaner 22:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe there needs to be some sort of consensus on hopw to structure the category tree with regards to categories such as these if, judging by the consensus above, they are kept. I personally would prefer to see a whole new category branch, "ethnic group" people in "area", so rather than Jewish chess players we have Jewish people in chess. This could then be placed in Category:Chess rather than in Category:Chess players and also in a Category:Chess players by ethnicity and Category:Jewish people by occupational area. This would also allow for categories such as Category:African-American people in music and so on and so forth, and help keep the category system as useful as possible. Otherwise I feel we are over-categorising, and possibly woirking against the purpose of informing, by having such categories as Category:Chess players subdivided by ethnicity, which is the logical conclusion if the current scheme continues. The point of the categorisation is surely to classify as usefully as possible, and allow for such classification to be presented as usefully as possible. Surely it makes sense to have a category which simply lists all people who are chess players? Hiding talk 14:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Jewish American actors, Category:Jewish baseball players, Category:Jewish chess players, Category:Jewish musicians, Category:Jewish classical musicians, Category:Jewish film directors, Category:Jewish scientists,Category:Jewish visual artists, and Category:Jewish philosophers—occupation-by-ethnicity categories are unnecessary and useless without annotations to describe what the relationship was of the ethnicity to the occupation, if any. There likely were a few people whose Jewishness had an academically meaningful impact upon their baseball careers, but that's not going to be true of all Jewish baseball players. Annotated lists are the only way to seriously document such things rather than merely grouping them together in a classificatory ethnic fan club that ignores the need for relevance and comparative importance. No vote as to the others. Postdlf 02:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment This user has already voted! Arniep 13:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, and sorry, Arnie. Two days is a long time for my poor memory. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, I don't think any subjects should be categorized by their ethnicity. Or is this a religious thing? --maclean25 05:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name is currently out of compliance with similar categories. --Nlu 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename CalJW 21:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Arniep 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy renameVulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename DocOck 08:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses of whom? The category name itself is not useful, and there are no standards listed. The people classified in the category itself should suggest that the category is not useful. Strong delete. --Nlu 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good quirky category that seems to have been populated with care. CalJW 21:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Potentially endless list of non-notables. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Completely worthless. -- JJay 21:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there any list or category for people who're famous just because they're spouses of somebody? — Instantnood 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what do you do if they are both equally famous, or you are not sure which is the most famous? Ridiculous. Arniep 21:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely useless category. As the nominator stated, even the name of the category is ridiculously ambiguous. I'm a spouse, does that mean I get to list myself? Can I list my mom? What about my sister? Utterly nonsensical. Soltak | Talk 23:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a spouse, or even a S.O. is complete NN and unencyclopedic. User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So we add every article about everybody to this list who was or is married? How many articles would that be??? -- Mkill 00:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The name in itself is confusing. Is it for people who are only notable for being married to someone, or two famous people who were married, or what?Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename. I've briefly glanced through what's in this category, and I'd say until this moment it's kept to cover only people who're famous mainly because they're the spouses of somebody else. It's not like what the comments here said that nearly everybody could be covered. — Instantnood 06:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and if not Delete DocOck 08:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have the delete voters bothered to consider how it is being used? I see little evidence of it. CalJW 11:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, and it still should go. Look at the names and think a bit more. Eva Braun, spouse for a day, Alice B. Toklas, never married, Princess Diana, arguably more famous and important than her ex-husband, Valerie Plame, way more famous than her husband. Over time this category will include everyone. -- JJay 16:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 16:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irredeemable. Postdlf 23:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I didn't create the category but I did find it as an underpopulated category and have been populating it, on the basis of people who are notable for their marital connection to another person.

I populated the category for two reasons: (1) There are people who, absent this category, would have no significant category -- Sara Dylan, Virgina Poe, etc. I mean, how else are you going to categorize Sara Dylan? Now, if people like her shouldn't BE in Wikipedia, that's another issue; but if they ARE, they ought to have a cateory. And, (2), the category, while somewhat trivial, is not utterly so, IMO.

Category nomenclature is a problem, as Spouses is too broad, People who are notable primarily because of their marriage to a notable person is too long, and anything else would be unclear. I don't have an answer to that one.

Instantnood -- that would this category. Soltak, Nlu, Mkill, Vulturell -- would a nomenclature change as proposed above be sufficient? Ejrrjrs -- it that is true, the category has the benefit of presenting a number of articles which, perhaps, should be deleted, if so you may wish to use it to nominate a number of articles to AfD; but as noted, the articles DO exist, perhaps the category should also? JJay -- True, one problem with the category is that it contains two types of people: people who are really ONLY notable for the connection to and influence on their spouse (Sara Dylan, Patti Boyd, Clementine Churchill, etc.) and people who have SOME notability on their own but (1) they only obtained their notability because of their spouse (Lindy Boggs, Yoko Ono, Martha Mitchell, etc.) or (2) their spouse is much MORE notable and their connection to their spouse is an IMPORTANT part of their notability (Peter III and indeed most royals, Linda McCartney, etc.) Herostratus 00:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • The category would then be way too POV. I don't think it should stay. --Nlu 00:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, Herostratus, I see your point now. Marie Lord is another example, although her page should really be merged and redirected to Jack Lord. Nevertheless, I still don't think it deserves a category- a list is a much better way of dealing with it. The issue seems too trivial- I grant not completely- for a category + raises a host of problems. For example, Hillary Clinton would qualify, so would her husband. -- JJay 01:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First ladies have their own category, so they needn't be included here. Hillary Clinton is a US Senator and so too notable on her own to be included here now anyway. Herostratus

Comment: But Lady Di does belong here? Should Hillary have been here, but then removed when she became a Senator? Or is this category here in readiness for when Hil takes command, since I doubt we have a category for first men? Is this knowledge really even necessary? -- JJay 03:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment exactly, the category is pointless it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Arniep 03:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overly broad categorization that could technically include, at a stab-in-the-dark guess, about 85% of the people with Wikipedia articles. A lot of people here are already notable enough on their own, and not just as the spouse of someone more genuinely notable. At the very least, rename to Category:Spouses of notable people if this is kept, although my personal inclination would be to delete. Bearcat 07:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Because. Sethie 07:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created the category as a parent for other categories; I didn't expect it to be populated with individual articles. Renaming to something like Category:Spouses of notable people, and having the description limit the category to articles to people who are famous largely for being spouses seems like it might be better. tregoweth 09:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful ike9898 14:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Herostratus again. tregoweth I did not know that. When I found the category it had 2 or 3 articles in it (besides the subcategories). Couple comments:
  • The category is not intended to include people who are notable on their own but happen to also be married to a notable person. I should think that's a fairly straightforward proposition.
  • I'm not sure it's an irretrivably POV category, provided that a good text description is written into the page. However, this might require the removal of people who WERE notable, but only because of who they were married to (Martha Mitchell, Lynne Cheney, Melinda Gates, Linda McCartney, Lady Di, etc.), because that could be POV I suppose, although I would think with good faith it should be pretty easy to figure out who belongs and who doesn't. But whatever.
    • But there are people here who clearly can really ONLY go into this category:
      • Pattie Boyd
      • Sara Dylan
      • Clementine Churchill
      • Maureen Cox
      • Virgina Poe
      • Claire Merritt Hodgson (Mrs. Babe Ruth)
      • Cynthia Powell (Cynthia Lennon)
      • Priscilla Presley

(And probably others who aren't yet in the category.)

Now, the question I have is:

1. Should the above articles be deleted? Quite possibly the answer is YES, I don't have an opinion on that now. (And then you would have consideration of mistresses such as Megan Marshak also.
2. If the answer is YES, obviously the category goes too (unless retained as an umprella for tregoweth's subcategories, and so stated).
3. But if the answer is NO, should the category go anyway, or should it be retained? I don't really know, I'm just asking. But if does go and the articles stay, those articles will have no categorization at all, except for "xxx Births", xxx Deaths", and "People from xxx", which normally would be seen as insufficient categorization, I think. (Well some would be categorized under "The Beatles.)

Herostratus 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Jondel 08:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to my vote above, if the decision is to delete it, listify it. — Instantnood 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to what? There's no reason to believe that the list would be any less POV than the category. --Nlu 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Kbdank71 15:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What about moving them to categories for celebrities, like how category:British celebrities is defined? — Instantnood 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Spouses of notable people, and keep as a megacategory only - quite a few persons who merit an article based solely on the notability of their spouse probably have a spouse with a category of their own (e.g. Category:John Lennon; Category:Bob Dylan) or should fall into a category such as Category:First Ladies of the United States. Certainly we should have, e.g., Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, so Denis Thatcher will have a place to sit! BD2412 T 03:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.