< July 18	July 20 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 Tim! 09:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity and for consistency with Category:Canadian women's international soccer players and Category:United States men's international soccer players. --Usgnus 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. --Usgnus 00:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Usgnus. -Royalguard11^Talk 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 06:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - why not just keep it as a supercategory for both the men's and women's cats? --Mais oui! 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment: As the original creator of the Canada women's and US men's categories, I think Mais oui! makes a lot of sense.. — Dale Arnett 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If nobody minds having a category that will only ever have two subcategories, that's okay with me. --Usgnus 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the Lord has provided us with only two genders ;-), there are a lot of categories that are only going to have two subcats (especially sports). --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, why are we seperating them out based on gender? That's discrimination. Ardenn 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be amenable to merging Category:Canadian women's international soccer players to Category:Canadian international soccer players. --Usgnus 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Would this also apply to the US men's and women's categories? Also, as of now, the US and Canada are the only countries with dedicated categories for internationals of each sex, although there are several other countries with enough articles for women's internationals to justify a category (I'm thinking Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, and maybe a couple of others). Note also that in basketball, there are separate categories for college men's players and college women's players. — Dale Arnett 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.Deet 00:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. As for the men's/women's point it makes no sense to combine categories for people who don't compete against each other. Cloachland 00:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 22:58, 24 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with List of computer and video game collector and limited editions, its main article. Pikawil 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reanme per nom. --TheYmode 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as it makes sense. "Special" editions is misleading. Deusfaux 06:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:36, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time-based categories are generally a bad idea. This one contains only three members, growth is unlikely, shrinkage nearly certain. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

Delete per nom. Handle it as a single line in each article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:36, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It contains images of tombstones. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no need to have this when we have Commons. ReeseM 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ReeseM. Poor use of categories. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous voters. Casper Claiborne 22:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ReeseM. There are only three members, anyway. siafu 18:37, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 category redirect Tim! 09:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Thamnophilidae. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:04, 19 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 category redirect Tim! 09:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Oenanthe, with the other Wheatears. What's wrong with the common name? -- ProveIt ^(talk)

• Keep as redirect Merchbow 22:21, 27 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 ((category redirect)) the wrong one to the correct one. So Category:Restauranteurs will redirect to Category:Restaurateurs; I am trusting Dhartung that "Restaurateurs" is correct! --RobertG ♬ talk 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Restauranteurs. Spelling counts. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Redirect from one to the other per Dhartung below – but don't ask me which!  David Kernow 22:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC), updated 06:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. Restaurateur is the correct spelling (it's a matter of French declension, not obvious), although restauranteur is today an accepted English variant. [1] [2] [3] --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's subtle. Methinks you might've met an unimpressed French person... Thanks with chuckle, David Kernow 06:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, I'm just not gonna expect Anglophones to know French grammar. ;-) Also note that restaurateur is the accepted professional term[4], has about 12-15x the Google hits, and restauranteur offers as its top result the Wikipedia category ... and a blog. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Redirect If both spellings are correct, then we should keep both. No strong preference as to which one becomes the redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Restaurateurs and redirect the other to there. I have to admit I also had no clue, but if it's correct and the standard, it should definitely be the one we use. siafu 18:42, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 category redirect Tim! 09:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Romanian Australians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's empty, so why redirect? ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Redirected categories are supposed to be empty. ReeseM 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect ReeseM 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There was a recent mass CFD about X-Americans in which the standard was discussed that if one was from Foo and living in Bar, one was a Foo-Barian, but by analogy with "British Asian" could also be a Bar Fooian (no hyphen). We should be moving toward a standard. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 20 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 09:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually categorize by gender -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ReeseM 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:16, 21 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 keep Tim! 09:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Right-wing parties and organizations
• Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States
• Category:Far left political parties in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- has never existed
• Category:Far left politics in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- has never existed
• Category:Far left politicians in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- has never existed
• Category:Left-wing parties in France
• Category:Right-wing parties in France
• Category:Far right political parties in France
• Category:Far right politics in France
• Category:Far right politicians in France

Ambiguous, redundant and POV/OR categorization. The Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States for example, includes the American Nazi Party. These meaningless categories do nothing but cause confusion and overgeneralization. Therefore, Delete. Move articles up in hierarchy or into ideological categories. Intangible 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, ill-defined category set, being utilized in a POV manner for guilt by association. However, a new set of better defined categories to class these organizations is probably necessary. --tjstrf 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The French categories were nominated for deletion earlier this month. It's probably a bit too soon to bring them back here. - EurekaLott 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Not only has this been established to confirm only with User:Intangible's POV (he has noiminated some of them for deletion no less than three times before, and lost the vote each time), the tactic he opted for this time induces POV - the United States articles proposed for deletion this time fall under different criteria (and are subject to a different debate). The main point presented in all previous debates has revolved around the adequate and relevant use of the term "far right" in France, and not about the left-right division in general. The matter of supposed "guilt by association" is moot: the term far right in France and several other places establishes, as was pointed out every single time around, voluntary political association between individuals, beginning way before "far right" had any derogatory meaning (it's like saying that, because "communism" may have negative connotations, it is not to be used as a criterion in categorizing). Dahn 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per Dahn. Nothing ambiguous, redundant or POV about them, as far as I'm aware. Not in the real world, anyway. --LucVerhelst 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per Dahn. User:Intangible is demanding for the third time or so in less than a month the deletion of these categories, a demand which should be rejected based on the arguments provided before (no, there is no need to repeat them, Intangible is here in any cases being a troll). See here for a pending request for arbitration concerning Intangible's dislike of the term "far right", in particular when used to describe far right parties such as the Front National. Intangible, however, feels very happy today, because he discovered (I helped him a bit, cheers!) that a right wing category had been created by John Doe concerning the US, and that the term "right wing" in the States doesn't recovers the same reality as that in France (it's more radical). Great Intangible! And have you also discovered today that if right & left wing don't necessarily mean the same thing on one side of the Atlantic and on the other side, that might be because these two continents, although sharing some similarities, have had a different history? I think this tenth nomination should be listed on the link above, registering Intangible's edits which are apparently more and more bordering on simple trolling. Tazmaniacs 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the above. See the section "Words implying a value judgement" in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Intangible 18:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. How many times are these going to be nominated? The categories are defined the very definition of the terms in the corresponding wikipedia article. Ie Right-wing groups in the US correspond to the right wing article that explanations what it means in a US context. This also has partical implications: being able to click and view right wing groups in various regions. Intangible's massive nomination for these deletions are rather interesting, especially given that it is his/her third time going through with these deletions. C56C 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all except Delete Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States. "Right-wing" and "left-wing" are usually deprecatory in the US, however well they may be well-defined and useful terms in political science; in reducing political theory to one dimension they are also even vaguer than terms like Conservatism, Nationalism, or Neo-liberalism. In an encyclopedia for the general public, honestly, who in their right mind (no pun intended) finds it useful to lump Focus on the Family with Neo-Nazi groups of the United States? I'll note as well that there is no analogous Category:Left-wing organizations in the United States. My first inclination is therefore to delete it; barring that, rename it to something like Category:Organizations in the United States on the political right and create a companion for the political left. -choster 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States. I live in the U.S., was born and raised in the U.S., and do not see a significant semantically "deprecatory" meaning for "right-wing" and "left-wing" in and of themselves, any more than there would be for "Conservative" and "Liberal" (do not recommend a change to "Conservative" organizations either, though, as in that context it's less specific and far too vague). Runa27 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States was created for less than a day and hasn't had a chance to expand and so forth. I doubt anyone is going add much to it when its up for deletion. C56C 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's funny, "Right-wing org in the US" would be a deprecatory category, while the "Organizations in the US on the political right" would be neutral? Is that a joke, or some weak attempt at being politically correct? What's the difference, apart that the latter proposition doubles "right" with "political", kind of obvious when we're talking about right-wing organizations. In any cases, if User C56C feels necessary to keep this threatened cat, he knows what to do: make long sentences, you can say "right", "US", and "organizations", but not "wings". Wings of desire!!! (no, there's no relation, but open up your Wings of desire!!!) Tazmaniacs 13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the -wing makes a difference. U.S. politicians and organizations may describe their ideological opponents (or imagined opponents) as "right-wing" or "left-wing" but it is quite rare to find any group which describes itself as such. If a newspaper describes an individual as a "left-winger" or "right-winger," "leftist" or "rightist," it aims to paint them as someone a little outside the mainstream. If deprecatory is too strong a word, it can certainly be said it is at least depreciative, because its effect is to throw the center-left and center-right in with the fringes. -choster 14:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shouldn't the discussion about the Right wing in the US kept separate from other "left" and "right wing" issues? See Intangible's request for arbitration here: he doesn't like this term, neither in Europe nor in the US. I can easily find at least one reference that deals with this Left-right issues, but I think the debate should be kept on the "left-right politics" page. Mainly, that the criteria left/right doesn't recovers the same reality in each country, and that there is always a hiatus between objective classification and self-identification (see sinistrisme for a French example of it), this doesn't mean that "left" & "right" lose all sense as descriptive terms in political sciences. Various common traits may be found which distinguish one from the other, although US history is very particular and distinct from the European left/right distinction, largely based on the French Revolution (for a long time, right was synonym of counterrevolutionary, although today most right-wing people have accepted the Republic or parliamentary systems). Tazmaniacs 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think your splitting hairs. Category:Organizations in the United States on the political right, Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States, Category:Rightist organizations..., Category: Groups that lean politically right... describe the same groups. "Wing" refers to the 2-D political spectrum, there is a left and a right "wing" since both sides are not in the "middle." I think Intangible's deletion is nefarious. C56C 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, in American English "-wing" implies a degree, not just a direction, something evident from their utter lack of usage in articles about "mainstream" US politicians in WP itself. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" almost never appear in such articles—where they do appear mostly is on Talk pages, often by critics of the subject. I think few in the general public would understand Craig Benson to be a "right-wing" politician or Kathleen Sebelius to be "left-wing," and surely Talk:The Nation wouldn't question whether it is "left-wing" if that were a simple umbrella term. Like "socialist" or "nationalist," "left-wing" and "right-wing" carry negative connotations in the US which may not exist in other countries or cultures. It is not splitting hairs to object to wording which misleads and potentially denigrates. And none of this is to defend Intangible, it is to have WP use accurate, neutral, and useful terminology in its categorization.-choster 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- the WP:POINT nomination includes categories that do not exist, and are not recent deletions. I've marked them. --William Allen Simpson 16:57, 23 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one article in this. I took it out because the article made no reference to a military career, and found that I had rendered it empty. I believe the preference is not to categorise by rank below general, so this can go. Chicheley 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:43, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 to Category:Biota of North Carolina Tim! 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fauna of North Carolina. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from July 9, please help find a consensus. Conscious 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if there's consensus we can merge. However, I feel that the merge should be more inclusive; I intend to expand some of my articles into the all-inclusive, full-fledged documentation of the flora and fauna in North Carolina. Perhaps best is to merge everything into Category:Ecology of North Carolina. Remarks? Nimur 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, flora and fauna are separate. There should be a cat for each I think. Antares33712 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Biota of North Carolina in line with the convention used for countries as in Category:Biota of the United States and make Category:Fauna of North Carolina a subcategory. Choalbaton 14:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no rename... I see no possible reason that state boundaries correspond to biological ones. I know this would apply for biota of the U.S. too, but since is is much more vast it is a more reasonable working unit. I guess this is more gut feeling them well thought out policy on my part. gren グレン 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that below there is a debate about Flora and Fauna by subdivision or state of the U.S. this is a bigger issue that I don't hope to be able to take on... hopefully someone who knows what they are doing will get it right. gren グレン 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Geographical cateogories for plants and animals only make sense for countries like Australia and Madagascar. If kept rename to Category:Biota of North Carolina. Sumahoy 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Biota of North Carolina. I don't think we should make a delete call now while other discussions are going on. From the discussions here it seems the current name is not correct, so a rename while the broader discussions are ongoing seems reasonable. No telling how long they will last. Vegaswikian 19:40, 24 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 to delete: Welsh speaking people, delete others. Tim! 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

votes summary:

delete:

• Chicheley
• Sumahoy
• Musicpvm
• Yonatanh
• Golfcam
• Merchbow
• Dahn
• Nathcer
• Landolitan
• Mike Selinker
• Samuel Wantman
• Twittenham
• tjstrf
• Calsicol
• Athenaeum
• Nonomy
• William Allen Simpson

keep:

• youngamerican, all
• Mxcatania, all
• Deb, Welsh
• GarethRhys, welsh and catalan
• Alun, welsh and catalan
• Jtdirl, all
• Scolaire, welsh

Category:People by language

Category:English speakers

Category:French speakers

Category:Spanish speakers

Category:German speakers

Category:Italian speakers

Category:Portuguese speakers

Category:Dutch speakers

Category:Catalan speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Danish speakers

Category:Latin speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Welsh-speaking people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• RELISTED FOR FURTHER COMMENTS PURSUANT TO Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18

  because 3 categories received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

  --William Allen Simpson 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • FALSE They were actually relisted because the above user cocked up his counting and interpreted votes cast on other categories as retrospectively applying to them even though they were added to the list after many of the votes had been cast and had not been included in those votes. If Mr Simpson had checked his facts before deleting he would have noticed that. He also did not notice that two different types of list had been merged together late in the vote. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Please desist from your personal attacks and repeated prevarication. As agreed at Deletion review, no closer needs to check the time and date of nominations. That is the responsibility of the editors participating in the discussion. These are not two different types, they are/were all subcategories of the umbrella nomination. It is not uncommon for additional categories to be added during the course of an umbrella nomination. --William Allen Simpson 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• All categories are ridiculous and don't connect between like articles. All categories have existed for at least a month and have barely any people on them, if any. Cesc Fabregas is the only spanish, english and french speaker in the world apparently. Yonatanh 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Not helpful in the slightest. Chicheley 02:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Category:English speakers is potentially larger than category:Living people and even less useful. Sumahoy 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, not a smart way to categorize. Also delete Category:Dutch speakers, Category:Portuguese speakers, and Category:German speakers. Merge the subcategories into the Category:Foo language cats. --Musicpvm 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could they be speedy deleted seeing how they've been empty for 4 days after they've been created which I see in the criteria for speedy deletion. Yonatanh 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait! Please don't delete yet! These categories came about after discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization (now archived here). The idea was to create a hierarchy of people categorized by language for all professions that relate to language. Thus there would be Category:Poets by language, Category:Actors by language, Category:Film directors by language, etc... It looks like no work happened on these categories after the discussion ended. But I think this is a very good idea, and makes MORE sense for these profession categories than having subcategories by nationality. Rather than deleting these, they should be fully populated. -- Samuel Wantman 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has amended his vote to delete below. Chicheley 10:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if this is the idea, can you have a category as a sub-category of two categories so list of Hebrew-language poets would be under list of Hebrew speakers and under list of poets? Either way, I don't think the list of x speakers is needed as people can just go to the poets list in the first place, takes as many clicks. Yonatanh 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I'd like to see it fully populated, per the discussion. If it doesn't work out, then I would support this CfD. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see this working, and I don't see the point. Olborne 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete all If this is taken up it will add category clutter to exactly the articles where it is worst already. For the overwhelming majority of people language is not a defining characteristic in an encyclopedic sense. When people want to jump from say New Zealand poets to Australian film directors using the search box will be at least as quick. Osomec 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all - unnecessary category clutter.--Smerus 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These have far more potential to do harm than good. Calsicol 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. There are two ways: populating the categories or removing the categories. I think removing is easier for most of the people voting here, but I'm convinced these categories are useful. And, on top of that, there was a previous discussion as Samuel Wantman said. Mxcatania 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• ALL NOMINATIONS were properly tagged at this point: 2006-07-06 02:33:35 --William Allen Simpson

• Delete all Category clutter. Golfcam 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how it is clutter to categorize writers, actors, film directors, etc... by the language they work in. For many occupations, language is much more useful and relevant than knowing nationality. -- Samuel Wantman 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all There is no way to stop such categories being added to the hundreds of thousands of articles about people who are not in a field in which language is important, where they would be mere clutter. Merchbow 08:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Welsh-speaking people. Most people speak the language of the country where they were born. It's probably fair to say that 100% of English people speak English. But for Wales the proportion of people who speak the language is much smaller, which I think is why the category was created. Deb 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can hardly have categories for all the hundreds of minority languages but not for majority languages, and having them for majority languages, and English in particular, would be a nightmare. Speaking a particular language is important to the subject of a biographical article, but it is not a defining reason why they are worthy of an encyclopedia article. Nathcer 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it? Wouldn't you say that someone having been, for example, the first known author in the Welsh language, would be a defining reason? Deb 11:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • These categories aren't restricted to such examples, so your argument is rather like saying of Category:People over six feet tall, "Don't you think that being eight feet six inches tall would be a defining reason?". Nathcer 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Dahn 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per my comments above. Nathcer 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This can't have been thought through properly. What is to be gained from adding such a category to over a thousand articles about English footballers? Landolitan 10:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Every single person article would have to go in at least one of these. Not even close to worth it.--Mike Selinker 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I give up. As this is a loosing battle, I've created new categories to keep the subcategories for language professionals. They are Category:Languages by occupation and Category:Occupations by language. Please give me a chance to populate these before nominating them for CFD. I change my vote to "Delete" -- Samuel Wantman 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems strange to me to include all of these categories as a collective for deletion. There may be good reasons for keeping one category while none exist for keeping another. These categories should be voted on seperately IMHO, they represent different languages and the languages all have a different political/social status. For example Welsh, as a minority language (and one threatened with being lost up untill recently) has few really famous speakers, and the fact that a famous person speaks the language may be of some note. There is nothing norteworthy about a Danish person speaking Danish for example. Alun 11:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we delete the lot we don't need to get into the issue of deciding which speaker-language combinations are important and which aren't. Nathcer 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get the logic of that. What is or isn't important? Some might argue that much (or even the vast majority on Wikipedia) isn't important. Isn't that why we talk of people being noteworthy rather than important? Alun 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. Unfortunately it's clear that many people are blanket voting on this issue because they are unfamiliar with the minority language issue. Deb 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't assume that people who disagree with you are ingorant. I am familiar with the issue and it has been addressed by other users who have voted delete. Chicheley 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Welsh & Catalan speaking category - Regardless of the fact that I'm a fluent Welsh speaker, I think it is important to raise the profile of any minority language, including making clear whether a famous person speaks it. No, having a category on English speaking people clearly is not viable, in most cases it is taken as a given that the celeb speaks English, within reason of course. However knowledge of a minority language is an interesting point, and can do much to raise a language's profile.GarethRhys 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Welsh & Catalan speaking category, as per GarethRhys. Alun 22:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all including the Welsh and Catalan categories. In India every language is a minority language so Alun's logic we would keep all Indian languages but only a few European ones. Given a choice between all or none, none wins hand down. Twittenham 10:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • But of course you would have to show that a notable person speaks the various Indian languages, would you not? Alun 11:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• RELISTED FOR FURTHER COMMENTS PURSUANT TO Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18

  because 3 categories received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

  -- William Allen Simpson 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all deleted Having categories only for small/minority languages would be minority-centrism. Chicheley 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all deleted I was asked to confirm by vote by William Allen Simpson. Sumahoy 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for sake of consistancy. --tjstrf 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all deleted. It would not be a NPOV to pick and choose certain ones to keep. --musicpvm 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Welsh-speaking people category. Before the canvassing by vested interests gets out of hand, I want to point out the following:
  1. Minority languages are not the same as major languages in this context. All Welsh speakers are bilingual.
  2. The "Welsh speakers" category had been in existence since April and was well-populated.
  3. Almost all the articles in this category specifically mention that the subject is/was a Welsh speaker. This suggests that being Welsh-speaking is as valid as a category as, for example, being born in 1955.
  4. The purpose of the category is not anything sinister or political. It is simply to enable users to find all articles about Welsh-speaking people easily. There are many circumstances in which people might find this information useful.

  Deb 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you believe some languages warrant keeping, what is your dividing line? The problem seems to be that arguments revolve around a difference in degree, namely number of speakers. Is there a cut-point that could possibly be set? ~ trialsanderrors 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Minority language for guidance. Deb 21:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all deleted I speak English and a little Spanish, and there are many others like me, including thousands with articles. The languages we speak are just as important as anyone else's languages, but they not category worthy. With regard to point three above, Category:1955 births can be deleted too so far as I am concerned. There are masses of categories that could be deleted, but that's not an argument for keeping a specific category. Golfcam 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all deleted. No change in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete all Nothing has changed. Calsicol 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think that we can decide which languages are right to keep the categories for and which aren't. As you say, the articles mention that the people speak Welsh. I just don't see someone going to the Bethan Elfyn article and then going on to the Welsh speakers category and to the Isaac Roberts article. So basically, I don't see how the category would be useful and I don't see how we can choose which categories to keep and which delete while maintaining NPOV. Yonatanh 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Perfectly valid to keep minor languages where fluency in them (eg, Welsh) is a matter for which the individual is famous for. Minor languages where fluency is notable are different to major languages like English or French, or indeed majority languages, because whereas minority language usage is rare enough to be notable, majority languages are effectively the national default language, so the presumption is that the user speaks them. So the major default languages warranted deletion. Minority ones, where the ability to speak it is notable (and so often something someone is famous for) don't. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

• Mr Simpson, it appears, has intervened yet again on this issue, this time to corrupt the process by canvassing support contrary to Wikipedia rules, as his contributions page shows. The fact that a second attempt to deal with this issue has been undermined, again by Mr Simpson's behaviour, has been reported to admins. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please desist from your personal attacks and repeated prevarication. The Cfd practice is that such parties be notified upon re-listing. The notice was (all notices were substantially identical):

    Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

    --William Allen Simpson 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Welsh-speaking people. Welsh is unique among the languages listed above as being a minority (native) language in an English-speaking country, and therefore of interest to a large number of users of English Wikipedia. As pointed out by Deb above, the category is well populated, and the fact of speaking Welsh is relevant to the subjects of the articles in it. Scolaire 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Category:Welsh language activists would be acceptable, but the present category is no more acceptable than Category:English speaking people. Athenaeum 13:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The retention of certain favoured categories would clearly be biased. It is purely a matter of opinion as to which minority languages merit retention. You can't base it on number of speakers because some languages with very few speakers are majority languages in one locality (and figures numbers of speakers are matters of intense controversy, with a prevalence of inflated claims), and you can't base it on percentages in a given entity because political boundaries are inconsistent in umpteen ways. Nonomy 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all -- I have been swayed from neutrality by the personal attacks and prevarication. They should be deleted on principle, and the despicable perpetrators have their administrative priviledges revoked. --William Allen Simpson 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  'Despicable perpetrators'??? I thought you said you were opposed to personal attacks. Scolaire 19:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all As I said last time: "We can hardly have categories for all the hundreds of minority languages but not for majority languages, and having them for majority languages, and English in particular, would be a nightmare. Speaking a particular language is important to the subject of a biographical article, but it is not a defining reason why they are worthy of an encyclopedia article." Nathcer 21:39, 23 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 relist on July 29 Tim! 09:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't object to a change to Category:Fenerbahçe footballers. Rationale: Fenerbahçe have merged their basketball operations with the former Ülkerspor club, and the merged team is now known as Fenerbahçe Ülkerspor. Since there's now the possibility that "Fenerbahçe players" can refer to more than one sport, it should be changed to "Fenerbahçe footballers". There's precedent for this; other clubs with multiple sports (e.g. FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, PSV Eindhoven) use "footballers" for their football player categories. — Dale Arnett 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re FC Barcelona etc, there have been a few "...footballers" categories renamed to "...players" recently as this appears to be the standard... but I don't know/mind, maybe "...footballers" or even "...footballers (soccer players)" will keep most people happy. Regards, David Kernow 22:27, 19 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 to Category:Motor vehicle companies Tim! 09:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recent CFR moved the "Automobile manufacturers" "Motor vehicle manufacturers", but left the parent category unchanged. I think the name makes the intended distinction (between actual vehicle assembly, and the industry in general including parts and supply chain) far from clear, and some consistency about the whole "automobile" business would be nice. (Existing usage seems to be far from consistent about whether "automobile" includes vans and trucks, not to mention it largely being a North Americanism.) Rename category and per-country descendants. Alai 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. to [[:Category:Motor vehicle companies per comments by Caerwine. Chicheley 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Oppose. Most of the articles use Automobile in their name when you dig down. So this appears to be the main use. If anything your concern about cleaning up the categories is one reason to not make this change. Trucks are not autos in most categories. Vans can be one in either depending on their size. The last reaname in this area was ill thought out based on what was left after the change. This was cleared up after several discussions. So again, no action seems the safe move at this time. Cleanup up the categories if needed and then see if this change is still required. Vegaswikian 22:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to Category:Motor vehicle companies. I have no understanding of how Americans define an "auto", but I don't see how anyone can fail to understand what "motor vehicle" signifies. ReeseM 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motor Vehicle is more then a car or auto. It's all of them, cars, trucks, moterbikes, scooters, and so on. So one is very specific and the other is everything. A car is a motor vehicle but a motor vehicle is not a car. Vegaswikian 05:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on the Automotive v. Motor vehicle issue, but I am strongly opposed to switching companies to industry in this case. If any category is to be renamed Category:Motor vehicle industry it should be Category:Automotive industry and not this one. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Motor vehicle companies to avoid U.S. centrism. Neutral terms should be used whenever they are available. Calsicol 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how does this fix anything since it takes a very specific category and expands it to be all inclusive? While the term may be US centric, changing the category to something that is completly different does not address the stated concern. If there is an accurate term that covers cars then use that instead, otherwise it should not be changed. Maybe the solution would be to use Category:Car companies since car was already approved here for another category. Vegaswikian 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please have a look at the contents, which are absolutely not specific in the way you imply. They range from tyre companies to retailers. My thanks to Caerwine for pointing out my initial error on my talk page. Chicheley 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Motor vehicle companies per nom. Nathcer 21:40, 23 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 09:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to expand misleading abbreviation. - EurekaLott 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 18:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 13:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:59, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:Actors by series. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (or delete unless better populated?). David Kernow 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I added all the recurring characters' actors that had articles. --Usgnus 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 23 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 ((category redirect)) Category:Decaturites to Category:People from Decatur, Alabama. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Decaturites. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, instead reverse redirect The Wikipedia trend is to have the denonym redirect to the People from X category, not the reverse. Kurieeto 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, instead reverse redirect per Kurieeto Chicheley 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse redirect per above comments. --musicpvm 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion is still underway. I don't care strongly either way, I just want one to redirect to the other. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge and leave a cat redirect. Vegaswikian 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per above. I've left a mention that people from Decatur are also known as Decaturites (no idea if this correct) on category's page. David Kernow 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per above, for consistency.--Mereda 10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per above. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:33, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 relisted on July 29 Tim! 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another joke category populated by a joke userbox. Delete. - EurekaLott 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename [:Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Conan O'Brien]]. That's what the joke is from. --M@rēino 19:45, 19 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 09:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Youth organisations of Ireland, a member of Category:Youth organizations by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. ReeseM 02:28, 20 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surprisngly this is an opera cat - where it is too broad to be useful - not a drama cat where it might be useful. - Kleinzach 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera. Fireplace 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; empty and too vague. David Kernow 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 21:05, 26 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 keep and ((category redirect)) Category:Araneae to it. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Araneae, or Reverse merge to restore. How many people know latin plurals? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't we do the reverse, and redirect Araneae to Spiders? Spiders is the common name, and AFAIK (which isn't much in this field, I freely admit) all spiders = Araneae and vice versa. --M@rēino 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my opinion as well, but I'm not an expert on spiders. In general, I prefer common names. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and use the common name, making the scientific name the redirect. ReeseM 02:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect Araneae to Spiders. Hawkestone 17:21, 21 July 2006 (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 regarding 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/split per nom. Tim! 08:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to have two identical categories such as this. I'm listing this as a merger but what really should be done is to merge and split into Category:Buildings and structures in Niagara Falls, Ontario and Category:Buildings and structures in Niagara Falls, New York. BoojiBoy 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge then split per nom. David Kernow 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reorganize per nom. - EurekaLott 18:47, 21 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 08:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only by renaming this to match the parent category can the current club owner Roman Abramovich, who doesn't even sit on the board, and previous major investor Matthew Harding be included. Calsicol 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 17:23, 21 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of clearout of superfluous unused opera cats. - Kleinzach 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera. Fireplace 16:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:07, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 all Tim! 08:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all into Category:Rosh yeshivas: These 3 sub-categories unfortunately achieve no purpose. This is due to the extreme overlap between all 3, not to mention the fact that attempting to determine a Rosh yeshiva's correct category entails 1)country of birth 2)country where spent most of life 3)Country of death 4)Country of ancestral origin. Instead of harmonising and correctly defining these individual's nationality, events tend to be confused and many people end up in two, if not all three, of these categories. For example:

1. Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner. A man born in Europe, moved to America and died in Israel. So what category? In this case, "American Rosh yeshivas" and "Israeli rosh yeshivas". Why not European?

   Rav Hutner was not a rosh yeshiva in Europe. Only in America and Israel. IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman. Born in deepest Europe in Kuhl, Lithuania. Spent 54 years - most of his life, in Europe, then moved to Israel where he reestablished his institutions. What category? Only "Israeli Rosh yeshivas". Why not European?

   So put that in. IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Rabbi Elazar Shach. Again, a man with impeccable European roots. Born in Wabolnick/Vabalninkas, a rural village in northern Lithuania. Immigrated to Israel at around 42 years of age. True, he lived for another 61 years at least - but surely his European birth, ancestry and long sojourn deserve to be categorised as such! Why only "Israeli rosh yeshivas"?

   Again, put that in, but he was not famous for being a rosh yeshiva in Europe. IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Rabbi Michel Dorfman. European-born, in 1911. Immigrated to Israel in 1970. What category? Only "Israeli Rosh yeshivas". This for a man who's lived the vast majority of his life outside of Israel.

   Was he a rosh yeshiva in Europe? IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Rabbi Aharon Kotler. Lived in Europe then moved to the USA. Due to the present inefficient system, he must perforce be listed in two categories: "European rosh yeshivas" and "American rosh yeshivas". What a needless duplication.

   What's wrong with that? They are two different continents. IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. This just takes the cake. Born in 1903 - in Debreczen, Hungary - so definately European. Came to America around 1945 and died in 1957. By my reckoning, that's 12 years in the US and 42 years out. Hmmmmmmmm... so that's about 2/7 of Rabbi Weissmanl's life spent in the US and 5/7 in Europe. What category? "American Rosh yeshivas"!

   Again, if you are sure he was indeed a rosh yeshiva in Europe, put it in. IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or this system desperately needs an overhaul? The list above is but a fraction of the real number of cases. Just take a look at Category:American rosh yeshivas, Category:Israeli rosh yeshivas and Category:European rosh yeshivas and see for yourself how many people are in more than one category.

Nesher: The "system" is called categorization and it should also strive for accuracy. There are thousands of Wikipedia categories by country and region. This is relatively very minor and not confusing. IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With most of the Rosh yeshivas in more than one Rosh yeshivas category, what real purpose does it serve to continue lumping them together based on such weak factors? I would like to avoid the monotonous and ever-reappearing categories and categorise these individuals in just one effective location: Category:Rosh yeshivas. Many thanks, Nesher 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all as per nomination. I agree. --Daniel575 14:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all go ahead, make it easy for us... per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all I agree, this makes the most sense. Yossiea 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all I agree as well --PiMaster3 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all I agree as well --JJ211219 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all A more logical structure than what we currently have. -- Avi 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all Totally agree. Yoninah 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because geographic sub-divisions conform with the present-day main centers of current Torah and yeshiva life: Israel, America, Europe. In addition, as the category will fill up it will inevitably be divided up into various new sub-categories again regardless of what Nesher thinks. Geographic sub-categories make sense and there are also other ways to do it to such as Category:Hasidic rosh yeshivas; Category:Religious Zionist rosh yeshivas; Category:Haredi rosh yeshivas; Category:Modern Orthodox rosh yeshivas. There is no need to fear or besmirch valid categories that are based on facts and reality, and our brains are not that feeble that we shall become so easily "confused" by the present orderly system of categorizations. IZAK 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to Category:Rosh yeshivas in Europe, Category:Rosh yeshivas in America and Category:Rosh yeshivas in Israel for the sake of consistency. This way, it is a bit clearer that the interesting factor is where they had the job/s, and not where each person was born, grew up, lived or died. (Then maybe make these subcategories of, e.g., category:Yeshivot in Europe, etc.) -- Olve 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and also add Category:Asian Rosh yeshivas, The Ben Ish Chai, and others belong there. If you merge them all into one, you might as well put them under category:Famous jewish leaders, every single rosh yeshivah is known by: 1. His origin (Polish, Litvish, etc.), 2. His most famous place of being a rosh yeshivah, 3. His affiliation (Chasid, Litvak, Sfardi, etc.). --Shmaltz 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all OR Rename to Roshei Yeshiva of European Yeshivos etc. As a student of an American yeshiva with European roots, it does seem silly to divide up Roshei Yeshiva based on this artificial category whose implication is vague. [A European who is a Rosh Yeshiva in American could arguably be considered a European because of either citizenship or origin...] The irony is that when my Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Henoch Leibowitz, shlita, became Rosh Yeshiva in the early 40's, he was considered one of the first "American Roshei Yeshiva." Now, some 60 years later, he is considered one of the last "European Roshei Yeshiva." So go figure. The only distinction might be to divide them up by Roshei Yeshiva of European Yeshivos, Roshei Yeshiva of American Yeshivos etc. (This is vastly different to calling them European Roshei Yeshiva which implies that we are refering to the individual and not the institution.) It is true that some Roshei Yeshiva will appear in multiple categories (e.g. Rabbi Aharhon Kotler [Europe and America] and Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner [America and Israel]) but it at least there will be a consistency. It would also distinguish a difference between Rav Chaim Volozhin and a young modern-day American Rosh Yeshiva. Of course, it would leave a question about American Yeshivos that have a branch in Israel and visa versa.... RabbiSimon 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RabbiSimon: Note your own words:"...The only distinction might be to divide them up by Roshei Yeshiva of European Yeshivos, Roshei Yeshiva of American Yeshivos etc" which is precisely what the categories do, so why are you voting to "merge"? Then you add: "It is true that some Roshei Yeshiva will appear in multiple categories (e.g. Rabbi Aharhon Kotler [Europe and America] and Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner [America and Israel]) but it at least there will be a consistency" whish also goes against "merging" and then you say: "It would also distinguish a difference between Rav Chaim Volozhin and a young modern-day American Rosh Yeshiva" which affirms the fact that it is necesarry to have more than one simple rosh yeshiva category because inevitbaly there will have to be further sub-groupings of the rosh yeshivas as the articles about them increase. IZAK 09:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to have to disagree with IZAK on this one, and recommend merging them, per the nomination and: ...not only are rashe yeshivoth not relevantly categorizable by geopolitics, but, to use the Mir Yeshiva as a somewhat extreme example, neither are yeshivoth themselves. When I say "relevantly", I am referring to the purpose of categories, which is to group together related articles...which the current arrangement appears to do, but beyond the skin, there's no real relationship, beyond happenstance wrt the location of their residence, between the people included in each of the several current categories. The hypothetical categories Category:Neturei Karta members of Knesseth and Category:Non-Jewish members of Neturei Karta would both be much more useful categories [keeping in mind, of course, the purpose of categories, which in this example relies on a complete suspension of reality... :-p] Tomer^talk 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomer: It is factually incorrect for your to judge yeshivas by saying: "beyond the skin, there's no real relationship, beyond happenstance wrt the location of their residence, between the people included in each of the several current categories" because it's not true. The fact of the matter is that there are two predominant centers of world Jewry today (Israel and America -- Europe is important too, but mostly for its history in the rise of modern yeshivas) and each of thase centers has its own unique and seperate structure/s that function independently of each other. Indeed, in the Haredi world, American rosh yeshivas are connected mostly to Agudath Israel of America and they are very different to the Israeli Haredi rosh yeshivas are mostly connected to Degel HaTorah and Agudat Israel. Similarly, Modern Orthodox Judaism rosh yeshivas in America are mostly connected to the world of Yeshiva University and they are very different to the Israeli rosh yeshivas of Religious Zionism. The role that Europe had in the formation and and ideology of the yeshiva movement as a whole and its rosh yeshivas is critically important. So your observation that "rashe yeshivoth [are] not relevantly categorizable by geopolitics" is both shallow and perhaps even uncaring (I am holding myself back from using the word "ignorant"). This may seem a little abstruse, and so far User:Olve has made the most trenchant observations that are helpful. Even if these rosh yeshivas are merged into a bundle to appease User:Nesher's desire for uniformity (where does that come from exactly, the need to create a facade that is not in harmony with the reality on the ground?) to create "one category" -- it will still be pretty simple and logical to return to both geographic and ideological sub-categorizations that are consistent with accepted scholarship and the way these individuals and their instititions are identified. IZAK 09:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IZAK, w/ all due respect, your opinion in opposition to my opinion that "beyond the skin" there is little of relevant importance wrt the criteria for categories, is beyond the pale of "true" or "not true", it's just a difference of opinion. I'm not opposed to more refinement than that of simply Category:Rashe Yeshivoth, but I don't think geopolitics is the proper way obtain that refinement. Since this discussion has nothing to do with Agudath Yisra'el or Modox, or Religious Zionism, etc. etc. etc., but only to do with using geopolitics as a basis for assigning some particular rosh yeshiva to a category, I'm still going to have to stand behind the opinion I've already registered, and declare your entire refutation as completely unrelated to my argument. Kindest regards, Tomer^talk 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Shirahadasha 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. --Shuki 20:39, 20 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People should be defined by what they do, not be personal characteristics that have little to do with their encyclopedia achievements. Hawkestone 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Hawkestone 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lara Flynn Boyle is arguably famous for being underweight. I find this cat, like the obese cat, distasteful, but I can't get around the fact that "celebrity" mags (which are really fashion mags) report this information as if it were news ... which makes it fall within Wikipedia's mission. --M@rēino 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia has a very different mission from celebrity magazines. Calsicol 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, are we tracking all these people's weights? Just because some celebrity mag posts an article about somebody being fat or thin, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should classify people by weight. --musicpvm 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's really not that necessary, and does not provide any encyclopedic value. Is someone going to follow this category cloesly, and remove names as people gain weight? I don't think so, this is not a needed category. --Nehrams2020 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kurieeto 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ill-defined, POV cat CovenantD 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yoninah 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vital to delete this mindless garbage before it becomes accepted. Nesher 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (although this gave me quite a larf) Joeyramoney 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Nehrams2020 – Hillel 08:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – Alensha 寫 词 19:32, 25 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 relisted on July 29 Tim! 08:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove abbreviation as per usual. Hawkestone 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Hawkestone 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest rename to Category:Children's television fictional characters, or Category:Fictional characters on children's television. This would clarify the purpose of the category by excluding real people like Bernard Cribbins, Kenneth Williams, Tony Robinson and John Noakes to give four examples of people who fit one meaning of the word character, and who have often appeared on British children's television! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:Fictional characters in children's television as it trips more lightly off the tongue than Category:Children's television fictional characters. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Her Pegship's suggestion would be OK by me. --RobertG ♬ talk 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Pegship, but Category:Fictional characters in children's television should be a subcat of Category:Children's television characters. Powers 13:05, 27 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 to Category:Gangsters by origin Tim! 08:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be renamed into Criminals by origin. British, Indian, Serbian or Vietnamese mobsters are not mafiosi and neither are Triad members. One is a mafioso when one belongs to the Sicilian Mafia or the American Cosa Nostra. -- Mafia Expert 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have Category:Criminals by nationality, which covers a much broader range of people. I see two possible alternatives:
  • a) Move out whoever you don't consider to be mafiosi.
  • b) Rename this to Category:Gangsters by origin and move it elsewhere in Category:Criminals and add the relevant items to the mafiosi menu as well.

Hawkestone 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did not see Category:Criminals by nationality. Looking at all the different categories about criminals, mafiosi, criminal organisations etc. there is really an overload of categories on these subjects. I suggest that we should try to come up with a few clear categories and stick to that. -- Mafia Expert 12:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Gangsters by origin per Hawkestone. Excellent suggestion. Mafioso are a particular kind of Sicilian gangster, and groups like the "Russian mafia" are really "Russian gangsters". Mafia has become somewhat generic, like "Kleenex" or "Coke", but we should still use the equally-recognizable common noun instead of the brand name. --M@rēino 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need yet another category in the crime section of Wikipida. There are already far too much categories. They should be restructured. I repeat: we should try to come up with a few clear categories and stick to those. -- Mafia Expert 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Gangsters by origin per Hawkestone. Sumahoy 22:59, 24 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category refers to an article Fardella crime family that has been deleted as a hoax. -- Mafia Expert 08:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete hoax category.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:36, 23 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 to Category:People by medical or psychological condition. Tim! 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently pov. What is "rare" considered to be here? Also, this seems to be almost random in structure. For example, it contains the blind, the mute, the autistic, and the selectively mute, but for some reason, does not contain the deaf. Any possible function held by this category could be much more clearly expressed by 2 or 3 new ones that aren't vast illogical groupings of everything remotely interesting. Thanks go out to user:Quistnix, who's similarly nominated category contained this one, making me aware of it. tjstrf 08:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People by medical or psychological condition and add any categories for diseases not deemed sufficiently rare to have been included in this one. Hawkestone 12:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People by medical or psychological condition per Hawkestone. David Kernow 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ISTR a category deletion for HIV/AIDS, on the grounds that this was best handled in lists, leading to a deletion of a larger group of categories. I may be wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • ISTR??? Casper Claiborne 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Seem To Recall. --tjstrf 09:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People by medical or psychological condition per Hawkestone? Casper Claiborne 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This more or less overlaps with the Category:People with disabilities, which should itself be deleted. Tazmaniacs 13:21, 26 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 keep Tim! 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coaches listed are MLB coaches, and the category will be less broad. "Baseball coaches" could be anyone from minor league coaches to little league coaches. --*kate speak 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --*kate speak 06:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both Category:Major League Baseball coaches and Category:Minor League Baseball coaches should be subcats of Category:Baseball coaches -- <i ^(talk) 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would be in the Category:Baseball coaches other than subcats? --*kate speak 07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many categories only contain subcategories, though this one could contain an article about baseball coach and a list of baseball coaches.

Yea, the more that I think about it, you're right.

• Oppose per ProveIt. I find it hard to believe there are only 13 articles about baseball coaches. That isn't even half of the number of current head coaches in Major League Baseball. Are there more somewhere else? Hawkestone 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/create new categories per ProveIt. Some NCAA, minor-league, Japanese League, and Negro League coaches are famous enough to have articles, so there are other articles that could go in the main cat besides MLB coaches. --M@rēino 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STOP THE PRESSES! Redirect Category:Baseball coaches into Category:Baseball managers. I was looking around to see why there were so few articles in "coaches"; it's because they're all in "managers." --M@rēino 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a good idea. There are plenty of notable baseball coaches who are not managers. Minor league coaches are less likely to be notable (for coaching, at least) and probably don't require a category. Minor league managers already have a category. Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand the difference. Isn't Charlie Brown a Baseball manager? And what about Category:Major league baseball managers by team? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look at the articles. In addition to the manager, MLB teams have hitting coaches, pitching coaches, first base coaches, third base coaches, etc. Many of them have held coaching jobs in the big leagues for decades and have not been managers. Leo Mazzone, for instance, who never played or managed in the big leagues, is famous as a pitching coach, and needs to go somewhere. - EurekaLott 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Based on the above it seems that this should be the top category, with Category:Baseball managers as a subcategory, and various other sub and sub-sub categories as appropriate. Chicheley 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, then Rename Category:Baseball assistant coaches, and move all current members to Category:Baseball managers'. Eureka & Chicheley make a very good point, but currently all the members in this category are head coaches, wchih is synonymous (in baseball lingo) with managers. --M@rēino 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I'm afraid neither of those ideas would be an improvement. First, baseball doesn't employ the term "assistant coach" the way other sports do. They're just coaches. Also, while it may be a good idea to move some of the articles to categories for managers, others (including Dave Duncan, Wendell Kim, and Ron Washington, off the top of my head) are notable for their roles as coaches, and should not be lumped together with managers. - EurekaLott 21:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, what about keeping Category:Baseball managers, and keeping Category:Baseball coaches, and creating subcats in Category:Baseball coaches for MLB coaches, per ProveIt. --*kate speak 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That could work, as long as we don't use Provelt's other idea and create a category for minor league coaches, who are highly unlikely to be notable for their coaching work. - EurekaLott 01:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, alot of major league coaches today were previously minor league coaches. If we made the catagories for Minor and Major league coaches, would it include coaches of the past and present? -*kate speak 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just as articles for most minor league players (but by no means all) have been deleted for lack of notability, so would articles for most minor league coaches, if that's where their careers peaked. Yes, big league coaches have also coached in the minors, but that's not what they're known for. Creating a minor league coaches category can only lead to the creation of unwanted articles and category clutter. To answer your question, yes, categories include both current and former coaches, the same way the categories for managers, players, politicians, and so on do. - EurekaLott 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original nom, support Provelt and Kate's idea, to a point. IMHO, the main cat should be either Category:Baseball coaches or Category:Baseball coaches and managers. One thing that no one has brought up is that in U.S. college baseball. the term "manager" is NEVER used. In college baseball, the person who holds the same job as a "manager" in North American professional baseball is invariably titled a "coach" (usually "head coach"). — Dale Arnett 22:59, 20 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 08:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as malicious POV fork --DLand^TALK 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily keep pending resolution of arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg, where it is currently listed as a piece of evidence. After that, delete by all means. --tjstrf 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A closer reading of the arbitration case reveals that it is completed, it just isn't announced on the evidence page for some reason. Someone should do that. --tjstrf 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Tomer^talk 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --*kate speak 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category definition ugly, actual definition lacking (e.g. Judah the Maccabee would have been a terrorist... or a freedom fighter, Mordechai Anielevitz definitely a terrorist from the German POV). JFW | T@lk 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Chmouel 08:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because this has been tried before and it always gets deleted. In any case, the "politically correct" way of doing this should have been "Category:Jewish militants". IZAK 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Evolver of Borg 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no justification to retain this category. Alansohn 11:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The non-existence of this category would suggest a systemic bias towards Zionism when there are 25 categories in Category:Terrorists by nationality. It's striking how several previous votes on terrorism categories have ended in the category being kept, but this one has an immediate stream of keeps. This sort of inconsistency does Wikipedia's reputation no good. Hawkestone 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to Category:Terrorists by nationality but Judaism in not a nation. If you are seeking consistency, the correct category has to be "Israeli terrorists". --Gabi S. 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, but Jewish terrorists were most active before Israel existed. Hawkestone 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the category is currently empty. That kind of implies that there are none. If it stays that way, then we need to delete this category as not yet having any members. --M@rēino 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per all of the above. Yossiea 12:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as explained above. --Gabi S. 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to refute Hawkstone's point, Category:Terrorists by nationality is entirely different from Category:Terrorists by religion, which is essentially what Category:Jewish terrorists is creating. Unlike Hawkestone, I am entirely unworried by "this sort of inconsistency" as I know full well that if there are Jewish terrorists, there must also be a balance to create Category:Muslim terrorists and also Category:Christian terrorists and Category:Hindu terrorists. Perhaps User:Hawkestone is unaware of what religion 99% of terrorists declare themselves - it certainly isn't Judaism. Nesher 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not as stupid and ignorant as you seem to think. I thought of those issues. Unlike the others Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion. Category:Jewish terrorists is the better option as most Jewish terrorists were active before Israel was founded. This debate is a sad reflection on Wikipedia's helpless vulnerability to manipulation by biased interest groups. Hawkestone 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerability to manipulation by biased interest groups??? This is a two-edged sword, as you probably know if you look at the Nakba family of articles. Instead of slugging mud, try to achieve a consistent NPOV and make Wikipedia a better site to look at. --Gabi S. 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure Hawkestone has a point. I see no reason in deleting it. There are definitely Jewish terrorists: how about Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein. Are they not terrorists? You could propose renaming it to Category:Israeli terrorists. After all, the other categories are also named after a nationality, not after a people. Then you would get the problem of classifying, for example, an Israeli Arab from Umm al-Fahm who commits a suicide attack in Tel Aviv. What is he? He is an Israeli terrorist. Conclusion: a category Category:Israeli terrorists would not solve anything. No, I think categories Category:Jewish terrorists and Category:Palestinian terrorists would be better, with the latter including someone like the example I mentioned above. In any case: we cannot ignore or deny the fact that there are Jewish terrorists. True, there are very few of them, far less than that there are Islamic terrorists, but they do exist. As a final note, I must remark that the username of the person who created the category is German, and this means that he is most likely an antisemitic neonazi and definitely not somebody who should be editing articles about Jews or Judaism on Wikipedia. --Daniel575 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last remark is utterly outrageous and has no place in Wikipedia. Please confine yourself to known facts. Hawkestone 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worst violation of the assume good faith principle I've ever seen. For shame! The category has been used extensively for POV vandalism though, if you want to take the trouble to read that arbcom case I linked to earlier. --tjstrf 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gabi and Nesher. -- Avi 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- JJ211219 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have no objections to a category Israeli Terrorist, and I see no problem (unlike Daniel575) with Israeli arabs being in the category. If we are sorting terrorist by nationality where else would Israeli arabs go! I would not have an objection of having Arab Israeli terroists as a subcategory of Israeli Terrorist and also having a subcategory Jewish Israeli terrorist also as a subcategory. Jon513 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Yid613
• Rename Category:Israeli terrorists to conform with Category:Terrorists by nationality and populate accordingly. The attempt to delete the only place for such persons seems as POV as anything I've seen on Wikipedia. CovenantD 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covenant: So this then leads to the next question: Who would you place into such a tendentious category? IZAK 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First explain how it's any more tendentious than the other terrorist by nationality categories, 'cause I don't see the difference. CovenantD 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anybody...? CovenantD 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Avraham Stern and Yitzhak Shamir? The problem with this category, which has been mentioned several times, is that most of the terrorists who would fit in this category were not Israeli at the time that they were terrorists. Their efforts, however, did lead to the establishment of the state of Israel, so the issue is very clouded. siafu 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dauster 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Olve 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Shirahadasha 07:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted in the userbox debate, religion is always POV. We could label someone a "Jewish Terrories", and then someone would come in here and tell us that that person was not Jewish. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 172 | Talk 05:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a lost cause, but this should be renamed Category:Zionist terrorists. However there is no prospect of that happening as the coverage of Jewish and Israel-related issues is completely controlled by Jewish users (compare the number of voters on these topics that any such category get here - most of them from users indentified as Jewish on their user pages - with the number of voters on other categories) and is not neutral. Therefore none of this material represents a global point of view of the balance of opinion of users in general. It should all be written off as an example of how Wikipedia suffers from systemic failure in its coverage of controversial issues. Athenaeum 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this proposal would allow for the inclusion of the various notable members of Jewish terrorist organizations operating in the British Mandate of Palestine, I think that realistically it would be a big fat bullseye for seriously contentious POV inclusions and exclusions and ultimately more harm than it's worth. siafu 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 20:29, 23 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of clearout of vague, undefined surplus opera cats. - Kleinzach 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera Fireplace 02:11, 19 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 (is listified at List of sampled songs). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unmaintainable, to the nth degree. Hundreds of thousands of songs have sampled others, including the majority of all hip hop songs. --FuriousFreddy 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Categories such as this are simply confusing and horrendous to try navigating through. Glad to see someone else nominating these. --tjstrf 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Category:Sampled songs should also be deleted. --musicpvm 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding Category:Sampled songs to the deletion request. --FuriousFreddy 04:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too vague of a category. --Cswrye 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's important information for any music fan, being able to hear a new song that includes samples of his favorite old tunes. The list can't be found anywhere else. --Gabi S. 13:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:Songs using samples. David Kernow 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. --Gabi S. 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. Highly unmaintainable and guaranteed to be bloated. Far too vague. --FuriousFreddy 04:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Also, "samples" isn't just restricted to other songs-- as worded, Category:Songs using samples would include (e.g.) almost the entire catalog for Skinny Puppy. siafu 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathcer 21:40, 23 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 08:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team has been renamed and the current edition doesn't have a category. If anything this could be renamed to Owen Sound Attack but I think a deletion is a better idea as there are very few relevant articles to be categorized. BoojiBoy 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 21:09, 22 July 2006 (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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the abbreviation so that every reader will be able to tell what the category is about. Chicheley 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Chicheley 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, although I can understand why the abbreviation was used for such a long category name! --Cswrye 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 12:29, 19 July 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category. The OHA was renamed to the OHL in 1980 but it's the same league, and distinguishing serves no useful purpose (and would lead to overcategorization, as nothing else changed but the name). All other related articles are already in Category:Ontario Hockey League. BoojiBoy 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Hawkestone 12:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Usgnus 18:16, 20 July 2006 (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.