< June 10	June 12 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Resigned Communist Party of the Soviet Union members to Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. A sub-type of the "former politicians"-type categories, which are typically merged with the main category to avoid any "current" or "former" distinctions in the category structure. This one is slightly different. The fact that a person resigned from the party should be mentioned in the bio article, of course. A related discussion for "expelled" members is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not as simple as "former politicians". This is basically a category for Soviet dissidents which started as communists then wisened up. Having them in the category "CPSU members" is great disrespect. And now that we are here, I am going to create a similar category "Expelled CPSU members", for the same reason. - Altenmann >t 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't. A category for that already exists, and is currently under discussion as mentioned above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an important political disinguishing characteristic in Eastblock countries. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, resigning from the CPSU wasn't a trivial matter, but notable event that led to repercussions for the one resigning. --Martintg (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Martintg, I know people whose careers were ruined and who had to "drop out of sight" when they resigned. Depending on your type of employment, CPSU membership was mandatory, to refuse or resign carried grave consequences. PetersV       TALK 03:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Apparently, CPSU charter did not mention any possibility of voluntary resignation from the party. According to the charter, party member could only be expelled by the party cell decision. Of cause, such decision could follow the intention to leave the party voiced by the party member, but inclusion criterion will be quite subjective.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very funny opinion. "In Soviet Russia Party resigns from you". Sounds not exactly joke. Examples of contrary abound ... even more.. You want more? You just stop paying party dues, then of course you are expelled at the nearest partburo. Piece of cake. Skovorodkoj po jajcam ili jajcami po skovorodke. Anyway, I would very much like to hear about a dissident who was forced to stay in Party. - Altenmann >t 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Party membership in totalitarian society does not correspond directly to party membership in democratic societies. It is not someone changing his political views and leaving the communist party (such thing is impossible, as party represented the only "correct" views), it is party expelling someone who is not paying membership fees, lost his party membership card or generally not worthy to be a communist.DonaldDuck (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are describing the point of view of the Communist Party. I have serious doubts that it is the only one, especially bearing in mind that we don't live in the Soviet Union, where "The People and The Party are The One" (Narod i partiya ediny). - Altenmann >t 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. As I see, you have read the CPSU charter, but obviously you are not very good at Soviet parlance: iskliuchit means literally "to delist"; "to expell" corresonds to izgnat. So your interpretation of the document is dubious. When someone in Soviet newspaper was described as otorvalsya ot partii ("severed his ties with the party"), this was often a doublespeak for a person who resigned from the party, hence a de-facto recognition that a person could resign. - Altenmann >t 17:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • he-he: КОРЖАКОВ Александр Васильевич: "В 1989 г. подал заявление о выходе из партии и был исключен “за неуплату членских взносов” (= In 1989 he gave a notice about the resignation from the party and was expelled for "non-payment of the dues"). I guess we are both right, DonaldD, but I am righter :-) - Altenmann >t 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Purge and Send to Gulag This category tracks individuals who put their life and family at risk by slapping the party in the face with a resignation. The CPSU was not the PTA. Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but both were the source of some delicious pastry recipes! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. Kukk, the only punished person in current category, was punished not for resignation. Don't overestimate the role of party cards. I'm leaning to delete because, taken literally, the category will house thousands of ex-Party, ex-KGB, ex-apparatchiks etc. who "resigned" when the party fell apart. Defectors, deserters and dissidents will be better serve by directly defined categories. No need to mix them with bona fide kegebists like Alexander Korzhakov (currently in the cat). NVO (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per the Jüri Kukk article. Occuli (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete didn't they all resign at the end? This basically would include nearly any post-1992 Russian politician (except those still in the party, which probably isn't denominated "soviet union" anymore) and most from the other repubics as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge or Delete as this would include people like the anti-communist Yeltsin and the various politicians who just openly became anti-communists, nationalists, and conservatives at first point, which essentially serves no point in distinguishing the dissident communists. The majority of the resigned members (a huge late '80s-90s wave) did so because of opportunism prompted by the change in the Soviet Union's conditions, not any ideological change, and this would be the only common denominator. They had been "joiners" who signed up for the opportunities to begin with. Wikipedia hates these former categories anyway. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. the wub "?!" 10:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:City's tallest buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Improperly named ("city's" is possessive for one city; possessive for multiple cities is "cities'"). I would suggest some sort of a rename, but I'm not sure that I think the category should be kept, because this doesn't really fit within the already-extensive category scheme. All of the "tallest building" categories are categories solely for lists. See Category:Lists of tallest buildings, not Category:Tallest buildings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete Debresser (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have all the lists we need on this topic, and then some. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This list is not the same as the other lists! It is a list of buildings that are the tallest in it's city. If you don't know what i'm trying to say, too bad! I tried! By the way, please notify me of these deletions! And Johnbod, stop your seemingly rude comments! No offense. I'm sorry if you think it is. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN emphasizes that lists and categories are not in competition, but are intended to work in synergistic fashion for navigation and population purposes. Under what Wikipedia policy or guideline is the number of corresponding lists a valid argument for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CLN also emphasizes that the statement you cite is not meant to convey a blanket permission to create a matching category for every single list in existence — CFD has a very thorough and well-reasoned process for deciding where categories are or aren't valid and useful, and WP:CLN does not invalidate those precedents. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, alright! But it should be a list, not a category. And if you are only planning to cover American cities, the title should say so. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Populate The category tracks a well-defined and defining characteristic and serves as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Category:Lists of tallest buildings is enough. ('Tallest buildings in their city' might do as a rename.) Occuli (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we ever delete a list because we have "enough" categories? How would this be used on any objective basis as a criteria for deletion and where is this specified as a basis for deletion? WP:CLN emphasizes that lists and categories are meant to work in synergistic fashion for navigation and population purposes. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually deletion of lists is just as ferocious as cfd, and the line 'better as a category' is often used (eg in this one). We could suggest a template of tall buildings I suppose. It would have to be 'Tallest buildings in their city in Foo' at least for each country Foo unless we want a huge category with names such as Arts Tower, BT Tower, Q1 (building), Assumption Place jostling together. I must say that in this case a list is much better as it can give the height, date when built, city etc. Occuli (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate (and rename) per Alansohn - a worthwhile category. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add the relevant lists. It is perfectly reasonable to bring them together this way.DGG (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What could be a better name(s) for this category? Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:/dev/null? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category, even if expanded, will only give you a grouping of buildings, fairly useless when you realize you don't know the heights, the cities, when they were built, etc. No, that isn't an argument to destroy all categories. Many categories are fine because the title tells you everything you need to know about the contents. The simple grouping is sufficient. But when you have something which could benefit from more information, like this category, then yes, a list would be better for the reader. and in an attempt to preempt the inevitable cut-and-paste arguments, I already know about the CLN guideline and synergistic fashion and well-defined and defining characteristics, etc, etc --Kbdank71 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But! according to .... oh. Never mind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CfD game all over again. If CfD is to be anything but a sad, pathetic joke, we need to have some sort of standards for which categories we keep and which we don't. We have an admin here who acknowledges that this is a "well-defined and defining characteristic", but chooses to delete solely based on the fact that a list would be better. We have dozens of categories about buildings and not a one of them has any of "the heights, the cities, when they were built" information demanded here. No category can. Categories can't have sources, additional information, be sorted, be segregated into sections or have red links, among dozens of other fundamental deficiencies. Categories stink, and the argument offered here is an excellent justification to toss the entire category system into the crapper, but has no relevance to why this particular category should be deleted. Sadly, this is an admin who closes CfDs on this basis and yet more evidence of what is fundamentally wrong with CfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I just try to ignore stuff like this, but at this stage I am truly confused (tell you something you don't know, you say). Here Alansohn asks for the application of "some sort of standards" in deciding CfD issues. But here Alansohn decries a situation where "Wikipedia is worse off, but rules must be enforced, consequences and common sense be damned." It sounds like you're a hard man to please, Alansohn. Or is playing both sides just part of the game? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Normally you do ignore any comment (or vote, or source) you disagree with. That's what leads to problem closes when any contrary opinion is ignored. Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I figured it was something to do with it being my fault. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do we have any category where every city or settlement has an entry? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listify if desired, but not useful as a category. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No objection to creating a list. This is again another example of where a list is significantly more informative then a category. While both should exist in some cases, this is clearly a case where the list should exist and the category should not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. Steam5 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unbounded category that would serve better as a list (list of tallest buildings by country or the like). Otto4711 (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Largest cities in U.S. states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this may be re-created material previously deleted, but I can't find the discussion if it is. Perhaps I'm thinking of Country's largest city by population. Anyway, apart from being ambiguously named (largest by population? largest by area?) and incomplete (only two cities in it at the time of nomination), I don't think this category is a necessary or desirable addition to List of U.S. states' largest cities (which is also ambiguously named). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify Debresser (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already done, as stated above: List of U.S. states' largest cities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete was the implication. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - he didn't get vey far, did he! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops! One already existed? My bad! I'm just one person, and nobody's perfect. By the way, why wasn't i notified of this deletion? It's like not giving warnings of tornadoes, and the helpless people get sucked away without warning! I would really like to be notified of deletions of my articles/categories please. By the way, that comment really hurt me Johnbod! I know that Wikipedia doesn't really have a heart, but please cut back on the rude comments! Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, this is a CATEGORY version of it. Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every list requires a matching category. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The list should be sufficient. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a useful category; besides although we're no doubt categorizing population "largest" may mean area; if kept, expect county cats, provinces, and every other subdivision to follow because what's good for America is good for the rest of the world as well, right?. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; list is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Views (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has only two articles in it and I'm sure maybe 1 or more horror films will be released that are set in Egypt! This article currently serves basically no purpose to the Wikipedia. Also, keep in mind, these are horror movies that take place in Eqypt, not filmed there. Too specific.Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:34, June 11, 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator and because I don't like horror movies. Debresser (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete about a half-dozen other "Mummy" movies could be added but they are all of a specific genre rather than whether scenes from Egypt accompany or are just implied by the plot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Views (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is an unnecessary duplication within Category:Theories. Please support this proposal to tighten things up. This proposal is consistent with User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with some dispersal especially to Category:Views by religion. However few or none of these are theories in any useful sense. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree!Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a poorly defined category. Some of these articles, especially under the Category:Religious views sub-category, are far from theories and of very dubious value (Women wearing pants for example). AllyD (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nominator's comment Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Administrative close/no consensus/withdrawn/dog's mess. This is the second of three nominations for the same categories that took place on listings for 3 consecutive days. As I mentioned in the close for these same categories on 2009 June 12, the nominator's practice here was highly unusual and difficult for editors to follow. I see two different suggestions made below: the one approach suggested by Johnbod, and then a subsequent suggestion by Peterkingiron, which the nominator endorsed and based the 3rd nomination on. The only way out of this mess that I can see is to have a (sigh) fourth nomination begun with a clear proposal that will remain open for the standard 7 days without being adjusted. If no consensus develops for the proposed suggestion or an alternative, then something else could be suggested in a subsequent nomination. As Occuli said on 2009 June 12, "there is no particular hurry" and we can take our time on discussing these in an organized fashion that is easily understandable by all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Excellent suggestion by Peterkingiron.

Re-listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 12#Tamil topic of country.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka to Category:Tamil Sri Lankan
• Category:Sri Lankan Tamil culture to Category:Tamil Sri Lankan culture
• Category:Sri Lankan Tamil history to Category:Tamil Sri Lankan history
• Category:Sri Lankan Tamil politics to Category:Tamil Sri Lankan politics
• Category:Sri Lankan Tamil society to Category:Tamil Sri Lankan society

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).

Match existing Category:Tamil Sri Lankans, as well as related Category:Tamil Indians, Category:Tamil Singaporeans, Category:Tamil South Africans, etc.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename first, Keep rest: Rename first to Category:Sri Lankan Tamil per usual convention, to match the main article Sri Lankan Tamil people and the usual term outside WP: - 279k ghits vs 36k ghits. The rest then match. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename first to Category:Sri Lankan Tamil, keep rest per Johnbod. (The one out of kilter would then be Category:Tamil Sri Lankans. I suppose trying to get everything to match is the 'hobgoblin of little minds'. This is not what I said yesterday but then Johnbod is exceptionally persuasive.) Occuli (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question to Johnbod and Occuli: what is "Sri Lankan Tamil"? I understand that to be a Tamil from Sri Lanka. Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka is about their culture etc., as mentioned in the previous nomination. Then I'd say this category should be renamed Tamil Sri Lanka, like "Flemish Belgium" by way of analogy. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sri Lankan Tamil" is the normal noun for a person, and adjective for a topic. We should, as Occuli says, use the plural for the head people cat (or, maybe better "Sri Lankan Tamil people"), & the singular for the head topic cat - see eg Category:Basque and Category:Basque people. What is "Flemish Belgium"? We don't have either an article or category called this, and it is not a usual or clear phrase in English. We have Flanders, Flemish people, Flemish government etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So "Sri Lankan Tamil" is like "American"? The normal noun for a person and adjective for a topic. Why do you propose calling a category "American"? It should be "America". Now what would that be in our case? Debresser (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. Unlike with America/n, noun (noun-phrase correctly) & adjective are the same. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case I support Johnbod and your recommendation. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Booian Fooians is an unattractive form since it is not always clear which is the active location and whcih the passive. Thus the Singapori category should be "Singaporis of Tamil descent", but that is not part of the nomination. This will not do for Indians and Sri Lankans, since the Tamils are natives. Keep Tamils of Sri Lanka. Rename the rest but to the form Category:Tamil culture in Sri Lanka. Changing Booian Fooian to Fooian Booian does not really solve anything, but I think this does. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Excellent suggestion by Peterkingiron.

Re-listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 12#Tamil topic of country.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, I have reverted a withdrawal of this one by the nom, endorsing Peterkingiron's suggestion above. We should let this one run. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Nice to have an easy decision! Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accused spies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Accused Israeli spies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American people accused of spying against the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Americans accused of spying for Czechoslovakia (1945-89) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Americans accused of spying for Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Americans accused of spying for the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Americans accused of spying against the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Indian people accused of spying for the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per the outcome of recent CFDs, found here and here. To reiterate the arguments: Deletion reasons include: 1) possible WP:BLP issues; 2) "Accused" is the equivalent of "alleged" and categories based on allegations are strongly disfavored. While the categories contain a description saying that inclusion is not a confirmation of guilt, the placement of these categories in various "Spies" parent categories strongly belies that. 3) Each accusation of spying needs annotation, something that can't be done through the category system. Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per BLP concerns. — Σxplicit 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. As I have stated my opinion before. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete allegations categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete.

In reading through this, the deletes seem to have a better case. It seems that the keep discussion focuses on the importance of jews, and not why this category is defining for the individuals. This discussion seems to be more wiki politics and questioning then discussing the actual reasons why this category should be kept. This not only makes this more difficult to close, but it may well take time away from listing reasons for keeping that could sway those supporting deletion to change their position. Johnbod may have the best reasons for keeping, but his views do not receive support and don't seem to convince those in favor of deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Split out from previous group nomination. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "model". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to model clothes. Otto4711 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer please note, for this and the following noms, the views expressed at the original group nom below, since some editors may not revisit. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Queries – is there a reason to consider this one alone amongst Category:American models by ethnic or national origin or is this a test case? And should it not be upmerged to Category:Jewish Americans and Category:American models? (Eg Rhonda Shear is not in another models category, although there are Category:American female models and also Category:American male models.) Occuli (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The category was discovered while looking through Category:Jews by occupation. If there are other models by ethnicity categories that should be eliminated, then they can certainly be nominated. In the ill-starred group nom I mentioned upmerging but neglected to do so in this nom, but if an upmerge is needed to keep one or more of the people in their occupation tree then upmerge. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Occuli & many precedents on Foo-American occupational cats. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In a nutshell, Pointless, way too specific Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish American Models" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) The standard for categorization is not notability. It is definingness. There are any number of characteristics about people that may be noted in reliable sources that we do not use as a basis for categorization. 2) No one is contemplating deleting any article that is contained within these categories so arguments about notability are irrelevant. 3) "Jewish" is not a nationality, nor is "Jewish American." There is no such country as Jewland, nor is there any such country as "Jewish America". 4) The existence of categories for African Americans of any occupation does not mandate or even suggest the existence of identical or even similar categories for Jews or Jewish Americans. Otto4711 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:

1. Terminology must be neutral....
2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it."

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- Ethnicity is not in and of itself notable (or defining). The policy requirements are:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage

... thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Thus far, nobody has cited any references that conform to policy.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think you are confusing issues here.

First, what you quote refers to whether a particular individual should be in a category. Not whether the category should exist. As discussed above, Wiki guidelines tell us that “People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.”

Second, the heritage reference, as you present it, is out of context. In full it says: “The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation. For example, Category:African American actors…” This would not apply, for example, to “Jewish American models”, which is what we are discussing here.

Third, in your quote immediately above, you deleted the all-important lead-in that was part of the sentence that you quoted. It says, “Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:” But here we are not discussing beliefs. We are discussing whether someone is Jewish, which is based generally on what one is born into, not belief (just ask Adolph). And Judaism is not only a religion, but also a nationality. And again, this is not an issue to be considered in arguing whether a category should exist, but rather whether an individual warrants inclusion in the category, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Epeefleche. Also, no one has yet satisfactorily answered why was this particular category was singled out for deletion from among the other categories found in Category:American models by ethnic or national origin -- why is that? Also, does anyone else think that WASimpson should cease quoting "policies" he recently revised or rewrote himself in a pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of so many of these Jewish categories on Wikipedia? --Wassermann (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, categorizing your keep !vote as "strong" means absolutely nothing to the closing admin. Second, despite the abject failure to assume good faith on your part, this category was not "singled out". As I already explained above, the category was discovered while looking through Category:Jews by occupation. If there are other models by ethnicity categories that should be eliminated, then they can certainly be nominated. Accusing other editors of engaging in "censorship" and "eradication" is another failure to assume good faith. Again, please demonstrate that there is a "Jewish American" way to model clothes. Please demonstrate per WP:CATGRS that being Jewish has any bearing on the way that models model. Otto4711 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto, I note that there is a "Strong Delete" above as well, yet find it interesting that you don't see you advising the editor that that "means absolutlely nothing." How do we know that the depth of one's feeling on an issue will in fact mean absolutely nothing here? I would be interested in the answer.

Also, Wasserman does raise an interesting point. Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Decisions are made on the basis of the arguments, not whether someone puts "strong" in front of it. No admin worth his salt is going to look at a crap argument and think "oh, it's a crap argument, but the editor feels really strongly about the crap argument!" As for why I put the mention here and not above, well clearly it's more evidence of the insidious conspiracy that I've mounted to purge Wikipedia of all things Jewish. Oh wait, actually it's because I didn't notice the first one! As for the "interesting point" (by which you mean "paranoid conspiracy theory") exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you? Otto4711 (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As editors' views are sought, it seems logical that the difference between a strongly felt view and one that is not so strong would be of moment. But yes, a strongly felt view that is baseless would not warrant much weight. That's for the admin to determine. Otto: I don't believe you've answered my question. Again: Is it the case that you have in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? While Wiki guidelines suggest that we start with a presumption of good faith, the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. No doubt your answers can help preserve the presumption of good faith. Your initial response, above, does not advance that effort. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto: I'm now even further perplexed by your above criticism of Wasserman for categorizing his keep vote as "strong". In doing so, you wrote that such emphasis "means absolutely nothing to the closing admin." Yet, I've just noticed that that on June 11, a mere two days prior to your making that statement, you yourself indicated the strength of one one of your own votes, in the Category:Atheist and agnostic politicians discussion, in which you termed your vote "Weak keep".--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto, above I asked you "Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation?" Your response misled me, because you wrote "exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you?" But just now, I happened to check your last 500 edits, and found that, in stark contrast to what you wrote, that while you sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names, you did not at the same time seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicity. As I asked above, why would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--* I have explained repeatedly how I found these categories and why I nominated them. You are free to accept that explanation or not, but do not pretend that I have not explained. I am not required to nominate other ethnicity or religion categories before I can nominate these, regardless of your demand that I fill some sort of quota. As I noted on your talk page, 12% (61) of the last 500 edits in question were relating to these categories, a number that is artificially inflated because of the closing of the group nomination below and the opening of the individual nominations. This excludes edits relating to Wasserman's incivility, but includes edits relating to the re-creation of the category Fictional Jews, a category that I supported, along with several other Fictional characters by religion categories, when it was at CFD. That contrasts with 13% (65) edits to other CFDs, including the "accused spies" categories nominated directly above this one. BTW, did you count up the edits on that category tree? Because that nomination rather disproves your theory. Your remarks here are not designed to further any sort of productive discussion. They are a calculated effort to portray me as an anti-Semite and you have been advised by an administrator to stop and to reconsider your comments. Not only have you not taken that advice, you've continued engaging in the same behaviour here. You have also called me a liar without justification, an absolute abuse of civility. You have poisoned these discussions to the point where it is unlikely that any reasonable consensus can be achieved. I have no doubt that this was your intention. Otto4711 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Judaism is not a nationality. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" does not say "also known as the Jewish nation". The policy sections cited are for nationalities. These occupations are subcategories of Category:People by religion and occupation.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, our article says (and long has said) "Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture ..." Like the Kurds, Palestinians, Scots, Basques, English & Welsh the usual cosy (and often wrong) assumption that nation = state does not exactly work for them, which we have to deal with. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree w/Johnbod. The article has long referred to Jews as a nation, though an editor did just recently delete that reference, which I've since restored with supporting citations. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[1][2][3]--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete For really the same reasons I had stated in previous CfDs like Category:Jewish photographers. It should also be noted that a good portion of these people are Jewish solely by genetic descent from at most one parent, so any "religious" reasonings behind keeping this category would have to apply to everyone in the category, and not just a few. Bulldog123 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. The categories are just too detailed. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary racial/religious/ethnic category; being Jewish and a model and an American is a triple intersection that goes way too far in WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because their being models has nothing to do with being Jewish (whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity), and being Jewish and Judaism has absolutely no relationships to modeling. This is just an attempt to have trivia writ large and it has no place in an encyclopedia. This is a clear violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. In reading through this, the deletes seem to have a better case. I sympathize with those who want to keep these and use the same words over and over in multiple CfDs. I too have been on the losing side of discussions that I felt very passionate about. While some of these have been the focus in various publications, that does not mean that this classification is defining for everyone who meets the religion/national/religious/ethnic part of the name. And that is a problem with many of these categories. They become a dumping ground for everyone who is a member of A and B. Defining for the individual is not a factor. So, if someone can come up with a similar category that addresses the need for this being defining in the name, then recreation should be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Split out from previous group nomination. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "photographer". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to take a photograph. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom – what next, Jewish accountants, Jewish secretaries? PasswordUsername (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be a good reason yet to keep. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Americans; neutral on the other per many precedents on Foo-American occupational cats. Roman Vishniac and others have found ways to be Jewish photographers. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So by this, I take it you're okay with removing all people who did not find ways to be Jewish photographers, right? So you want the category solely for Roman Vishniac. Yes? Bulldog123 07:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In my opinion there should be no photographer categories by ethnicity Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." There doesn't have to be a Jewish way to take a picture, any more than there has to be a Sri Lankan way to take a picture. The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish shutterbugs" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) The standard for categorization is not notability. It is definingness. There are any number of characteristics about people that may be noted in reliable sources that we do not use as a basis for categorization. 2) No one is contemplating deleting any article that is contained within these categories so arguments about notability are irrelevant. 3) "Jewish" is not a nationality, nor is "Jewish American." There is no such country as Jewland, nor is there any such country as "Jewish America". 4) The existence of categories for African Americans of any occupation does not mandate or even suggest the existence of identical or even similar categories for Jews or Jewish Americans. Otto4711 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:

1. Terminology must be neutral....
2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- Ethnicity is not in and of itself notable (or defining). The policy requirements are:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage

... thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Thus far, nobody has cited any references that conform to policy.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only has WAS written this policy but he also tells us how we might review it in this diff. Seems to be becoming WASipedia. I personally am going to ignore policy documents unless WAS leaves them alone. (How can a diff like this one be oversighted?) Occuli (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Occuli: remember WP:IGNORE ALL RULES, especially in light of the blatant manipulation and recent rewriting of the rules/policy by WASimpson to suit his personal POV. --Wassermann (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.This would appear to be a trivial intersection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to neutral. Epeefleche offers some persuasive cites below, particularly the NYT piece. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think WAS is confusing issues here, unintentionally I'm sure, by referencing material that applies only to whether a person should be in a category, and deleting that part of the reference that makes that clear.

First, what WAS quotes refers to whether a particular individual should be in a category. Not whether the category should exist. As discussed above, Wiki guidelines tell us that “People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.”

Second, the heritage reference, as WAS presents it, is out of context. In full it says: “The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation. For example, Category:African American actors…” This would not apply, for example, to “Jewish American shutterbugs”.

Third, in WAS's quote immediately above, WAS deleted the all-important lead-in that was part of the sentence that you quoted. It says, “Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:” But here we are not discussing beliefs. We are discussing whether someone is Jewish, which is based generally on what one is born into, not belief (just ask Adolph). And Judaism is not only a religion, but also a nationality. And again, this is not an issue to be considered in arguing whether a category should exist, but rather whether an individual warrants inclusion in the category, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that "Jewish photographers" per se have been the focus in books and articles, as evidenced among others by the hardover book Documentors of the Dream: Pioneer Jewish Photographers in the Land of Israel, 1890-1933, by Vivienne Silver-Brody,[16] Through Soviet Jewish Eyes; Soviet Jewish Photographers Confront World War II and the Holocaust, by David Schneer,[17] ART/ARCHITECTURE; Behind a Century of Photos, Was There a Jewish Eye?, by Richard Woodward, New York Times,[18] and Getto Warszawskie 1940-1942: Zdjecia wykonane przez ludnosc zydowska = The Warsaw Ghetto 1940-1942 : photographs taken by Jewish photographers[19].

That there are books about Jewish photographers is a compelling argument in favor of a sourced article on the subject. Notability does not equal definingness. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto -- What is your basis for saying that? Other than POV? As I discussed above, what you are saying is directly at odds with Wikipedia:Categorization of people.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Epeefleche. Also, does anyone else think that WASimpson should cease quoting "policies" he recently revised or rewrote himself in a pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of so many of these Jewish categories on Wikipedia? Never before has WP:IGNORE been as relevant and useful as it now proving to be. I'm also wondering if User:Otto4711 and User:WASimpson would enlighten us here on Wiki-CfD if they have been working in tandem recently in regards to the mass-nomination and attempted deletion of all these Jewish related categories? Inquiring minds would like to know... --Wassermann (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your paranoid conspiracy accusations are not only baseless and without merit they constitute an utter failure to assume good faith on your part, violate civility guidelines and frankly come off as a pathetic attempt to sway the debate by trying to make it about fellow editors instead of the merits of the category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wassermann is and has always been troublesome on CfD/AfDs. It also comes off as his whole purpose on wikipedia is to make and maintain as many Jewish categories/lists as possible. So all those absurd categories we mention as jokes may one day become a reality. Bulldog123 03:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, Wasserman does raise an interesting point. Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you? Otto4711 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto, above I asked you "Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation?" Your response misled me, because you wrote "exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you?" But just now, I happened to check your last 500 edits, and found that, in stark contrast to what you wrote, that while you sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names, you did not at the same time seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicity. As I asked above, why would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because Jewish categories/lists are the most abundant and ridiculous. There's a reason there are no Category:Christian astronauts. Bulldog123 03:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Judaism is not a nationality. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" does not say "also known as the Jewish nation". The policy sections cited are for nationalities. These occupations are subcategories of Category:People by religion and occupation.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto: As editors' views are sought, it seems logical that the difference between a strongly felt view and one that is not so strong would be of moment. But yes, a strongly felt view that is baseless would not warrant much weight. That's for the admin to determine. Otto: I don't believe you've answered my question. Again: Is it the case that you have in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? While Wiki guidelines suggest that we start with a presumption of good faith, the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. No doubt your answers can help preserve the presumption of good faith. Your initial response, above, does not advance that effort. Many thanks.

• WAS: The article has long referred to Jews as a nation, as Johnbod has pointed out above, though an editor did just recently delete that reference, which I've since restored with supporting citations. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[4][5][6] --Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto: I'm now even further perplexed by your above criticism of Wasserman for categorizing his keep vote as "strong". In doing so, you wrote that such emphasis "means absolutely nothing to the closing admin." Yet, I've just noticed that that on June 11, a mere two days prior to your making that statement, you yourself indicated the strength of one one of your own votes, in the Category:Atheist and agnostic politicians discussion, in which you termed your vote "Weak keep".--Epeefleche (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete As there is no notable connection between being Jewish (or in the case of most of these entries, being of "Jewish descent") and being a famous photographer. I should add that the "keep - ethnicity is important" entries on these CfDs are becoming obnoxious. The argument isn't against ethncity being important, but against the LINK between this ethnicity and this profession being important. I would say that List of Jewish American photographers should go as well. Bulldog123 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. The categories are just too detailed. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments in models above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since the nominator has it right, because being a photographer ("shutterbug") has nothing to do with being Jewish (whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity), and being Jewish and Judaism has absolutely no relationship or connection to photography or being a "shutterbug" in any way, shape, size or form. This is just an attempt to have trivia writ large and it has no place in an encyclopedia. This is a clear violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. The arguments in favor of deletion are confirmed by the lack of any substantial sign that this is a defining intersection. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Split out from previous group nomination. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "conductor". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to conduct an orchestra. Otto4711 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apparently there is, or so it has been claimed anyway. Why aren't you nominating the parent Category:Jewish musicians? I think it is time to call a stop to this dubious attempt to make large areas of the category structure Judenfrei. "Jewish" is perfectly adequate as an adjective, btw. There is no need to invent new ones, an exercise with a very dubious history. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So, because Wagner had a hissyfit about Jewish musicians 150 years ago that means there's an encyclopedic relationship between Judaism and conducting music? Nonsense. Whether any other category is or isn't nominated has no bearing on whether this is an encyclopedic relationship, and Wagner's anti-Semitic ravings do not establish an encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "conductor". Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, given that I have Jewish ancestry, your attempt to link these nominations to a Nazi policy comes off as thoroughly disgusting. Actually, regardless of my ancestry, your attempt is thoroughly disgusting. Otto4711 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Johnbod "loses" the discussion under one of the corollaries to Godwin's Law. In any event, the issue is not removing Jewish people from large areas of the category structure, the issue is removing unnecessary/unhelpful references to peoples' ethnicity, which can begin to border on the "creepy" sometimes. (Almost as creepy as using the word "judenfrei" in this discussion.) I am not sure which side of the line "Jewish conductors" (or "Jewish astronauts") falls on. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Rodin's article seems to tie his judaism to career decisions; the Damrosch articles don't. Does show that a connection can be made, and categoriees of one suck, but better to keep and pare down than lose the baby with the bathwater. ThuranX (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Jewishness of a mucisian (including conductors) might or might not not influence his play. That is a delicate question. But the fact remains that Jewish mucisians have often worked together, socialised together, been grouped together, and received attention with mention of their Jewishness. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category isn't "Jewish musicians" - it's "Jewish conductors" - why does ones ethnic background or religion have pertinence to their ability to lead an orchestra? Bulldog123 04:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- ethnicity is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not the standard for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ETHNICITYISNOTABLE Bulldog123 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Keep The category maybe too specific, but I think definitely the Jewish musicians category is important, and I can see why some might want to keep it Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument isn't "ethnicity isn't notable" it's "the combination of conductors and Judaism isn't notable" - which it isn't. Bulldog123 03:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a historic and defining connection between Jews and conducting. Wagner's "hissyfit" (curiously, a term often used with LGBT overtones) only serves as further evidence that there is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish conductors" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) The standard for categorization is not notability. It is definingness. There are any number of characteristics about people that may be noted in reliable sources that we do not use as a basis for categorization. 2) No one is contemplating deleting any article that is contained within these categories so arguments about notability are irrelevant. 3) "Jewish" is not a nationality, nor is "Jewish American." There is no such country as Jewland, nor is there any such country as "Jewish America". 4) The existence of categories for African Americans of any occupation does not mandate or even suggest the existence of identical or even similar categories for Jews or Jewish Americans. Otto4711 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:

1. Terminology must be neutral....
2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it."

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- Ethnicity is not in and of itself notable (or defining). The policy requirements are:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage

... thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Thus far, nobody has cited any references that conform to policy.

Category:Jewish musicians is exclusively for musicians that perform Category:Jewish music related to Jewish heritage. I've both danced and played with them. As a professional musician, I'm personally insulted by Johnbod.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Another category you've obviously not looked at at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think you are confusing issues here.

First, what you (WAS) quote refers to whether a particular individual should be in a category. Not whether the category should exist. As discussed above, Wiki guidelines tell us that “People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.”

Second, the heritage reference, as you present it, is out of context. In full it says: “The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation. For example, Category:African American actors…” This would not apply, for example, to “Jewish American conductors”.

Third, in your quote immediately above, you deleted the all-important lead-in that was part of the sentence that you quoted. It says, “Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:” But here we are not discussing beliefs. We are discussing whether someone is Jewish, which is based generally on what one is born into, not belief (just ask Adolph). And Judaism is not only a religion, but also a nationality. And again, this is not an issue to be considered in arguing whether a category should exist, but rather whether an individual warrants inclusion in the category, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that "Jewish conductors" per se have been the focus in books and articles, as evidenced among others by the book The Jewish Leonard Bernstein, by Rodney Greenberg,[20] The Jewish music companion, by Velvel Pasternak,[21] Jews in Soviet Culture (Jewish conductors make up about 30% of Soviet conductors), by Jack Miller [22] Jewish musicality in America, by K. Sward,[23] The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation, by Cecil Roth,[24] Music in the Third Reich,[25] "Jews in Music,"[26] and The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, by Mordecai Schreiber, Alvin I. Schiff, and Leon Klenicki.[27]

• The existence of sources about conductors who happen to be Jewish is a compelling argument for a sourced article, not a category. Notability does not equal definingness. Otto4711 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your basis for saying that? Other than POV? As I discussed above, what you are saying is directly at odds with Wikipedia:Categorization of people.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Epeefleche. Also, does anyone else think that WASimpson should cease quoting "policies" he recently revised or rewrote himself in a pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of so many of these Jewish categories on Wikipedia? Never before has WP:IGNORE been as relevant and useful as it now proving to be. I'm also wondering if User:Otto4711 and User:WASimpson would enlighten us here on Wiki-CfD if they have been "working in tandem" recently in regards to the mass-nomination and attempted deletion of all these Jewish related categories? Inquiring minds would like to know... --Wassermann (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your paranoid conspiracy accusations are not only baseless and without merit they constitute an utter failure to assume good faith on your part, violate civility guidelines and frankly come off as a pathetic attempt to sway the debate by trying to make it about fellow editors instead of the merits of the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, Wasserman does raise an interesting point. Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you? Otto4711 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto, above I asked you "Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation?" Your response misled me, because you wrote "exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you?" But just now, I happened to check your last 500 edits, and found that, in stark contrast to what you wrote, that while you sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names, you did not at the same time seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicity. As I asked above, why would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Judaism is not a nationality. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" does not say "also known as the Jewish nation". The policy sections cited are for nationalities. These occupations are subcategories of Category:People by religion and occupation.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto: As editors' views are sought, it seems logical that the difference between a strongly felt view and one that is not so strong would be of moment. But yes, a strongly felt view that is baseless would not warrant much weight. That's for the admin to determine. Otto: I don't believe you've answered my question. Again: Is it the case that you have in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? While Wiki guidelines suggest that we start with a presumption of good faith, the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. No doubt your answers can help preserve the presumption of good faith. Your initial response, above, does not advance that effort. Many thanks.

• WAS: The article has long referred to Jews as a nation, as Johnbod has pointed out above, though an editor did just recently delete that reference, which I've since restored with supporting citations. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[7][8][9] --Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete There is no reason to keep this category over Category:Jewish photographers. They both share equal cross-over irrelevance. Just because there are conductors who are Jewish, and just because some of those conductors are also musicians who happen to have made some Judaism-inspired music, doesn't mean "conducting" and "Judaism" is connected. Bulldog123 04:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments on models - if kept, rename "conductors" to Conductor (music) unless we are talking about people taking tickets on trains. All Aboard!!!!!! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because their being conductors has nothing to do with being Jewish (whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity), and being Jewish and Judaism has absolutely no relationships to conducting. Category:Hindu conductors or Category:Atheist conductors etc. anyone? This is just an attempt to have trivia writ large and it has no place in an encyclopedia. This is a clear violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite all of the words above for keeping, no case has been made as to why this is defining for the individuals in this category. Historical connections for some individuals, while interesting, do not make any category defining for the individuals. While the connect might be there for a few, creating this category without clear inclusion criteria makes it simply a catchall for anyone who is Jewish and a conductor. I don't think that this any policy that says an intersection like that should be a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization by a non-defining characteristic. This category is no different from Category:Jewish photographers, and should be deleted accordingly. — Σxplicit 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Split out from previous group nomination. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "chess player". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to play chess. Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know little about the game, but this article, for one, does makes it sound like there's a notable intersection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm sure that MR NIMZO is a lovely fellow, chessgames.com is not a reliable source and notability is not the standard for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. As to that article. It still seems fact they were Jewish was not what singled them out here, but more the coincidence of their common heritage. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Del. A sampling of five articles showed stubs in which Judaism was mentioned in the personal bio, but not tied to their play style, career choices, or in any way demonstrated a coincidence of Judaism and Chess-play. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Just as there doesn't have to be a "French" way to play chess, there need not be a "Jewish" way to play chess for there to be a category. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish chess players" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

See also the discussions in the above and below deletion discussions of Jewish conductors and astronauts. In addition, see the book Chess in Jewish History and Hebrew Literature, by Victor A Keats,[28], "Jewish Chess Players", the chapter in the book Jewish Achievements, by Mendel Silber,[29], the book The Great Jewish Chess Champions, by Harold U Ribalow and Meir Z Ribalow,[30], the book Chess, Jews, and history, by Victor Keats, [31], the hardcover book Jewish Chess Masters on Stamps, by Felix Berkovich and Nathan Divinsky,[32], as well as: [33], [34], [35], which demonstrate the notability of Jewish chess players per se.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) The standard for categorization is not notability. It is definingness. There are any number of characteristics about people that may be noted in reliable sources that we do not use as a basis for categorization. 2) No one is contemplating deleting any article that is contained within these categories so arguments about notability are irrelevant. 3) "Jewish" is not a nationality, nor is "Jewish American." There is no such country as Jewland, nor is there any such country as "Jewish America". 4) The existence of categories for African Americans of any occupation does not mandate or even suggest the existence of identical or even similar categories for Jews or Jewish Americans. Otto4711 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:

1. Terminology must be neutral....
2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- Ethnicity is not in and of itself notable (or defining). The policy requirements are:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage

... thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Thus far, nobody has cited any references that conform to policy.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think you are confusing issues here.

First, what you quote refers to whether a particular individual should be in a category. Not whether the category should exist. As discussed above, Wiki guidelines tell us that “People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.”

Second, the heritage reference, as you present it, is out of context. In full it says: “The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation. For example, Category:African American actors…” This would not apply, for example, to “Jewish American chess players”.

Third, in your quote immediately above, you deleted the all-important lead-in that was part of the sentence that you quoted. It says, “Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:” But here we are not discussing beliefs. We are discussing whether someone is Jewish, which is based generally on what one is born into, not belief (just ask Adolph). And Judaism is not only a religion, but also a nationality. And again, this is not an issue to be considered in arguing whether a category should exist, but rather whether an individual warrants inclusion in the category, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Epeefleche. Also, does anyone else think that WASimpson should cease quoting "policies" he recently revised or rewrote himself in a pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of so many of these Jewish categories on Wikipedia? Never before has WP:IGNORE been as relevant and useful as it now proving to be. Everyone who has looked in to the topic of Jews and chess realize that Jews are disproportionately represented at the highest levels of the game, and have been for many decades. This category is also very well populated (it has over 400 entries), further proving the strong Jewish association with chess. Jews were especially associated with chess in the former USSR, where they were often top players (chess champions/masters) all out of proportion to their small numbers in the overall population. And hey, would User:Otto4711 and User:WASimpson please enlighten us here on Wiki-CfD if they have been "working in tandem" recently in regards to the mass-nomination and attempted deletion of all these Jewish related categories? Inquiring minds would like to know such things... --Wassermann (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your paranoid conspiracy accusations are not only baseless and without merit they constitute an utter failure to assume good faith on your part, violate civility guidelines and frankly come off as a pathetic attempt to sway the debate by trying to make it about fellow editors instead of the merits of the category. That there are a lot of chess players who happen to be Jewish is not an argument in favor of the category. Please demonstrate that there is a Jewish way to play chess. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto, Wasserman does raise an interesting point. Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you? Otto4711 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto, above I asked you "Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation?" Your response misled me, because you wrote "exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you?" But just now, I happened to check your last 500 edits, and found that, in stark contrast to what you wrote, that while you sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names, you did not at the same time seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicity. As I asked above, why would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Judaism is not a nationality. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" does not say "also known as the Jewish nation". The policy sections cited are for nationalities. These occupations are subcategories of Category:People by religion and occupation.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto: As editors' views are sought, it seems logical that the difference between a strongly felt view and one that is not so strong would be of moment. But yes, a strongly felt view that is baseless would not warrant much weight. That's for the admin to determine. Otto: I don't believe you've answered my question. Again: Is it the case that you have in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? While Wiki guidelines suggest that we start with a presumption of good faith, the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. No doubt your answers can help preserve the presumption of good faith. Your initial response, above, does not advance that effort. Many thanks.

• WAS: The article has long referred to Jews as a nation, as Johnbod has pointed out above, though an editor did just recently delete that reference, which I've since restored with supporting citations. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[10][11][12] --Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article Jew does say "The Jews enjoyed two periods of political autonomy in their national homeland" a few lines down. It seems obvious that "Jewish" is a special case and that some general consensus should be established rather than these interminable cfds which keep or delete 'Jewish foos' more or less at random. Occuli (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, the category refers to Jewish ethnicity rather than religion. Second, it is simply not the case that Jewish ethnicity and chess have no connection. In fact the connection is strong, and has often been the subject of commentary and study. As one example, the American team on the losing side of the USA vs. USSR radio chess match 1945 had 9 Jewish members out of 10, and the Soviets 6 Jewish players out of 10. I copy here the argument I made when this category was nominated for deletion in 2005: "The category is an ethnic category, not a religious category. Compare to the close companion category Category:Jewish classical musicians. Jews have a unique place in the history of chess, and this is often noted and discussed. The first two chess world champions (Wilhelm Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker) were Jewish. In fact, 7 of the first 16 world champions (ending with Garry Kasparov) were Jewish. Many of the most important chess writers and theoreticians were Jewish (Siegbert Tarrasch, Ksawery Tartakower, Aaron Nimzowitsch, Reuben Fine, Fred Reinfeld, and dozens of others). The important early A History of Chess (1913) by H.J.R. Murray includes a section titled Chess among the Jews. Dutch psychologist and chess researcher Adriaan de Groot has considered the question of Jewish talent in chess. British journalist David Spanier includes a chapter on Jews in chess in his book Total Chess. The Jewish Encyclopedia includes bios of Jewish chess players. Jewish chess players have sometimes been attacked for their ethnicity. Steinitz faced anti-Semitic attacks. Alexander Alekhine and Bobby Fischer (ironically himself Jewish) were/are noted anti-Semitic chess players. I agree that the category should be given some descriptive text to make clear that it is an ethnic classification not a religious one. It should also give some indication of the importance of the contributions of Jewish chess players to the history of the game. Quale 15:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)" Quale (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Personally I don't see the need for the category. However, it has been discussed in significant books, for instance, The Complete Book of Chess, by I. A. Horowitz and P. L. Rothenburg, 1963. They talk about it on page 30-34 and 78-83. They note that (as of that writing) all of the US Champions of the 20th century except one have been at least partly Jewish. They also state that Jews tend to be players and not problemists. Bubba73 (talk), 03:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The propensity to play chess and do well at is has not been established as a "Jewish" thing. We can make assumptions about why Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Mikhail Tal were Chess grandmasters and all happen to be of Jewish ethnicity, or why several others were of Jewish heritage (Fischer, Kasparov, Smyslov), but it would mostly be WP:OR and hence not applicable to wikipedia's standards. I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning it, as there has to be a reason behind it. I just think there's a problem with drawing an enveloping relationship --- as this category does. Bulldog123 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not OR. Jewish ethnicity and chess playing skill have been studied and commented on by many reliable sources as noted in the comments immediately preceding yours. Quale (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments on models above. Trivial, OCAT, unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator is 100% correct. Being a chess player has nothing to do with being Jewish per se (whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity), and being Jewish and Judaism has absolutely no connection to playing chess (maybe eating gefilte fish and bagels is more appropriately "Jewish" but there are no categories Category:Gefilte fish eaters and Category:Bagel eaters of Jews or anyone else -- and rightly so.) This is just an attempt to have trivia writ large and it has no place in an encyclopedia. This is a clear violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion that Jewish ethnicity has no connection with chess playing skill is not shared by many WP:RS reliable sources as noted in several comments made prior to yours. I don't think you or the nominator have greater understanding or expertise in this area than do the sources mentioned, and there are many other sources as well. Quale (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quale. Voorlandt (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Quale. The rational of the nominator is that there is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "chess player". Well, this is just contradicted by reliable sources, which destroys the case. SyG (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. the wub "?!" 10:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Split out from previous group nomination. There is no encyclopedic intersection between "Jewish" and "astronaut". There is no such thing as a Jewish way to fly a space ship. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Last discussion, May 2008. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep I remember that Ilan Ramon made a whole thing about Shabbath observance in space. There might be more notable material connecting "Jewish" with "astronauts". 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

• So because one Jewish person made "a whole thing" of Shabbath in space that means that the intersection of "Jewish" and "astronaut" is automatically encyclopedic? That seems like a dangerously low threshold to set, as there is likely one person who could be found at pretty much any intersection of any two characteristics who made "a whole thing" about it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ilan Ramon example. ThuranX (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we should keep the category solely so we can put Ilan Ramon into it? How does his actions apply to the others? Bulldog123 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- ethnicity is notable, but the category may be too small to be worhtwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the argument isn't "ethnicity is not notable" Bulldog123 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my arguments, and those of others, last time. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to Ilan Ramon's committed effort to be a Jew and and an astronaut simultaneously, the Jews in Space bit from History of the World, Part I convinces me of the strong connection. Alansohn (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category.

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish astronauts" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) The standard for categorization is not notability. It is definingness. There are any number of characteristics about people that may be noted in reliable sources that we do not use as a basis for categorization. 2) No one is contemplating deleting any article that is contained within these categories so arguments about notability are irrelevant. 3) "Jewish" is not a nationality, nor is "Jewish American." There is no such country as Jewland, nor is there any such country as "Jewish America". 4) The existence of categories for African Americans of any occupation does not mandate or even suggest the existence of identical or even similar categories for Jews or Jewish Americans. Otto4711 (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:

1. Terminology must be neutral....
2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- once folks start referring to humorous films (History of the World, Part I) as reliable sources, the discussion has clearly gone downhill.... Ethnicity is not in and of itself notable (or defining). The policy requirements are:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage

... thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Thus far, nobody has cited any references that conform to policy.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think you are confusing issues here.

First, what you quote refers to whether a particular individual should be in a category. Not whether the category should exist. As discussed above, Wiki guidelines tell us that “People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.”

Second, the heritage reference, as you present it, is out of context. In full it says: “The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation. For example, Category:African American actors…” This would not apply, for example, to “Jewish American chess players”.

Third, in your quote immediately above, you deleted the all-important lead-in that was part of the sentence that you quoted. It says, “Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:” But here we are not discussing beliefs. We are discussing whether someone is Jewish, which is based generally on what one is born into, not belief (just ask Adolph). And Judaism is not only a religion, but also a nationality. And again, this is not an issue to be considered in arguing whether a category should exist, but rather whether an individual warrants inclusion in the category, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to reference in literature, see among others: "Special Tribute to Jewish Astronauts, by Leonard Hoenig,[36], "Jewish Astronauts in Space," by Rabbi David L. Abramson,[37] "Chasidic Gathering in Florida Sends Off Jewish Astronaut," by Joshua Runyan and Tamar Runyan,[38] "Oh, heavens! Jews make mark in outer space", by Mark Mietkiewicz,[39] "The Ultimate Jewish Traveler", by Judie Fein,[40], and "NASA Jews", by Dr. Gerhard Falk.[41]

• The existence of sources is a compelling argument in favor of a sourced article, not a category. Notability does not equal definingness. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your basis for saying that? Other than POV? As I discussed above, what you are saying is directly at odds with Wikipedia:Categorization of people.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Epeefleche. Also, does anyone else think that WASimpson should cease quoting "policies" he recently revised or rewrote himself in a pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of so many of these Jewish categories on Wikipedia? Never before has WP:IGNORE been as relevant and useful as it now proving to be. I'm also wondering if User:Otto4711 and User:WASimpson would enlighten us here on Wiki-CfD if they have been "working in tandem" recently in regards to the mass-nomination and attempted deletion of all these Jewish related categories? Inquiring minds would like to know... --Wassermann (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Your paranoid conspiracy accusations are not only baseless and without merit they constitute an utter failure to assume good faith on your part, violate civility guidelines and frankly come off as a pathetic attempt to sway the debate by trying to make it about fellow editors instead of the merits of the category. Please demonstrate that there is a Jewish way to fly a space ship. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, Wasserman does raise an interesting point. Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? As to whether there is a Jewish, or French, or American Hispanic way to fly a spaceship -- that's simply not the test, of course. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you? Otto4711 (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto, above I asked you "Have you in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation? And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation?" Your response misled me, because you wrote "exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you?" But just now, I happened to check your last 500 edits, and found that, in stark contrast to what you wrote, that while you sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names, you did not at the same time seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicity. As I asked above, why would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Judaism is not a nationality. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" does not say "also known as the Jewish nation". The policy sections cited are for nationalities. These occupations are subcategories of Category:People by religion and occupation.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto: As editors' views are sought, it seems logical that the difference between a strongly felt view and one that is not so strong would be of moment. But yes, a strongly felt view that is baseless would not warrant much weight. That's for the admin to determine. Otto: I don't believe you've answered my question. Again: Is it the case that you have in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be? While Wiki guidelines suggest that we start with a presumption of good faith, the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. No doubt your answers can help preserve the presumption of good faith. Your initial response, above, does not advance that effort. Many thanks.

• WAS: The article has long referred to Jews as a nation, as Johnbod has pointed out above, though an editor did just recently delete that reference, which I've since restored with supporting citations. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[13][14][15] --Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete There is no reason to draw enveloping conclusions about people of Jewish descent going to space because one guy (Ilan Ramon) decides to make it relevant to his ethnicity/religion. Bulldog123 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Ilan Ramon is already properly categorized under Category:Israeli Jews, and Category:Israeli astronauts (the only member). Israel is a country.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would agree in this case with Will's comment above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial per my comments on the models cat above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator is correct. Being an astronuat, or cosmonaut or pilot or any profession, has nothing to do with being Jewish (whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity), and being Jewish and Judaism has absolutely no relationships to being an astronaut and being any form of air and space travel expert. This is an artificially contrived category. It would ill-behoove Wikipedia to start a series on a break-down by religious beliefs of all astronauts such as Category:Roman Catholic astronauts or Category:Baptist astronauts. This is just an attempt to have trivia writ large and it has no place in an encyclopedia. This is a clear violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteComment: I think IZAK has a very good point. I would like to see all categories by ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. eliminated. In fact, I have said before that I think somewhere between 85 and 95 percent of the categories on Wikipedia should be eliminated, including any that are at all subjective. However, as long as we do have all these categories including a lot of questionable ones, this one gives me mixed feelings. I read some of the articles in this category and there is one, the Russian cosmonaut, whose article says his first flight was delayed due to his religion. Then there is the Israeli astronaut, discussed above. Then there is another American astronaut who sent a message from space honoring Israel's 60th anniversary. And then, although I'm not sure this helps make my case, there is Judith Resnick who became very famous due to (unfortunately) her death in the Challenger disaster. Oh wait, I don't actually have a "case" because I am not saying "keep" or "delete." I can understand both sides. If I were forced to make a choice, it would probably be "delete", but that's not even a "weak delete." 6SJ7 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi 6SJ7: The exceptions you cite only reinforce why this category should be deleted. Your proposal to delete "all categories by ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc" is also far to sweeping because there are serious circumstances and criteria that would allow for such categorization, like religious leaders (or thinkers and theologians in those religions), or people noted for strong activism in terms of an ethnic or national issue. After all Wikipedia does not want to go to another extreme and live in denial by wishing to negate what happens in the real world either. But to literally conjure up and slap the label of "Jewish" with the profession and work of every last Jew that walked on this Earth, whether real or imagined, whether they wanted it or not, whether they self-identified or not is very far fetched bordering on WP:OR. Additionaly, in the face of the lack of one universal definition of a "Jew" (Reform Jews accept patrilineal descent and therefore if a person has just a Jewish father he is a "Jew" whereas thousands of years of Jewish law and all of Orthodox Judaism reject that). In the USSR Jews hid from being Jewish and many rejected it as they practiced communism, and on and on so that it just becomes a dubious hobby for some people on Wikipedia, somewhat like collecting pennies or butterflies, to slap the label "Jewish this" and "Jewish that" upon any unsuspecting, unwilling, and remotest victims by playing fast and lose with the facts when none of these people became big in their fields specifically because they were Jews, and in fact often Judaism would forbid many of those activities, and in turn being Jewish and Judaism as a faith has nothing to say or do with any of the professions and careers of people, no matter how fascinating it may seem to people who just don't get it. As for Judith Reznik or Ilan Ramon what does Judaism or being Jewish have to do with their being astronauts? Maybe Judaism would have not commended them to the space program and encouraged them to stay home and build nice Jewish families instead of trying to wander into the heavens. So you see how silly this all becomes as an excercise in futility and it's therefore best to disconnect these people's being "Jewish" from their professions or careers as a total waste of time in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY because it is about as significant as what color eyes they had, what their height was, or what their favorite food or movies were. IZAK (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• IZAK, I think our opinions are fairly similar, though maybe produced by different thought processes. I actually would rather see all categories eliminated than the situation that exists today -- not to "negate what happens in the real world", but because the category system is not a good way to convey information. In an article, you have to have a source for whether someone is Jewish, or whatever other categorization criterion you choose to name, but in a category, you just create a category, edit it into an article, and there it is. To follow along with your analogy, it may well be that Jewish theologians, or African-American civil rights leaders, or the like, are valid categories, but the question is whether they are worth also having the hundreds of garbage categories that come along with them. I would rather see a better system of lists, where at least everything has to be sourced, and at the same time lists are much less obtrusive, they stay on their own little page without being slapped on every other article, as categories are. But I suppose this isn't the place to debate that. Between the two of us, we have convinced me to change to a Delete on this category, as I have done above. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Again we have keep arguments that don't make a case for this being defining. There may be a case to create Category:Astronauts who have done something in space to celebrate religion, culture, heritage or fantasy. Is showing how ones traditional clothing works in space defining? If kept, this is probably better named as Category:Astronauts who are also Jewish. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-fascists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A vague and insufficiently policed page, which has attracted such pages as David Cameron (apparently for calling the UKIP loonies) and a random Trotskyite band. Even if it were closely defined, and carefully policed, it would include millions alive in 1940. Not a useful cat. (The intended meaning, for such people as George Orwell, can be achieved by splitting Category:British people of the Spanish Civil War into the two sides.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Category:Anti-communists. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, by the end of this discussion, it were divided into manageable subcats - as I see Category:Anti-communists has been - or adequately and severely policed, the purpose of discussion will have been met. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is such thing as anti-fascists.Biophys (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in dispute. The question is whether this cat, as it stands, is a useful way to navigating to them, or whether it's an overcrowded POV-fest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Some people will clearly fit the category, but if we are not careful it will attract POV issues. The category needs to be tightly defined in a headnote to apply to activists. Possibly members of the International Brigade would belong, but they should be a specific subcategory. I hope the so-called Anti-fascist League of the 1980s will not appear, as theri behaviour showed them merely to be left-wing fascists (but perhaps that is my POV!). Similarly the demonstrators agaisnt the BNP press confernece last week were behaving like fasicsts of the left. The BNP are enittled to be heard, much as I destest theri views. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this serves the purpose of categories: ease of navigation to articles that have something in common. If nominator wants subcats, create them. Hmains (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many of the individuals here are defined largely by their anti-fascism and many defined themselves as anti-fascists. Alansohn (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If person/groups's article has WP:RS where they or others thusly identify them, there should be a category. Just like for anti-communists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superguns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category & term "supergun" is unencyclopedic : lists or collections of biggest or any other -est are not part of an encyclopedia & add nothing to the sum of knowledge; the term itself is purely subjective and in the specific context of artillery it is meaningless. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What about (while we are here) - Category:Superweapons, Category:Wunderwaffen, not to be confused with Category:Vergeltungswaffen, + a few others? Occuli (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they were deleted, we always would be confusing them, nein? :) The German ones are at least defined with the customary precision of their makers, & may make sense within WW2 categories. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is a main article, supergun. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This weren't just ordinary guns and the parent article provides a wonderful companion and guide to the category. Alansohn (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No inclusionary criteria, and therefore arbitrary. The article defines a supergun as an "extraordinarily large cannon with an extremely high muzzle velocity and large bore". The standards of "extraordinarily large," "extremely high," and "large" make a category untenable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. I'll add that both keep opinions were from the one editor, the category creator. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iconic characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Completely a judgment call, seems to be all opinion here. Not sure that without heavy citation anyone could be called such, and even if so, hardly seems like a connective tissue, esp. as I could as easily consider Uncle Sam, Columbia, and Lady Brittania as icons of their nations, not of pop culture. ThuranX (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can see what they were getting at, but it is too open-ended. Just about anyone who is 'notable' could be included. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – if SpongeBob SquarePants is iconic, then nearly everything must be. Occuli (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only is it original research, but even if we limit it to characters who have been called "iconic", that's hardly a useful way to associate the characters with each other. This seems to be a case of using categories as a way to describe the subject of an article, rather than as a way to associate related articles. Not every adjective that describes a character has to be a category. =) Powers ^T 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – criteria for inclusion is too subjective. It will only lead to endless lame edit wars. Maybe it would work if it was "American Cultural Icons," but not very well. (BTW - they don't even have Mickey Mouse??! What's wrong with this picture, people? lol) Pigby (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposing Deletion. I think the category is a very good category. I think it could play a part in the Wikipedia. How about... Horror articles by importance, isn't that matter of opinion? or Horror films set in Egypt, how many can there, or will there possibly be??????????, or Weird Al Yankovich Albums (you mean his dicography?) Just a thought. Don't worry, I'm not going to fight you on this. (oh, sorry I forgot to add Mickey Mouse!) Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. You misunderstand the 'importance' categories. That word "importance" is not a judgment on the value of the movie to society, but as a matter of what is of high-importance to the horror movie project, as regards which articles they feel need to be moved up to, or maintained at Featured Article Status. It's a 'housekeeping/managerial' category, not a category about which should be thought of as 'important' by the casual wikipedia reader. Geographic features of a genre may have a low population, but it's got carefully constructed criteria for inclusion, and I can see that material being germane to a consideration of the film industry in Egypt. ThuranX (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I never said delete, I said "I'm not going to fight you on this". Just wanted to make that clear Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion. How about we change it to Fictional iconic characters? or Fictional American iconic characters? Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - way too bias. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whether a character is iconic is pure POV. Uncle Sam, Britannia etc would be better described as Natioanl icons or national symbols or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the category creator, needless to say I oppose the delete. I think this could be a very popular category as more articles are added, guidelines may have to take place Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think I know what the creator was going for here and I know we've allowed the I know it when I see it criteria to be used -- a standard described almost directly at CfD for Category:LGBT-related television episodes which I proudly supported for retention -- but this category has no inclusion standard or mechanism to figure out what's in and what's out. This category could be recreated if a clearer set of inclusion criteria could be formulated. Alansohn (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted above, I don't think that would help. Even with a well-defined inclusion criterion, the articles in this category would have virtually nothing in common. It's just not a useful grouping. Powers ^T 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese Buddhism to Category:Buddhism in China

Nominator's rationale: In line with the other categories multichill (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Chinese Buddhism" is generally used to refer to Buddhist philosophies indigenous to China. I'm not sure if this merits its own category, but there can be a clear distinction in use between "Chinese Buddhism" and "Buddhism in China." On the one hand, one idea might be to consider is making "Chinese Buddhism" a subcategory restricted to indigenous Chinese Buddhism and making it a subcategory of "Buddhism in China." On the other hand, there probably aren't enough significant foreign Buddhist sects in China notable enough to merit their own articles in the near future. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of this distinction, the present cat would appear to be Buddhism in China; a subcat contains Bodhidharma, for example. Move if anybody finds it clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Definitely should be moved if other categories go by the ....in china Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Laws of thought to Category:Rules of inference

Nominator's rationale: They are the same thing. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the locution "law of thought" has always been identified with the rules of logical inference. Various philosophical attemtps at expanding the scope have met with failure historically – the modern scope of term actually coincides exactly with Category:Rules of inference. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question then why aren't the three classic laws of thought categorised in Category:Rules of inference? Debresser (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They ought to be; the dispute over whether the Law of the excluded middle is a universally valid rule of inference has taken most of the twentieth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the three of them are all rules of inference. We will merely merge them o the category when we merge the category.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case I support this proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As the two categories appear to overlap in both intended content and articles included. Alansohn (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn and split into separate nominations. Non-admin close. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete and/or Merge - some more Jews by occupation category for which there does not appear to be an encyclopedic intersection. There is to the best of my knowledge no Jewish way to fly a space ship or a Jewish method of modeling clothes. There may be additional such categories within the tree but these seemed the most obvious. Either delete or merge to the appropriate parents to be sure the articles remain within the Jews and the Occupations trees. Otto4711 (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep them all - the censorious deletionists certainly have been on the move around here lately haven't they? There have been at least two dozen Jewish related categories deleted from Wikipedia in the last 1-2 months alone...can someone please explain what's going on here? Many of these categories are/were old, well-established, well-populated, and well-referenced. So why are you all now so eager to just delete (censor) them all? Despite many of them having been around for years, it seems that all of a sudden they are now meeting the censorious wrecking-ball at the rate of at least 1 per day. Is anyone else noticing the blatant censorship that is happening here on Wikipedia in regards to the purging of nearly ALL Jewish related categories from the entire English language encyclopedia? Is anyone else going to also stand up and oppose the blatant censorship and mass-deletion of all this factual, relevant, and encyclopedic information? --Wassermann (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I definitely see the point of trimming these: although I'm Jewish myself, this isn't in any way any sort of censorship. Though quite honestly I'm not sure about deleting "Jewish astronauts" – something definitely significant about that one, although I'm not sure if that's acceptable enough per our categorization rules. What about the equivalent categories for African Americans – African American astronauts and similar...? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - accusations of "censorship" are 1) without basis in fact and 2) an abject failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nominator, as I have stated repeatedly. With the possible exeption of Category:Jewish astronauts because I remember at least one of them, Ilan Ramon, where the Jewish aspect played a most significant roll. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Conductors? Come on. Jews in Jazz bands alone should establish that as notable. Jewish Chess Players - many russians, who suffered under the communists. Astronauts attested to above, and the rest thus follow suit, as it's one nomination. ThuranX (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oppose group nom. Per conductors, I agree that the role of Jews in the development of classical, jazz, big band etc. -- and Russan Jews, in particular, as an important ethnic sub-group of chess masters -- may represent meaningful intersections of ethnicity and occupation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh good god. Is a six-category nomination really so complex that it can't be dealt with in a group nomination? Fine. I WITHDRAW the group nom that's making people's poor heads spin so badly and will nominate the wildly diverse categories separately. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eurochart Hot 100 number-one singles to Category:European Hot 100 Singles number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Chart's current name is European Hot 100 Singles. Funk Junkie (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I do not like the word "singles" appearing twice. Perhaps ...number-ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It's kind of clumsy to have "singles" twice in the title, but "(name of chart) number-one singles" is the standard for Number-one singles categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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