The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation, attendance at a convention is non-defining. Tim! (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial and non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining overcategorisation. --BelovedFreak 09:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category potentially has about 60 people (through 2008) who have been "guests of honor" of the convention over the last 10 years. (Contrary to the nominator's assertion, mere "attendance" does not put a person in this category.) Currently 40 of those people are notable and have Wikipedia articles written about them. There are scores of sizable science fiction conventions worldwide (see List of science fiction conventions) which could all potentially have similar categories. Once the categories are populated, the lists will be useful for convention planners to compare and contrast the guests that various conventions are inviting. Analyzing the potential usefulness of such a category compared with say, Category:Fictional characters from Iowa (not to pick on them, but that was one I ran across who's utility escapes me), I think Category:CONvergence guests is quite useful, has a sizable but limited population scope, and groups real people who share a common thread, having interacted on panels, at receptions, and joint publications. An analogous category might be Category:Summiters of the Seven Summits who are linked because they all did the same thing. What purpose would it serve to delete this category? - saving disk space?--Appraiser (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one in this category is notable for or defined by having been a guest of honor at a particular convention. They were guests of honor because of their existing notability. A sourced list article, which could be placed in a category like Category:Lists of science fiction convention guests of honor would serve the exact same research purpose as creating multiple categories for the individual guests, many of whom I would wager have been guests of honor at multiple conventions and thus would accumulate multiple clutterful categories. That other categories exist is not a valid argument for keeping this one. If you think Category:Fictional characters from Iowa has no utility, nominate it for deletion. I trust you would agree that climbing the Seven Summits is suficiently definitional of those who do it to warrant categorization? Otto4711 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This seems to be a category with the same philosophy as all the actors by TV series categories, that got deleted a while back. If this winds up staying, I can see a proliferation of guests by convention categories. Not a good idea, imho. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I noticed that this category was created, I looked to see if there was any sort of parent category that it could go into, or to see if there were other categories for other convention attendees. I didn't see any. I'm willing to bet that several of these guests of honor (like Peter Mayhew, Mercedes Lackey, and Larry Dixon, for example) attend several conventions per year, so similar categories could become a rather large, tangled web. I think the proper place to list CONvergence guests of honor is at CONvergence (convention), so I'm going to recommend a delete on this one. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 17:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Burkinabé playwrights
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Apologies as creator for not doing my homework better...--BelovedFreak 09:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Soman (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Games protected with StarForce
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Difficult to maintain. If it is needed it can be told in the article. No need for categories. SkyWalker (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NCAA Men's Frozen Four venues
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. Kbdank71 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:NCAA Men's Frozen Four venues to Category:College ice hockey venues
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Per a number of previous CFDs, categorizing sports venues by events that have been contested in them is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jewish businesspeople
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete
There are many discussion that have been linked, and there is a long history behind deleting categories such as these. Much of what I will say here is similar to what I said when I closed the CFD for Jewish mathematicians. So I went back and reread the previous CFDs, and reread our guidelines about categorization. I'm coming at this as someone who has been involved in CFD for several years, and has participated in the writing of our guidelines and interpreting them. I firmly believe that xFDs are not a vote. It disheartens me that many of these discussions do not focus on the interpretation of our guidelines for specific cases. If people believe our guidelines are faulty, a good CFD discussion can point out the ways in which they need to change.
I think it is important to look at the arguments made by those wishing to keep the category, and analyze whether the points have merit based on our guidelines and precedent. I'll go through Wasserman's points one by one:
" The categories were unjustly deleted by highly POV editors who wish to remove, delete, and/or censor all kinds of information about Jews/Judaism/Israel from Wikipedia." I can understand how people can get upset when categories they find to be important appear on CFD. I first came to these CFD discussions for that very reason. Many categories of LGBT people were nominated for deletion, and I was appalled to think that Wikipedia could be so homophobic. To be honest, my sense of indignation kept me from being objective about what was going on. Now, years later, I'd probably nominate those very same categories for deletion myself. I do not see that there has been any discrimination by the removal of categories of professions of Jews. In fact, compared to the categories of professions of other religions, there are more categories of Jews than the others. If there was any POV on the part of the closers of the previous CFDs, it was the POV to follow our guidelines and precedents. To be frank, most of the nominations and votes to delete often come from people who have been involved in these discussions in the past and who regularly get involved in multiple CFD discussions.
"Other categories still exist in Category:American businesspeople by ethnic or national origin". There are several categories of people's professions intersected with ethnicities, but I see this as a problem in keeping these categories maintained. Category:American businesspeople by ethnic or national origin is a recent creation, and contains a recreation of the previously deletedCategory:African American businesspeople. There are many categories that exist that have no good justification for their existence. "Other things exist" is rarely sufficient reason to keep something. The examples mentioned should have a long history, and/or have survived a CFD discussion in the past. Such a history might help support an argument for keeping the category.
"Deleting this category would also continue to reduce the scope and effectiveness of its parent category: Category:Jews by occupation." Yes, it would reduce the scope, but that can be offset by the creation of well-cited lists. The deletion of every category reduces the scope of what is categorized. However, categorization does not mean that articles can be tagged without constraint. To do so creates real problems of overcategorization that can negatively impact the entire categorization system.
"99% of the material written, categorized, and/or listed on this website is entirely unsourced." I don't see sourcing as a problem with this category, either pro or con. I suspect most of the articles have been properly categorized, and in the vast majority of cases the categorization is non-controversial. Sourcing is not an issue if the category is not controversial.
"Wikipedia needs categories which are somewhat like broad nationality categories for Jews". This argument has been raised and rejected in previous closings. The "Fooian Fooer" categories are a quirk of our categorization history. They came into existence because every person had a nationality and every person had an occupation and prior to having category table of contents, there was a desperate need to make categories smaller. They are often non-notable intersections.
"This is and will continue to be an encyclopedic, scholarly, notable, and well-researched topic." Based on our guidelines and the precedents listed, the key issue is whether this is a notable intersection. There is only one comment that seems to think that any intersection of religion and occupation is valid. However, this comment does not offer any cogent reasons to abandon our guidelines and precedents. The other religion intersected with occupation categories are predominantly populated by occupations that are directly linked to the religion or in which there is some special connection between the religion and the occupation. So the question is if there is some special connection between being a businessperson and being Jewish. The books cited make a strong case for supporting the topic of "Jewish Economic History" but not necessarily "Jewish Businesspeople". If anyone wanted to create Category:Jewish economic history, I would have no problem with it. If a person was a notable figure in that history, they could be so categorized. I doubt that many of the Jewish businesspeople with articles in Wikipedia would end up in this category. I don't think there are any significant differences between the way Jews run businesses compared to business in general in our current world. Certainly, this might have been the case in the distant past. "Jewish businesspeople" would be a valid category if they were all practitioners of the "Jewish way of doing business". If anything, to make this distinction nowadays seems antisemitic.
-- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion: Very Strong Keep – Let me state this clearly: many of the above-mentioned categories were unjustly deleted by highly POV editors who wish to remove, delete, and/or censor all kinds of information about Jews/Judaism/Israel from Wikipedia, so their deletion should not be taken as a valid precedent. Many of those categories were deleted while no one was looking and with only 3 or 4 'votes' along with very little input from a wide variety of non-POV motivated editors, thus negating the entire premise of the CfD process. Also, it is clear that this particular category is NOT "non-notable" since the very prominent role of Jews in business and economics in many countries worldwide has long been discussed and written about by scholars, writers, economists, researchers, journalists, politicians, and other people for centuries (see the list which I will provide at the end of this comment). This category currently contains over 550 names…how is it then “non-notable”? The former Category:Jewish-American businesspeople also contained hundreds of names, and its deletion was clearly a travesty since other categories still exist in Category:American businesspeople by ethnic or national origin. Additionally, this category is not solely an "intersection of religion and occupation" since you and others well know that 'being Jewish' is as much an ethnic designation as much as a religious one. Therefore, this is also a categorical intersection by ethnicity and occupation, of which Wikipedia has many similar categories -- so why do you single out this one, Jayjg? Deleting this category would also continue to reduce the scope and effectiveness of its parent category: Category:Jews by occupation. Additionally, since Jews are dispersed worldwide and as such aren't confined to a single country like most other national, ethnic, and/or religious groups are, Wikipedia needs categories which are somewhat like broad nationality categories for Jews (in many areas: not solely business) because nearly all of the other people, nationalities, and ethnic and/or religious groups of the world have their own similar categories (for example, see: Category:Businesspeople by nationality). As far as these names being mostly unsourced (which isn't entirely true, actually): have you taken a good look around at 99% of Wikipedia's categories, lists, and articles lately? If you have, then you will see that about 99% of the material written, categorized, and/or listed on this website is entirely unsourced and yet you have no problems with the existence of all this other material. However, aside from very few/minor errors, there is no doubt that all of the names found in Category:Jewish businesspeople are both Jewish (ethnically and/or religiously) and also businesspeople, yet still you and others try repeatedly to delete this category. You and others seem to pay no actual attention to the veracity of the data contained within these categories/lists/articles, and as I explained last time this category was nominated for deletion the attempt to delete categories, lists, and articles such as these are part of an ongoing and systematic campaign to remove/censor/delete much information about Jews/Judaism/Israel from Wikipedia. That being said, I will now include a PARTIAL list of books which clearly prove that this is and will continue to be an encyclopedic, scholarly, notable, and well-researched topic and thus constitutes a valid category here on Wikipedia.
R. A. Ohrenstein. Economic Analysis in Talmudic Literature: Rabbinic Thought in the Light of Modern Economics. Brill Academic Pub., 1997. ISBN9004095403.
D. Cesarani. Jews and Port Cities: 1590-1990 -- Commerce, Community and Cosmopolitanism. M.V. & Co., 2005. ISBN0853036829.
Y. Don. A Social and Economic History of Central European Jewry. Transaction Pub., 1990. ISBN0887382118.
R. W. Zweig. The Gold Train: The Destruction of the Jews and the Looting of Hungary. Harper, 2003. ISBN006093512X.
S. W. Baron. Economic History of the Jews. Random House. ISBN0805205381.
M. Arkin. Aspects of Jewish Economic History. Jewish Pub. Society of America, 1975. ISBN0827600674.
J. I. Israel. European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism: 1550-1750. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1998. ISBN1874774420.
G. Levine. The Merchant of Modernism: The Economic Jew in Anglo-American Literature, 1864-1939. Routledge, 2002. ISBN0415941091.
L. Kahaner. Values, Prosperity, and the Talmud: Business Lessons from the Ancient Rabbis. Wiley, 2003. ISBN0471444413.
M. E. Stevens. Temples, Tithes, And Taxes: The Temple And the Economic Life of Ancient Israel. Hendrickson Pub., 2006. ISBN1565639340.
W. Sombart. The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Transaction Pub., 1982. ISBN0878558373.
D. Penslar. Shylock's Children: Economics and Jewish Identity in Modern Europe. Univ. of California Press, 2001. ISBN0520225902.
L. Poliakov. Jewish Bankers and the Holy See. Law Book Co. of Australasia, 1978. ISBN0710082568.
G. Yogev. Diamonds and Coral: Anglo-Dutch Jews and Eighteenth-Century Trade. Holmes & Meier Pub., 1978. ISBN0841903697.
J. Neusner. The Economics of the Mishnah. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990. ISBN0226576566.
W. H. Nelson. The Economic War Against the Jews. Random House, 1977. ISBN0394407172.
J. Shatzmiller. Shylock Reconsidered: Jews, Moneylending, and Medieval Society. Univ. of California Press, 1989. ISBN0520066359.
A. Godley. Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship in New York and London, 1880-1914: Enterprise and Culture. Palgrave MacMillan, 2001. ISBN0333960459.
W. E. Mosse. The German-Jewish Economic Elite 1820-1935: A Socio-Cultural Profile. Oxford Univ. Press, 2003. ISBN0198229909.
H. Pollins. Economic History of the Jews in England. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press, 1983. ISBN0838630332.
H. Levine. Economic Origins of Antisemitism: Poland and Its Jews in the Early Modern Period. Yale Univ. Press, 1993. ISBN0300052480.
M. Kaplan, Jewish Roots in the South African Economy. C. Struik, 1986. ISBN0869773208.
M. Tamari. In the Marketplace: Jewish Business. Feldheim Pub., 1992. ISBN0944070280.
L. A. Harris. Merchant Princes: An Intimate History of Jewish Families Who Built Great Department Stores. Kodansha Amer. Inc., 1994. ISBN1568360444.
D. Landes. Dynasties: Fortunes and Misfortunes of the World's Great Family Businesses. Viking, 2006. ISBN0670033383.
N. Ferguson. The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money's Prophets: 1798-1848. Penguin, 1999. ISBN0140240845.
N. Ferguson. The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World's Banker: 1849-1999. Penguin, 2000. ISBN0140286624.
N. Ferguson. The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000. Basic, 2002. ISBN0465023266.
R. Chernow. The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family. Vintage, 1994. ISBN0679743596.
N. Gabler. An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Anchor, 1989. ISBN0385265573.
C. O. Gráda. Jewish Ireland in the Age of Joyce: A Socioeconomic History. Princeton Univ. Press, 2006. ISBN0691127190.
R. A. Rockaway. Words of the Uprooted: Jewish Immigrants in Early Twentieth-Century America. Cornell Univ. Press, 1998. ISBN0801485509.
Y. Slezkine. The Jewish Century. Princeton Univ. Press, 2006. ISBN0691127603.
H. James. The Deutsche Bank and the Nazi Economic War Against the Jews: The Expropriation of Jewish-Owned Property. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001. ISBN0521803292.
N. Baldwin. Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate. PublicAffairs, 2002. ISBN1586481630.
E. Ashkenazi. The Business of Jews in Louisiana: 1840-1875. Univ. of Alabama Press, 2003. ISBN0817312757.
F. Bajohr. ”Aryanisation” in Hamburg: The Economic Exclusion of Jews and the Confiscation of Their Property in Nazi Germany. Berghahn Books, 2002. ISBN157181485X.
A. Chua. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. Anchor, 2004. ISBN0385721862.
K. Marx. On the Jewish Question (A World Without Jews). Philosophical Library, 1959. ISBN0806529539.
A. Leon. The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation. Pathfinder Press, 1971. ISBN0873481348.
B. Arbel. Trading Nations: Jews and Venetians in the Early Modern Eastern Mediterranean. Brill Academic Pub., 1995. ISBN9004100571.
A. Barkai. From Boycott to Annihilation: The Economic Struggle of German Jews, 1933-1943. Brandeis Univ. Press, 1990. ISBN1584652233.
B. E. Supple. "A Business Elite: German-Jewish Financiers in Nineteenth-Century New York." In The Business History Review, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer, 1957), pp. 143-178 [1]
--Wassermann (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wassermann, your lengthy list of books has little to do with the category, and rest of your argument boils down to "other categories are unsourced too" and "CENSORSHIP!!!!". Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wassermann's reading list. "Non-notable" is clearly wide of the mark! Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the books are notable, but the relationship to the category is spurious. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per Jayjg. -- Olve Utne (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wasserman. If there are unsourced entries, remove them. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly - Wassermann has already made the essential points. With any category of this size there are always going to be a few unsourced inclusions, regardless of the subject matter. I was doubtful about Mark Ecko being included, for example, but easily found a reliable source and added the citation. Cgingold (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Occupation by religion is valid, as it is but a sort of occupation by ethnicity, which I think is a useful group of category pages to maintain. (And connected with the issue being discussed here, I guess broad occupation by ethnicity (ie. or religion) crossed with citizenship is a valid subcategory, that is 'Jewish American sportspeople' and 'Jewish ice hockey players' (but not 'Jewish American ice hockey players') is not overcategorization) Mayumashu (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"non-notable" - see the list above!; "Opinion about a question or issue! - what issue? Please try to keep at least near the matter at hand. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a list of books, none used as sources for the categorizations, and of no discernible relevance. Explain, for example, how "N. Baldwin. Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate. PublicAffairs, 2002. ISBN1586481630." is relevant to this category. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea, not having read it. But the list en masse clearly shows this is a notable topic; you have asserted, but not argued, the opposite. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is an issue for articles. Be strict there by all means, but it doesn't reduce the usefulness of the category. And don't be so American-centric either! There are Jews in business outside the USA and Israel too, even in countries with no extant hyponymic category Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for most "Jewish" is not merely an ethnicity but a religion. Being Jewish is a notable characteristic, but the category should only be applied to a biography where it is notable. Delete for sportspeople, as being Jewish is unlikely to be particualrly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adding a category to an article is no different than adding any other fact. They must both be sourced. End of story. --Kbdank71 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'd agree with your literal statements, why should that then imply the deletion of the category? That's what being discussed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (listify if wanted). I think the others above explained the overcategorisation well enough, and linked to the relevant guidelines. Though I'd like to note a couple things further: 1.) Editors who "attack" other editors, and/or presume their motivations (without reliable evidence) in an WP:XFD discussion, rather than discussing the content under discussion, may find that their comments will likely be ignored by the closer. So I strongly advise against such actions in the future. 2.) Finding references is a wonderful thing. Let me say that again: Finding references is a wonderful thing! However, that just helps indicate even further that this should be a list, and not a category. See also WP:CLN for more information. The fact that in most instances, categories can't list references, is why these and other such cats are repeatedly deleted. Feel free to listify (presuming verifiablerelaiable sources concerning a "notability"). But to repeat, no, this shouldn't be a category. - jc37 09:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Color scientists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:withdrawn, even though every argument to keep would appear to be original research. Kbdank71 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Color researchers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "Color scientist". Moreover, I'm not sure that all of these individuals should be characterized as scientists. All in all, they might best be described as people who researched color -- i.e. "Color researchers". If anybody has a better idea, feel free to suggest. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify))Cgingold (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept (creator of category). I wanted a short and recognizable name (rather than "chromaticians"). --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've called myself a color scientist many times, and a color researcher never, even though I was VP of Research when that's what I was doing; either web or book search will show color scientist more than twice as common; it refers to a person involved in color science, whether called a scientist or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 03:33, July 7, 2008
That would seem to suggest that we should have a Category:Color science, which might then serve as a parent cat for this category. Do we have enough articles to justify such a category? On the other hand, regardless of how that pans out, I'm still not sure that all of these individuals should be characterized as "scientists" -- which was one of the reasons I thought the broader, more inclusive term might be better. Cgingold (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several of the subcategories and many articles under Category:Color would be appropriate in that. I'll see if I can figure out how to do that. On second thought, having given a look, I'm going to hold off for now. And as I tried to say, one can be considered a "color scientist" without necessarily identifying as a "scientist"; but who did you have in mind that might not be considered a scientist? Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are certainly people who are described as color chemists, I agree that color scientist is better than color researcher. --Bduke (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colour chemists study the chemistry, presumably of dyestuffs. This cat. is broader than that, studying the perception of colour ad (back in Newton's day) the basic physics behind it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the people included use scientific methods to study colour, then they're colour scientists. Those who research auras, the colour of crystal vibrations and other such bobbins can go and build their own cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We've got 24 actual scientist/engineer types in the category now, and I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of (and I have refrained from adding Richard Francis Lyon, whose article is fairly lame but does reference one color-science patent). Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bradford University has (or used to have) a course in colour chemistry. This is concerned with the science behind colours (as with dyestuff), not for example the skin of the researcher. I am not sure whether there are colour physicists, but the present term seems satisfactory. I have added a sentence to the category to explain what it is about. While the articles are likely mainly to be about those concerned in research, the Bradford course was no doubt devised to train people to work in the local woollen industry, many of whom would be concerned in production management rather than research. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the arguments that have been marshalled in support of this category I'm willing to withdraw my objections. That said, I do think, as I suggested above, that it would be helpful to have Category:Color science as a parent cat, if possible -- and more importantly, we need a main article on the subject, as Color science is merely a redirect to Color. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that categories and article called "color science" are a good idea. But it will be some work; who is willing to take it on? Should we make color a smaller article that refers to color science in a section using a main link? Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories:Chileans of Booian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. Kbdank71 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Argentine-Chileans to Category:Chileans of Argentine descent
Category:Austrian Chileans to Category:Chileans of Austrian descent
Category:Basque Chileans to Category:Chileans of Basque descent
Category:Bolivian-Chileans to Category:Chileans of Bolivian descent
Category:Brazilian-Chileans to Category:Chileans of Brazilian descent
Category:British-Chileans to Category:Chileans of British descent
Category:English-Chileans to Category:Chileans of English descent
Category:Scottish Chileans to Category:Chileans of Scottish descent
Category:Welsh Chileans to Category:Chileans of Welsh descent
Category:Croatian Chileans to Category:Chileans of Croatian descent
Category:French Chileans to Category:Chileans of French descent
Category:German Chileans to Category:Chileans of German descent
Category:Greek Chileans to Category:Chileans of Greek descent
Category:Hungarian Chileans to Category:Chileans of Hungarian descent
Category:Iraqi Chileans to Category:Chileans of Iraqi descent
Category:Irish Chileans to Category:Chileans of Irish descent
Category:Italian Chileans to Category:Chileans of Italian descent
Category:Moldovan Chileans to Category:Chileans of Moldovan descent
Category:Palestinian Chileans to Category:Chileans of Palestinian descent
Category:Polish-Chileans to Category:Chileans of Polish descent
Category:Russian Chileans to Category:Chileans of Russian descent
Category:South African-Chileans to Category:Chileans of South African descent
Category:Spanish-Chileans to Category:Chileans of Spanish descent
Category:Swiss-Chileans to Category:Chileans of Swiss descent
Category:Ukrainian Chileans to Category:Chileans of Ukrainian descent
Category:Uruguayan Chileans to Category:Chileans of Uruguayan descent
Nominator's rationale: for clarity and per recent precedent. the 'hyphenated term' is not at all self-evident if what is meant is that the person is, taking the top one as an example, an Argentine citizen of Chilean descent, Chilean citizen of Argentine descent, a dual citizen of Argentina and Chile, a citizen of any country of dual Argentine and Chilean descent, or any of the above. (Note that in the last few months Category:Argentine people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Brazilian people by ethnic or national origin, Category:French people by ethnic or national origin, as well as the like pages for Australians, Dutch, Chinese, Croatians, Germans, Czechs, and others have all been changed to this pattern Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. No controversies here. - Darwinek (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is much clearer and more consistent (and is the hyphen significant in the ones that have it?) -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically, it seems, entirely, to depend on the person and even on the grammar guide, as to whether having the hyphen is correct or not. The issue is conveniently side-stepped with the rename, wouldn t you say? Mayumashu (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and many recent precedents. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom., very sensible solution. -- Olve Utne (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep all. Although the Booian-Chileans scheme is vague in terms of the people it includes, it is a better alternative to the proposed scheme. "Descent" means one thing and one thing only - anyone with any ancestor. The use of this term will (because some people around here know english) lead to the inclusion of anyone with any Chilean ancestor even if the ancestor goes back 500 years. Thus, the proposed scheme leads to an undefining categorization. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there is nothing wrong with including distant ancestors. However, even if one favo(u)rs somehow restricting inclusion to arbitrarily defined 'recent' descent, 'Fooian(-)Booians' is no better, as they are described commonly as a Booian of Fooian descent, without any mention of how close the descendency is/should be. In terms of inclusion, the two types of terms are entirely equivalent Mayumashu (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all according to much recent precednet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.