< May 19	May 21 >

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, but if what choster says is true, one is a family, the other an order, then they probably shouldn't be merged. Kbdank71 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Propose merging with Category:Lumbriculida - substantial overlap Ian Cairns (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lumbriculidae is a family within the order Lumbriculida, so perhaps it should not be parented directly in Category:Clitellata. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life#Categories does not address granularity.-choster (talk) 17:43, 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: keep. Kbdank71 12:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American people of the War of 1812 to Category:Americans of the War of 1812

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Take out the unneeded word "people". CTJF83Talk 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the war-specific subcategories of Category:American people by war use "American people", not "Americans". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is matches sibling categories, matches parent category, matches grandparent category Category:People by war and all its children. No argument provided why this category should be singled out for renaming. Hmains (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I never knew other war categories had the same name, or i'd nom them too. Does American people not sound redundant to you? As far as I'm concerned, only people can be Americans, your pet cat doesn't count as an American in my book. CTJF83Talk 04:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the "adjective+people" form is usually used because for some nationalities it's quite difficult (or at least awkward) to come up with a good noun like "Americans" that describes the people. E.g., what is a collective noun for people from Liechtenstein? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Liechtensteiner", I believe. – PeeJay 05:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, awkward. How about The Gambia? Gambians? France? Frenchmen? Bleech. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator is missing the point. Category:People by war is the master parent. What would you replace 'people' with here? Nothing comes to mind? Then the subcats are formed by adding the 'foonian' to the front of it. Very simple. Very obvious. Nothing wrong with being simple and obvious. 'People' is a perfectly fine word and used all the time in 'fooian people' references. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename per above discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per consistency with other such categories. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 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: rename. Kbdank71 12:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dynamo Kyiv to Category:FC Dynamo Kyiv

Propose renaming Category:Dynamo Kyiv managers to Category:FC Dynamo Kyiv managers

Propose renaming Category:Dynamo Kyiv players to Category:FC Dynamo Kyiv players

Delete Category:Dynamo Kyiv matches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no reason for the category title not to match its main article. I tried to categorise some articles under Category:FC Dynamo Kyiv, but there was nothing there. Category:Dynamo Kyiv matches has already been replaced by Category:FC Dynamo Kyiv matches, so that should be a fairly procedural deletion. – Pee Jay 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly support. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest, why only "reluctantly"? – Pee Jay 19:33, 25 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. Kbdank71 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename - either delete per WP:OC#AWARD or, if felt that this is prestigious to the point of definingness, rename to Category:Nishan-e-Pakistan recipients per other award recipient categories. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all the recipents now in the cat, and the main article, are foreign heads of state/government, and per precedent we don't categorise for these sorts of diplomatic honours, as non-defining. It might in fact be defining for Pakistanis. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 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: keep. Otto is correct, the "Texas" refers to the genre, not the location of the band. Several articles I checked show that a few the bands are in fact from Oklahoma, and one is from Oregon. Kbdank71 12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Texas country music groups to Category:Country music groups from Texas

Nominator's rationale: To match the "X from Y" precedent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the category appears to be for performers of Texas country music, not country music groups from Texas. See also Category:Texas country musicians. Otto4711 (talk) 21:27, 20 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. Kbdank71 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mars' moons to Category:Moons of Mars, Category:Jupiter's moons to Category:Moons of Jupiter, Category:Saturn's moons to Category:Moons of Saturn, Category:Neptune's moons to Category:Moons of Neptune, Category:Uranus' moons to Category:Moons of Uranus,

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with the corresponding articles to these categories: Moons of Mars, Moons of Jupiter, Moons of Saturn, Moons of Neptune, and Moons of Uranus. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In general I'm not in favor of the gentive "s" in names, headers, etc. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Makes sense, and it would provide a better category sort placement.—RJH (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I makes sense. Ruslik (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as consistent with category naming scheme. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for clarity of content. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 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: Withdrawn. choster's suggestion makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Korean film festivals to Category:Film festivals in Korea

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the parent and the children. I'll note that if renamed, the two articles directly placed in this category will need to be removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. These two articles show that the word Korea was not mentioned to limit geographically but culturally. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why is it in the parent for film festivals by country? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because films in Korea are for sure Korean films. But the other way around, "all Korean films are from Korea" is untrue. Debresser (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I added Category:Film festivals in North Korea and Category:Film festivals in South Korea to Category:Film festivals by country. This category should be reparented to Category:Film festivals by type and removed from the by country tree.-choster (talk) 14:44, 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: rename to Category:Personal secretaries to the President of the United States. Kbdank71 12:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Personal secretaries to the president of the United States to Category:Personal Secretaries to the President of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Proper capitalization NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize President, not secretaries - the article doesn't make it clear that "Personal Secretary" is an official title. The article's rather a mess, actually. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto I think, though the article suggests that at one period there was an official title, in which case the category should maybe be split between PSs and ps's. But the articles all seem to use lower-case. If this was cleared up I might change my view. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto since the title is capitalized. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:24, 20 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 to Category:Lists of awards by pornographic film actor. Kbdank71 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of awards by adult actor to Category:Lists of awards by pornographic film actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Category:Lists of pornographic film actors. Also, the use of the euphemism "adult actor" in this case might cause confusion, since we do also have Category:Child actors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lists of awards by pornographic film actor - note the singular, which brings the category in line with other similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted and modified, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 20 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. Kbdank71 12:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Described as a "Category for racehorses which were foaled in New Zealand but raced almost exclusively in Australia" (my emphasis). Unnecessary narrow intersection of potential parent categories such as Category:Australian racehorses, Category:New Zealand racehorses, Category:Racehorses bred in New Zealand and / or Category:Racehorses trained in Australia. Bencherheavy (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Unnecessary intersection. Category:New Zealand racehorses racing in Australia is another unnecessary one. Occuli (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged that for deletion as well, and added it to the nomination. Bencherheavy (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrelevant intersection. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may seen an unnecessary narrow intersection to outside eyes, but within the Australian and New Zealand racing industries it is a major classification of racehorses, and no more bizarre or insignificant that, say Category:American expatriate basketball people in Italy, or Category:Canadian expatriate ice hockey people in the United States, or any of the other subcategories of Category:Expatriate sportspeople. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give any sources confirming this? Debresser (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a subject i know a huge amout about, but just a quick glance at an average Aussie bloodstock company website will give some indication of the significance of NZ horses in the Australian racing industry (search the page for "NZ"), Unfortunately, searching google in NZ for something with "New Zealand" in its text is going to turn up remarkably few Australian sites... it's be easier searching from outside the two countries to get some idea. This article provides some explanation for why NZ horses are seen as significant in Australia: "six percent of the racing population comes from New Zealand but they win almost 80 percent of the most important races there". Its also worth noting that of the 39 winners of the Australian Horse of the Year award, 16 have been New Zealand racehorses. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few 'Fooian footballers in bar' have been deleted. With racehorses I think there is much the same between France, Ireland, the UK and the US (at least) but there is IMO no need to produce a category for each intersection. Occuli (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is - this category applies to nearly every good horse from New Zealand. When does a horse become "an Australian horse"? Do they get this honor when the horse sets foot on Australian soil? Wallie (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless; where are all the racial categorizers weighing in on a rename to Category:Australian racehorses of New Zealand descent? Just as useful as the people categories but racehorses are not BLP's nor do the self-identify. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To supply some background to these nomination, Racehorse categories was the subject of a discussion some 3 years ago when the main categories of "place bred" and "place trained" were decided. I believe these recent narrow intersections are a result of an edit war on the horse Phar Lap (see Talk:Phar Lap which is claimed by both Australia and New Zealand, having been bred in NZ but raced almost exclusively in Australia. Both nominated categories are totally unnecessary. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:20, 25 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. Kbdank71 12:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:League of Wales managers to Category:Managers in the Welsh Premier League

Propose renaming Category:League of Wales players to Category:Players in the Welsh Premier League

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The league is no longer known as the League of Wales, and yet the category includes some players/managers who have played/managed in the league since it became the Welsh Premier League. Following the example of other categories Category:Football (soccer) players by competition, the category should be named after the competition's most recent name. – Pee Jay 17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 17:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Managers in the Welsh Premier League; 'Welsh Premier League managers' is ambiguous (eg Mark Hughes could easily be put in it). See Category:Premier League managers. Ditto players. Occuli (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, good shout. I've changed the noms. – Pee Jay 19:31, 25 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. Kbdank71 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:F.K. Bodø/Glimt to Category:FK Bodø/Glimt

Nominator's rationale: There is no dots in the club name. The subcat Category:F.K. Bodø/Glimt players should be renamed to Category:FK Bodø/Glimt players. Rettetast (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with the above statement. It should be renamed. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support both per nom. lil2mas (talk) 21:32, 25 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. Kbdank71 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination. Found as incomplete doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small unnecessary category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 05:38, 27 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. Kbdank71 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lost cosmonauts to Category:Lost cosmonauts (conspiracy theory)

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~ Delete (see below) – This category's articles (as well as the category itself) pertain to the "lost cosmonauts" conspiracy theory; the main article happens to be Soviet space program conspiracy accusations. Since this category happens to be a subcategory of categories such as Category:Soviet cosmonauts, it should be renamed accordingly – since it appears to be strongly misleading as it is now. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (vote changed 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Support because of misleading argument. Do we realy need this cat? Debresser (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lost cosmonaut theory if kept - I see no need to include the parenthetical. I can also see arguments for deletion as a small category with no likely growth potential and questionable definingness for the articles on the space vehicles. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think we have enough articles strictly related to the conspiracy theory to justify a category (unlike, say, Category:Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks). If kept, it should be renamed as suggested by Otto4711. Robofish (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reading through the articles, and dropping some of those that are not about cosmonauts, it would appear that there is maybe one person that truly belongs in this category. If the decision goes with delete, we should be allowed to create a broader category to at least cover conspiracy issues. I'll add that the support and rename opinions above do not appear to oppose a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: After reading the rationales of everyone else who has participated here, I'm changing my original rationale in this CfD entry to a delete – I don't think there are any good reasons to keep this category. At least we have not seen any. The sole article that truly belongs there is the Soviet space program conspiracy accusations piece, and that is by no means enought to justify keeping the entire category. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:19, 31 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. Kbdank71 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - sensationalistically named and ultimately meaningless category. Categorize them as lawyers or cops or whatever their actual occupation is. Otto4711 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep under some name. A welcome part of the parent category Category:Organized crime people which would otherwise contain only the criminals. This category contains people who worked to fight organized crime, which for many of them was the claim to notability. Only by keeping this category is this connection clear and easy to navigate to--the purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or rename to a more appropriate title. I'm not sure, even if renamed to something else (Category:Opponents of organized crime?), that it's really a defining feature of the people it categorises, though. Robofish (talk) 05:33, 27 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. VegaDark (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Like award categories, categories for benefactors by institution are a recipe for category clutter. Philanthropists often give to many organizations and institutions, and being a benefactor for one in particular is rarely, if ever, defining. (I shudder to think how many categories could be applied to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation if such a category scheme were taken to its logical conclusion.) This is a situation that is best approached by a list, or better yet, a simple mention in the appropriate bio-articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator (BTW, a mention in the articles should be enough. No need for any more utterly unimportant lists.) Debresser (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people by donation is a bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 23 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 (I too am enjoying Grutness's comment). Kbdank71 13:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Induction to Category:Inductive reasoning

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article inductive reasoning. Induction is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. At the moment all we can do is make an assumption about the category's purpose from its contents and parent category. Given that it is impossible for us to observe all possible or theoretical parent categories and contents, we cannot guarantee that our assumption is a true one. There's no way of us proving the validity of our assumption. Grutness...wha? 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quietly enjoying your comment...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I see the current category name, I assume it's about electrical induction. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:34, 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 (guess I should keep mum about my 6 test categories, eh? :) Kbdank71 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Individual user category, which have a unanimous, extensive history of deletion (see here). Category:X1 can be used as a sandbox category. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per VegaDark. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 20 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. Kbdank71 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Individual user category, which have a unanimous, extensive history of deletion (see here). VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per VegaDark. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - just discovered Category:User:Lx 121/WikiMediaWatch, which I am adding to the nomination. VegaDark (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD. --EEMIV (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i really don't care about how it's done, but i need some way to organize my stuff; what is the acceptable method then? Lx 121 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and user Special:PrefixIndex/User:Lx_121 instead. Bencherheavy (talk) 19:36, 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: cull. Kbdank71 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Far too narrow of a subject for collaboration. There is unanimous precedent to delete "Wikipedians by interest in an individual" type categories (see here), let alone a "Wikipedians by interest in an individual's nationality" type of category. Any collaboration efforts by such users would be better served on the article's talk page, not a category. Keeping would set precedent to allow creation of a "by interest in x's nationality" category for every biography we have on wikipedia, if not more (what makes a subject's nationality so special? Why not a category for any particular aspect of an individual?). VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though it's a good joke - see the endless wrangles at Talk:Francis Bacon. Johnbod (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page seems to suggest that Category:Wikipedians obsessed with Francis Bacon's sexuality would be quite large. Occuli (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per first argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, no-one has chosen to collaborate on it. I've uncategorised myself, so now it is empty and ready to cull. - Pointillist (talk) 13:06, 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: delete. Kbdank71 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by small location" category, which have an extensive history of deletion. Population of only 5,500. (See here, here, and here for related precedent). VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Many an important city outside the US doen't have such a cat. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the problem with categories like this, but if there's a problem I'm not aware of, then... - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deleting this type of category is that the entire "Wikipedians by location" series of categories are intended to facilitate collaboration between users. A "by location" category for a location with a small population is very unlikely to achieve this goal efficiently, so we have in the past deleted all such categories for locations with a population of less than 50,000 people (this is just an arbitrary number I made up one day, but there have actually been suggestions of making the population requirement for a category even higher). My solution would be to look at the county (or other similar geographic entity for cases outside the United States) and make a category for that instead of an individual city (provided the county supports a reasonably sized population to facilitate collaboration, which I imagine most do). VegaDark (talk) 21:40, 26 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 per the arguments put forth that Christian libertarians != Jewish libertarians. As Christian libertarians are not libertarians who just happen to be Christian, and Jewish libertarians are libertarians who just happen to be Jewish, a parallel cannot be drawn between the two, and arguments which attempt to do so are inherently weaker. I am also concerned with the proliferation of single purpose accounts created simply to vote in this discussion. Kbdank71 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: What is the encyclopedic value of this? Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as encyclopedic as Category:Christian libertarians and all the other subcats of Category:Libertarians. Different slants of a philosophy get different subcats. Hmains (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a philosophy known as Christian libertarianism, but there is no philosophy that I know of known as Jewish libertarianism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called "Reform Judaism" in everything but name. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above, though there should be a reference the person actually is a jew and libertarian within the article before it's added to category, a problem with what originally was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs)

Category:Jews has all sorts of categories like Jews by country (113); Jews by occupation (41); Lists of Jews (1); Black Jews (3); LGBT Jews (0); Levites (0); Jewish martyrs (0); Jewish pacifists (0); Jewish refugees (2); Jewish royalty (8). (0s of course have individual entries). So it seems this would be a non-controversial keep. I'm surprised by the hostility, unless it's related to User:AaronBiterman going overboard on listing too many people without sufficient evidence in some of the articles he categorized. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any hostility being expressed. Favouring deletion of a category does not mean the user is being hostile or is expressing some sort of grudge against the creator of the category or anyone else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't know why I thought there was, i.e. to idea of libertarians having a list. It would seem Jewish pacifists also is in the category of voluntarily chosen political beliefs, which is what Jewish Libertarians is. So why shouldn't Jewish Pacifists be deleted as well. Technically, Jews by occupation also is such a voluntary category, too. If someone can explain why those should have categories and Jewish libertarians should not, I'll be less confused. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it goes to what defines a person. These people are defined by being libertarians. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that they are also defined by being Jewish. But they are not defined by the intersection of the two—being a Jewish libertarian. I'd agree with you that the pacifist category is equally problematic. Personally I can also see some problems with some of the occupation ones, but we just have to take one bite a time here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points as I continue to mull this over:

I'm hardly a Jewish partisan and can sometimes be annoyed by certain parties outside wikipedia crowing that all the important/leading libertarians have been Jewish! However, I am a libertarian partisan who thinks the various permutations should be categorized.
Jewish libertarians do identify thusly, though being on their discussion list I know they fight like heck over just what that means and what positions they should take on certain issues.
Unlike democrats and republicans and even socialists and communisits, libertarianism comes out of a philosophy of free will called Libertarianism (metaphysics) so it is not necessarily and strictly a political ideology or party.
And this category is also a sub-category of Category:Libertarians which is broken down into a bunch of subcategories, two religious. (We only have one Islamic libertarian so far who has an article, but since there are lots of pagans and Buddhists and Discordians, doubtless a few have articles and might merit their own category at some point!) So I don't know if those considerations affect the consensus. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to have been created in the mistaken belief that Category:Christian libertarians = libertarians who happen to be Christian—and that therefore we can have a category for libertarians who happen to be Jewish. Christian libertarianism is a philosophy. There is no Jewish libertarianism, and therefore to add libertarian + Jewishness creates a non-notable/trivial intersection of religion and other characteristic. It's not a parallel with Category:Christian libertarians, despite what the above users have stated. This is essentially the equivalent of a Category:Jewish conservatives, Category:Jewish liberals, or Category:Jewish environmentalists—none of which exist or are good ideas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or Category: Jewish pacifists or Category:Jews by Occupation which currently exist? (Per my comments above.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Good Ol'factory. Enigma^msg 06:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GO'f Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others - Judaism has precious little to do with American libertarianism (ie, by and large what the category represents). I would favor deleting Category:Christian libertarians as well, but at least in that case there is some small interaction between the religion and the political beliefs. (There is certainly no more interaction between Judaism and libertarianism than there is between Judaism and liberalism – or Judaism and conservatism. Per WP consensus, we don't have categories for those.) PasswordUsername (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - To clarify: there is no more inherent connection between Christianity and libertarianism than between it and any other ideology, except in the minds of some of those who adhere to both belief systems. The only reason [[Category:Christian libertarians]] exists is that there is an ideology explicitly called "Christian libertarians" to which the people in that cat belong. There is no "slant" to libertarianism called "Jewish libertarianism". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right; the "interaction" I was writing of was the "Christian libertarian" ideology per se – I'm rather inclined to agree with you that there is nothing inherently connected between the libertarian ideology and the Christian religion. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there a "WP:consensus" against Judaism and liberalism or Judaism and conservatism? That would make sense if it's discussed somewhere. But that would not obviate categories like Jewish pacifists or Jews by occupation? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:consensus seems to be generated on an ongoing basis, though as it stands right now I have seen that it is pretty stable insofar as we do not accept categories where categories are generated by one category simply being added onto another without a very good reason for it – although at times this tends to be ignored, especially for large categories (see Category:Suicides by occupation). Editor IZAK below illuminates this substantially as far as Wikipedia policies demanding a meaningful connection and against overcategorization. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irrelevant subsection. Category:Christian libertarians should also go, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and 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) 08:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then LGBT Jews (196 individuals) should be deleted too? (For whoever wants to take on that lobby :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP the arguement about how exactly "christian libertarian" is defined, or intended to be defined, is beside the point. there are jewish libertarians, i know some :P if we strike this one down, then all simillar cats have to go to, including christian libertarians. any other approach would be biased/prejudicial. i don't think we need to erase all those cats, trying to would likely be a losing battle anyway, so simplest solution is to leave this one alone too Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all deleters, and to oppose disruption caused by the blind loyalties displayed by many with these such categories. Bulldog123 20:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the absence of any demonstrable relationship between Judiasm and Libertarianism this is overcategorizarion by trivial intersection along with overcategorization by political belief or opinion. I am unclear why LGBT categories keep getting dragged into these discussions when they have little or no relevance. Otto4711 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like Ol'Factory's argument but it misses a key point. There's nothing special, in the public consciousness, about Jewish liberals or Jewish environmentalists. Jewish libertarians, on the other hand, are distinctive because they run counter to popular perception of Jews. wredlich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Judaism/Jews have a lot to say about freedom from government oppression, human rights, interest in the rule of law, free will, social welfare, and economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powersquirrel (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Powersquirrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete -- per Ol'factory, and IZAK, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy:
- 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.
- Goodness gracious, how did Ayn Rand get in this category? She wasn't a libertarian, she was the founder of so-called Objectivism, and was actually hostile to the libertarian movement! She was a well-known atheist. Her parents weren't Jewish: they chose not to be Jewish, and lived outside the Pale of Settlement. As we've seen over and over again, these folks are being categorized based on grandparents, great grandparents, rampant speculation, etc.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a Jewish Libertarian, my Judaism has greatly influenced my libertarian philosophy and political beliefs. To discount that influence is to, literally, discount an entire group of Americans, and humans. To allow this listing in Wikipedia would be to follow the philosophy of Wikipedia: the ability for everyone out there to access this information freely, and to allow all to have input on the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleycrandall (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Bradleycrandal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- While as a Jewish progressive, I find your attempts to somehow tie me to this ideology offensive. I suggest you base your arguments on Wikipedia policies, and not try to represent this as somehow disenfranchising the Jewish people. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Aside from the like categories such as Jewish pacifists, Jewish baseball players, and even a list of Converts to Judaism, Jewish contributions to economics in general and libertarian economics in particular are significant. I would probably significantly research the list, and I would concur that Ayn Rand probably doesn't belong on it, but I most certainly think the list itself is a valid list and should exist. Heck, most libertarian economists ARE Jewish. Lizmichael (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's some serious canvassing going on here. Enigma^msg 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Much of Jewish philosophy relies on individual action and local community. For example, Jewish charity is not biblical mandated to be given through the state, but by individuals acting on their own and through private charitable organizations. In fact, the highest form of charity, according to the Rabbis, is helping others to not need charity anymore. This is an idea that has informed the libertarian movement for centuries. There is also a 10% limit on the tithe collected by the temple (the state of the day). Local communities have traditionally had the authority to enforce biblical law through Jewish courts. These enforce property rights, resolve disputes of contract, and punish those who engage in the use of force against others. "Thou Shalt Not Steal" implies a system of private property. In the Book of Samuel, God expresses his opposition to the Israelites moving from the decentralized judgeship of the post-exodus period to a Monarchy. You can also see the centralization that resulted from such a political change as power becomes increasingly centralized in Jerusalem as the seat of government and the location where the movable tabernacle is replaced by a permanent stone temple. Government power reaches it's height under Solomon, who only brings "prosperity" through war and conquest of the neighboring lands. Although wise, the monarchy he leaves behind falls prey to a line of increasingly degenerate Kings, until ultimately the Israelites are conquered and forced into exile. What greater warning against the destructive power of government can we receive that this one, provided to us through the divinely inspired writings of the prophets? In addition, the bible lays out a respect for life, the importance of its defense above all other laws, permissible types of private property protection, and urges the children of Israel in Deuteronomy to "pursue good, that you and your children may live." Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness anyone? Our modern understanding of Freedom has its origins in the bible, and it is only fitting that a category exist to explore these connections and the influences that Judaism has had on the advancement of liberty and libertarian thinkers throughout history. Posted by David Aron. 02:00 EDT, 22 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.107.10 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — 64.206.107.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 64.206.107.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. I don't wish to be insulting but personal testimony about how Judaism has informed one's own Libertarianism -- or the above scriptural interpretation -- is completely unpersuasive, at least for me. This is a clear violation of WP:OC#CATGRS and should be deleted, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be no Jewish libertarianism, so this is some sort of racial/ethnic/religion category that advances the encyclopedia naught. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there are Jewish libertarians. Big difference. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:24, 25 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.

May 20

Category:Lumbriculidae

Category:American people of the War of 1812

Category:Dynamo Kyiv

Category:Nishan-e-Pakistan

Category:Texas country music groups

Planetary moons

Category:Korean film festivals

Category:Personal secretaries to the president of the United States

Category:Lists of awards by adult actor

Category:Australian racehorses bred in New Zealand

Welsh Premier League

Category:F.K. Bodø/Glimt

Category:Navajo rug

Category:Lost cosmonauts

Category:Mob-busters

Category:University of Utah benefactors

Category:Induction

Category:User:Ramon51/Sandbox

Category:User:Lx 121

Category:Wikipedians interested in Francis Bacon's nationality

Category:Wikipedians in Smithers, British Columbia

Category:Jewish libertarians