< May 10	May 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: Delete. A bit of a muddle here, but I do see consensus at least that only one of Category:Poles of Armenian descent and Category:Polish Armenians should exist. There is disagreement on which one is appropriate. So for now I will delete this category, since Category:Polish Armenians was not nominated. However, this deletion is without prejudice to rename Category:Polish Armenians to Category:Poles of Armenian descent or something similar. In other words, this close is without prejudice to this nomination which has already been made. The issue of whether to merge or not was moot at close, since the only thing in the category is the subcategory Category:Polish Armenians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poles of Armenian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page lists Polish citizens of partial Armenian ancestry or national descent. For those whose Armenian descent is half or more see Category:Polish Armenians.

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories requires:
  • Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
    • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
    • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage requires:
  • In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
    • Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
    • The place of birth is rarely notable.
• Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories requires:

The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Category:Polish Armenians, where these people belong. Hmains (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By definition, none of the folks in this category qualify for Category:Polish Armenians, so merging them makes no sense.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the definiton you mention is the stated purpose of the category, that can be changed by a few keystrokess so this is no argument. Hmains (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Polish Armenians, which clearly defines the individuals included. Any borderline cases or individuals for whom Polish Armenian heritage is not appropriate should be addressed individually. Alansohn (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not our responsibility to make a heritage determination. Each editor must provide reliable and verifiable sources for each individual. Therefore, responsible editors are assumed to have made an individual determination that none of the folks in this category qualify for Category:Polish Armenians.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – we've had dozens of these and agreed time after time that Fooian Barians is ambiguous except for Fooian Americans. However we have the well-fledged Category:Armenians by country of citizenship (note that according to this American Armenians are Armenians with US citizenship, ie Armenian Americans). It seems to me that a Pole of Armenian descent is not necessarily a Polish Armenian so keep both (eg father Polish, mother Armenian). Occuli (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Category:Armenians by country of citizenship all need renaming.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary ethnic category; purely subjective as has been described before. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• REverse Merge Category:Polish Armenians to this category. A lot of effort was put into converting these dual nationality categories into the form Booians of Fooian descent, and these categories should conform. A Polish Armenian could be a Pole of Armenian descent or an Armenian of Polish descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This listing is to delete a category that does not conform to policy in its definition and contents. In principle, deleting this category could be followed by renaming Category:Polish Armenians to match the others in Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin. However, that would require a different listing (CfR). Done, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 18#Category:Polish Armenians.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:06, 18 May 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. (Individual articles can be added to Category:Polish Jews in appropriate circumstances, which have been well-outlined in the comments below.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poles of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is for Polish people of either partial or full Jewish descent who did not consider themselves Jewish.

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories requires:
  • Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
    • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
    • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage requires:
  • In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
    • Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
    • The place of birth is rarely notable.
• Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories requires:

The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The many quotations from Wikipedia guidelines and policy may be relevant to particular entries within this category, but address nothing about the category itself. There was this thing called The Holocaust that happened a few decades ago in which a few million Poles of Jewish descent were selected from among their non-Jewish countrymen and sent for extermination. I can think of few characteristics that would be more defining. Alansohn (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotations apply generally to all such categories; therefore, specifically to this "category itself." Other citations might apply to "particular entries" within such a category, but are irrelevant here. Category:Holocaust survivors already exists.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are people who are Poles of Jewish descent who did not experience the Holocaust. If you have any evidence to counter my statement that being Poles of Jewish descent has been a rather significant defining characteristic I look forward to hearing it. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By definition, these folks did not consider themselves Jewish. Thus, it has not defined them. It is the established policy of Wikipedia that such categories shall not exist. Therefore, Wikipedia policy does not require me to give any evidence. Rather, it would be your responsibility to give reliable and verifiable sources for an exception to the policy.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because: (a) the individuals in these types of categories have no real formal and relevant connection with Judaism as such or with Jews and the Jewish people in any meaningful way as it relates to their notability in their given professions and subsequent articles or categories. (b) This is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and of (c) Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. (d) Quite a few of these categories have already been deleted over the years. IZAK (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent points. Many thanks!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If somebody doesn't consider themself a Jew, Wikipedia shouldn't categorize them as such. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary race/ethnic/religion cat & per IZAK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment how come Category:Poles of Jewish descent is now devoid of any content? Hmains (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge for the reasons given above for Polihs Armenians. WE do not need to distinguish those with some Jewish blood and those mostly of Jewish blood. I ahve not come across that for any other country. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge would be unacceptable. Category:Jews by country does not use this form.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:39, 18 May 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 Erik9 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Suicides by firearm in Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This comes under the heading of "non encyclopedic and generally bad ideas". Categories related to people can be "delicate" (see Wikipedia:Categorization of people) and this is one of them. There isn't a policy on this specifically, but general principles seem to indicate a clear view that it's probably a bad idea:

1. While each suicide is a human tragedy, and a few people may find a list of suicides useful, Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS and articles (and categories) don't exist just because material might be interesting or useful to a few people. Being a suicide by firearms in a given state may be a news item but it's just not at heart encyclopedic.
2. It's also likely to have very few members - "people notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, who died by suicide, using a firearm, in Arizona..."?
3. A third reason is that a Category:Suicides might be viable, but this is far more specific than that broad category; we generally try hard to avoid non-encyclopedic cross categorizations; "People in region X who commited suicide by means Y" seems a very clear case of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. ("People in North Dakota who were hit by a car while DUI"? "Suicides by jumping in Georgia"?)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep part of a category structure, see Category:Suicides by firearm in the United States. The nom's whole premise is that singling out a location (here, Arizona), makes this too narrow. However, division of many things by state in the US is common and no ill-will attaches to it. It's just keeping the main cat space clean. Whether 5 or so people in the cat is sufficient to break this by state for Arizona was not addressed by the nom but may merit a merge with the parent if consensus is that this is small and unlikely to grow (how one may base that judgment I don't know as suicide is as much in vogue now as ever and handguns in the US are omnipresent). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Category:Suicides by firearm in the United States would be very large if not subcatted by state. Category:Suicides by firearm in California alone has 78 pages. Occuli (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All similar categories in Category:Suicides by firearm in the United States should be included in this nomination. --24.13.246.116 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a robust category structure that captures a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep to match its sibling categories and because it is encyclopedic. Nominator should read the surrounding category structure before trying to delete/destroy. Hmains (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As part of the larger category scheme. Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 15 May 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) 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War of 1812 prisoners of war to Category:Prisoners of the War of 1812

Nominators rationale: Rename this would be the same name structure as the rest of the categories in Category:People of the War of 1812. Green Squares (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sensible rewording to remove ambiguity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per wording in Category:Prisoners of war by conflict. Occuli (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sensible rewording to remove redundancy. — CharlotteWebb 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It may appear to be a redundancy, but these individuals are being classified as "prisoners of war", not just prisoners. We can't adopt a portion of a (capitalised) proper noun (War of 1812) and incorporate it into "prisoners" and thereby convert that term into "prisoner of war". Proper nouns don't work like that in English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 17 May 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Borders of Palestine to Category:Borders of the Palestinian territories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Palestinian territories are still not considered to be a country. Eliyak T·C 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and to match Category:Border crossings of the Palestinian territories Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Borders of Egypt and Category:Borders of the Gaza Strip and delete (only contents was Category:Egypt-Gaza Strip border). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egypt-Palestine border (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is still no country called Palestine, so this category is somewhat biased. Also, it is practically empty. Eliyak T·C 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to its parents one subcat and regardless of how it's named, not likely to increase. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and upmerge - there may currently be no country called Palestine, but there has been. As such, this is no less likely a title for a category than, say, Category:Borders of Yugoslavia. Despite that, this particular category is likely to be so small as to be practically worthless, so upmerge per Carlossuarez. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well as you probably know, Wikipedia takes a rather quirky exception to using short-form names to refer former states/gov'ts. For example, you can never refer to the Russian Empire as "Russia" or to the Italian Social Republic as "Italy". So the title (making proper use our pedantic retronyms for this era) would be something like "British Mandate of Palestine – Kingdom of Egypt [and the Sudan?] border" (note the alphabetic reversal). However being conterminous* with the current Egypt–Israel border it might not be terribly useful as a separate category. — CharlotteWebb 05:13, 17 May 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: Merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Croatian clerics to Category:Croatian clergy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. In accordance with naming conventions set in Category:Clergy by nationality. GregorB (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – per nom. The 2 categories are the same. Occuli (talk) 14:00, 12 May 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 Category:Foo-Americans and Category:Americans of Foo descent to Category:Foo Americans. We have both forms and support seems to be for the latter. If anyone wants the former then let's have one big nomination where a change to that format is the only thing proposed. I'd also suggest that we ether make this the standard for American categories or convert all of the American ones to whatever the rest fo the world is doing, but again that needs to be a separate discussion which can be held even though these were just renamed. I sympathize with the lone delete opinion, but there was no support. If anyone feels strongly about that, then maybe a test nomination for a few categories where that is the only proposal could be useful. Given the complexity of this nomination I can see why a consensus is hard to find. After the above changes, I'm going to leave everything else as Keep and those can be renominated in a smaller group if anyone wishes. I'm electing to not add the category redirects. If we are using one form, then I don't see the need and I don't see support in the opinions voiced. Having said that if any admin wants to add these, then feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:European Americans → Category:European American people
  • Category:Baltic Americans → Category:Baltic American people
  • Category:Scandinavian Americans → Category:Scandinavian American people
  • Category:Slavic Americans → Category:Slavic American people
  • Category:Sorbian-Americans → Category:Sorbian American people delete

• Current oddities:
  • Category:Americans of Manx descent → Category:Manx Americans

    or no change

  • Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Americans → Category:American people of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent

    or Category:Americans of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent

• Each of the following must be replaced by ((category redirect)), as these are the most common form:
  • Category:Albanian-Americans → Category:Albanian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Albanian descent

  • Category:Armenian-Americans → Category:Armenian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Armenian descent

  • Category:Austrian-Americans → Category:Austrian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Austrian descent

  • Category:Croatian-Americans → Category:Croatian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Croatian descent

  • Category:Czech-Americans → Category:Czech Americans

    or Category:Americans of Czech descent

  • Category:Estonian-Americans → Category:Estonian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Estonian descent

  • Category:German-Americans → Category:German Americans

    or Category:Americans of German descent

  • Category:Greek-Americans → Category:Greek Americans

    or Category:Americans of Greek descent

  • Category:Hungarian-Americans → Category:Hungarian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Hungarian descent

  • Category:Icelandic-Americans → Category:Icelandic Americans

    or Category:Americans of Icelandic descent

  • Category:Irish-Americans → Category:Irish Americans

    or Category:Americans of Irish descent

  • Category:Italian-Americans → Category:Italian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Italian descent

  • Category:Latvian-Americans → Category:Latvian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Latvian descent

  • Category:Lithuanian-Americans → Category:Lithuanian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Lithuanian descent

  • Category:Maltese-Americans → Category:Maltese Americans

    or Category:Americans of Maltese descent

  • Category:Montenegrin-Americans → Category:Montenegrin Americans

    or Category:Americans of Montenegrin descent

  • Category:Norwegian-Americans → Category:Norwegian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Norwegian descent

  • Category:Portuguese-Americans → Category:Portuguese Americans

    or Category:Americans of Portuguese descent

  • Category:Romanian-Americans → Category:Romanian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Romanian descent

  • Category:Russian-Americans → Category:Russian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Russian descent

  • Category:Scottish-Americans → Category:Scottish Americans

    or Category:Americans of Scottish descent

  • Category:Serbian-Americans → Category:Serbian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Serbian descent

  • Category:Spanish-Americans → Category:Spanish Americans

    or Category:Americans of Spanish descent

  • Category:Swedish-Americans → Category:Swedish Americans

    or Category:Americans of Swedish descent

  • Category:Ukrainian-Americans → Category:Ukrainian Americans

    or Category:Americans of Ukrainian descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1st test case for consensus at Category talk:American people by ethnic or national origin#Naming conventions. This is a subset of the most common populated regional categories at Category:European Americans.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: FWIW, I don't see a consensus at Category talk:American people by ethnic or national origin#Naming conventions. I see one editor who posted a comment an hour before this nomination. These categories seem to keep getting renamed and it would be good to find a stable solution that will have a true consensus. I suggest that more input may be helpful to achieve that outcome.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the reason the nomination states: "1st test case for consensus". Too bad you didn't read the recent precedent listed, and the 4 places the same was posted. I know you've worked on these before. Please check the references!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all OCAT by subjective criteria that is not defining. Race/Ethnicity + Nationality is not a defining intersection and we have no objective standards for inclusion even if it were. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct. All you need to do is get all the editors to agree with you, and I'll be happy to help delete them!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Join with me - consensus can change. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Wow. Apparently both of you have completely forgotten about one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia...namely, the absolute necessity of keeping a NPOV in regards to Wikipedia content ("Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia"). It seems that both of you have personally scrapped this essential policy and as such both of you should be investigated and possibly even censured for blatantly disregarding/flaunting this essential Wikipedia policy. I'm sure many of the regular users and commenters here at CfD and elsewhere would agree with me regarding this critical NPOV issue. We are here to gather and sort factual information of any and all kind, not to attempt to impose our personal POV views regarding race/ethnicity upon the entire encyclopedia; given that race/ethnicity has played and continues to play an integral and factually verifiable role in the history of humanity, it only makes sense that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia (which purports to be a repository for all human knowledge) would include information dealing with the very broad and ancient human topic of race/ethnicity. --Wassermann (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The "rule" of grammar as I understand it is if the phrase is used as an adjectival phrase (Fooian-American people) it should be hyphenated. If it is used as a noun phrase (Fooian Americans), it is not. The proposed renames for the first five do not reflect this "rule". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Unfortunately, the folks making decisions for the past few years don't seem to be agreeing. I'm trying to find consistency, not necessarily correct grammar.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised after discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#American people and topics
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Let's pick one way or the other and stop with the constant battle between space and hyphen. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This nomination conflates 4 different sets of renaming proposals which need to be considered separately.
  • First is:

    Category:European Americans → Category:European American people

    Category:Baltic Americans → Category:Baltic American people

    Category:Scandinavian Americans → Category:Scandinavian American people

    Category:Slavic Americans → Category:Slavic American people

    Category:Sorbian-Americans → Category:Sorbian American people

    which I oppose: using 'people' in these names is not standard in American English practice.

  • Second is:

    Category:Americans of Manx descent → Category:Manx Americans

    which I support to match most of its sibling

  • Third is:

    Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Americans → Category:American people of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent

    which I oppose; the current name was recently agreed upon; both are awkward; blame the name of the country

  • Fourth is:

    Category:Albanian-Americans → Category:Albanian Americans

    and all the remaining categories involving just a 'hyphen' difference.

    These I support as this seems to be the common American English usage to not have a hyphen

  Hmains (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support.
    1. The current standard is "people" for various regional ethnicity parent categories, apparently to distinguish from "topics". I'm trying to find consistency, not necessarily correct grammar.
    2. In Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 27#merge Category:People of Bosnian descent to Category:People of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent, Americans is the one anomaly; see also Category:People of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent. Don't blame the country, I'm trying for a workable consistent compromise.
       --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to Category:Americans of xxx descent so that there is no confusion between differing word ordering in different regions of the world (where Irish American may be A. American of Irish descent or B. American with an Irish passport) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great idea. Unfortunately, as you'd know by reading the references that I mentioned in the nomination, that solution has already been rejected.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, given that this form is now the most common suggestion, I would support "Americans of Fooian descent", too, as a correct adjectival phrase.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised after discussion, striking the "people" additions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#American people and topics for the opposite proposal. NB: the Sorbs are a slavic people, of a language variant, but we don't categorize people by language variants, so delete as redundant with the previous entry (Slavic Americans).
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lusatian Sorbs are considered a distinct ethnic group [1] [2], not a group of Germans/Poles who speak a different language for the sheer hell of it. — CharlotteWebb 04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I can read, thank you very much. Did you? We don't categorize people by language variants. Slavic Americans fills the field. Nobody anywhere wrote that the language variant was of German or Polish. The nationality is reflected in nationality followed by occupation.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has this to do with "language variants"? Even if the Sorbian language was a dialect or variant of something else it wouldn't matter because this category is for Americans of Lusatian Sorb ethnicity/ancestry regardless of what language they speak (likely English). — CharlotteWebb 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, their ethnicity would not be notable at all. Please re-read the categorization policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories: "The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist." Therefore, we have Category:Sorbian writers under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage for those notable writers in the Sorbian dialect, to pick an example person currently in Category:Sorbian-Americans. But there's no need for Category:Sorbian-German writers, nor Category:Sorbian-American writers.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dialect" of what, exactly? (cut it out already) Anyway… if the "writers" category is meant to be "writers whose stuff is written in Sorbian" rather than "Sorbians who write stuff" (as the title suggests) it needs to be renamed to Category:Sorbian-language writers to match the style of the other categories, see Category:Writers by language. I agree that there is "no need for Category:Sorbian-German writers, nor Category:Sorbian-American writers" at this time. I have not suggested creating these categories and in fact neither has anyone else. As for the first Category:Sorbian-Americans (remember the one we were originally talking about) I'd argue that their well-attested colonial history provides sufficient "cultural context" for this category. Whether or not Sorbian Americans are recognizable as a distinct group today, one cannot dispute that well-defined ethnic enclaves existed in previous centuries. — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As suggested, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 21#Category:Sorbian writers.
        --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment most thenic origin categories outside USA were renemaed some months ago to the form "Americans of Fooian Descent". The person who did this evidently balked at tackling the complications of American ethnicity, but the American categories should in proicnople conform. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great idea. Unfortunately, as you'd know by reading the references that I mentioned in the nomination, that solution has already been rejected.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, given that this form is now the most common suggestion, I would support "Americans of Fooian descent", too, as a correct adjectival phrase.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Standardize to "X Americans" (without hyphen), as the most commonly used, simplest, easiest to remember, and most reasonable naming system. Badagnani (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Standardize to "X Americans" (without hyphen) per Badagnani and others and also per Hyphenated Americans. Occuli (talk) 14:31, 21 May 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. Nothing in this discussion raises reasons to overturn the previous decisions to delete this class of category. It is not the purpose of CfD to create a category name that might pass muster by being able to include certain individuals. Any editor can suggest an alternative name for consideration, but failing to do so is not a reason to keep a category. I sympathize with those that would like to keep this, but nothing offered here addresses the POV problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Political prisoners has already been deleted per POV and OR concerns: 2006 NOV 22 CfD, 2008 SEP 17 CfD. Offenbach (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for speedy deletion - as recreated category. If not speediable then delete for the reasons that the political prisoners categories were previously deleted, POV, OR, subjective inclusion criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or suggest a category name which includes Laura Ling and Roxana Saberi. Please don't tell me there is no category in which they belong together: That is pushing WP:NPOV to an extreme which is actually rather POV. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Laura Ling is a redirect to Current TV, which is rather ridiculously included in this category as if an entire network could be a political prisoner under any sane definition of the word. The article Roxana Saberi does not support the notion that she is a political prisoner so even if this category were to survive placing her in it would require original research. They both belong in various journalist categories and may be placed in another prisoners or detainees category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete political prisoners has different meanings to different people, and per Otto, Saberi doesn't belong here anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This really should have been speedily deleted, though I see an admin has declined the speedy. Based on the quite recent (2008 SEP 11; 2008 SEP 17) decisions to delete these, I doubt if there's any viable reason to think that anything has changed with respect to the problematic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Completely legitimate category for a completely legitimate subject! -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_28#Category:Youth_broadcasters--Aervanath (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Youth broadcasters to Category:Youth television networks

Nominator's rationale: Rename - the majority of categories including the word "broadcasters" are for people, not corporate entities or networks. That usage is I believe correct and so this category should be renamed to reflect that it's for networks. There is a subcat for Canadian networks that uses the word "children's" so Category:Children's television networks is another possible rename, although I think I prefer "youth" as being somewhat more encompassing (The N hardly seems like "children's television" but it is definitely youth-oriented, for example). Otto4711 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete youth is undefined and non-defining - all broadcasters aim at "youth" 15-30 year olds who have money and no kids to beef up advertising. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting, then, the deletion of Category:Youth and its entire sub-category structure? Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to make the focus very clear. I looked at XHGC-TV and they carry the CSI shows among others. Is that youth programming? This gets into what percentage of programming qualifies. That makes inclusive POV and subjective. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:57, 18 May 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 Erik9 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic broadcasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance overcategorization, similar to recently deleted categories here and here. Olympic broadcasters can and do cover any number of other sporting events and categorizing on this basis would lead to category clutter. Otto4711 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also all these people are simultaneously of many nationalities according to the parent cats, so deletion would solve several problems. Occuli (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, precedent, and its title is ambiguous is there a broadcasting olympics? He or She with the fastest, highest, and strongest voice wins.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 11 May 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: . For now, I will rename this to Category:Intersex people and add the bio-articles that are in Category:Intersexuality. Perhaps in the future Category:Intersexuality activists could be created if needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Intersexuality activists to clarify the intent of the category. The current name is ambiguous and could be construed as referring to either activists around the issue of intersexuality or activists who happen to be intersexual people. I don't really think we need the latter. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Robofish (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not entirely sure we even need the rename, considering that there are only two entries, one of which is doubled with the unnecessary single-item American subcategory anyway. There are several other people filed directly in Category:Intersexuality, but none of them appear to be activists in any notable way. I'd propose a rename to just Category:Intersex people instead, and then refile the people who are directly in the parent category too. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there appear to be several 'intersex people' as Bearcat points out; 1 is also an 'Intersexuality activist' and 1 is an activist in something else. Perhaps there are 'Intersexuality activists' as yet uncategorised who are not themselves intersex. It would seem a distinctly defining characteristic. I support Bearcat's suggestion - rename to Category:Intersex people, add any others and perhaps create a new Category:Intersexuality activists. Occuli (talk) 14:02, 11 May 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) 07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-technical, colloquial term, and only has one article and one template. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Squeezebox also refers to other things including computer software so it is ambiguous and therefore unhelpful. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – but note that the category structure in the Commons is completely different (and more comprehensible to a non-specialist, having eg Category:Accordions, Category:Concertinas). Occuli (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Italian existentialists, Category:French existentialists, Category:American existentialists, and Category:Lithuanian existentialists to Category:Existentialists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overcategorization - six Frenchmen, four Americans, three Italians, and two Lithuanians. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. People are very parochial so these may be what people want. As long as the categories are accesible from the top one it would not cause me any offence to 'Keep'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, as Category:Existentialists (with a manageable 32 pages at present) is not subcatted by nationality apart from these few. Occuli (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 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. (Individual articles can be added to Category:American Jews in appropriate circumstances, which have been well-outlined in the comments below.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page lists Americans of partial ethnic Jewish ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "American Jews" see Category:American Jews.

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories requires:
  • Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
    • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
    • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage requires:
  • In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
    • Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
    • The place of birth is rarely notable.
• Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories requires:

The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.

As a currently included example, George Allen: he was not raised Jewish, and is currently a Presbyterian; he does not self-identify as Jewish; it has been speculated (not verified) that his mother was of Jewish extraction; his mother's possible Jewishness is not relevant to his public life, other than in a derogatory manner.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — This information is trivial to most people it applies to. Plus, we already have the American Jews category. --Vizcarra (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Can't we get it through our heads that having Fooian blood (descent) in you is neither meaningful nor defining, especially if we are content with differing self-designations and purely subjective standards. The racialists here are stretching on this one in particular - take an example: since Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism, would any children that she had (pre-conversion, post-) be in this category? And how meaningful would it have been to any of them? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Can't we get it through our heads that we base this and other similarly defining categories based on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and not based on some Nuremberg Laws blood percentage? If there are particular entries that are questionable, they can be dealt with separately with no relevance to the remainder of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no entries in a category that cannot exist.
    1. The example was given merely to demonstrate actual abuse of this category.
    2. Self-identification is required. This category is never for self-identification.
    3. Partial ancestry is not allowed. This category is only for partial ancestry.
    4. It is the established policy of Wikipedia that such categories shall not exist.

    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Category:American Jews. This separation of these two categories was mostly the work of a single editor who tried to do this to many ethnic American categories. Nearly all these have already been folded back into their 'fooian American' categories; that editor has also agreed that what he had been doing was an unworkable bad idea. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to previous decisions needed.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because: (a) the individuals in these types of categories have no real formal and relevant connection with Judaism as such or with Jews and the Jewish people in any meaningful way as it relates to their notability in their given professions and subsequent articles or categories. (b) This is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and of (c) Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. (d) Quite a few of these categories have already been deleted over the years. IZAK (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent points. Many thanks!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If somebody doesn't self-identify as a Jew, Wikipedia shouldn't categorize them as such. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepBecause it is not the only category of this kind, as i saw that there are categories such as "British people of Irish descent","English people of Scottish descent", and so on. What many people are not aware of is that Jewish is an ethnicity and that Judaism is a religion, so that even if a person doesn't really identify as a Jew, then it's still part of his backround. I think that if the category will be deleted eventully, than at least those people should be added to the category of "American Jews". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.210.223 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi 93.173.210.223: Please get a normal user's ID or use the one you may alreday have in order to have any credibility in these kind of serious discussions. Your statement that "What many people are not aware of is that Jewish is an ethnicity and that Judaism is a religion, so that even if a person doesn't really identify as a Jew, then it's still part of his backround" is known and it's the root of a huge problem because for far too long there has been ongoing abuse on Wikipedia (mainly through crass ignorance) of the notion that Jews are an ethnicity (which is true in an abstract manner relating mainly to strict Jewish law) but it has been flogged to death in the wrong way and stretched far beyond any reasonable and logical standards so that if someone allegedly had a Jewish ancestor a hundred years ago or was called "Jewish" by a celebrity magazine or in some journal or book in one line (that totally disregards Judaism and what being Jewish really means in an active meaningful way) they become "notable" Jews no less than the chief rabbis of Israel or the rabbis of the Talmud. Jews and Judaism are connected so that to place anyone in these categories implies that they were fully aware of this connection, subscribed to it and presumably fully (self) identified as such, which they did not. It would be safe to say that 99.99% of the "Jews" in these categories did not have much to do with Jews or with Judaism during their lifetimes. Many of them are in fact not considered Jewish by classical Jewish law and they had little or no formal or even informal contact with the Jewish people or with Judaism, yet now they become enthroned as examples of full-fledged "Jews" on Wikipedia no less than the most fervent of Hasidim, which they are not. IZAK (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This has two possible meanings - people of Jewish descent and people of Jewish religion. I would suggest that "American Jews" should be retained for those of Jewish religion (or self-identifying as Jews). The Jewish descent might be used for those not of Jewish religion. As a British person, I am not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 17 May 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.