< August 28	August 30 >

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Utterly useless category. Yes, some Cherokee people speak Cherokee - that doesn't require a category. Native American tribes are not "countries". The Qualla Boundary is the only article that remotely qualifies as being a "territory," but only a small group of people living on the Qualla Boundary speak Cherokee. Uyvsdi (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Comment - this is an odd category. The name suggests it should contain geographical locations where Cherokee is widely spoken, like Oklahoma and North Carolina (or certain areas in them). But as far as I know, there are no subdivisions of the United States that have Cherokee as an official language, and few to none where a majority speak it. So a category by this name seems unnecessary. However, this category may still be useful, as it collects the three federally recognised Cherokee tribes. Perhaps it should be kept and renamed to simply Category:Cherokee tribes? Robofish (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Cherokee tribe has eight subcats, and several of those have further subcats, so the tribes are well categorized already. Category:Cherokee language is a pre-existing possibly useful category. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Delete Categories like this one are only useful for languages that have a wide geographic range and whose speakers are in the millions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and everybody else who knows anything about the Ani-kituwahgi. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cherokee is spoken in the southern part of Mexico, Guatamala & other South American countires. The question here is "how come Cherokee is spoken in the areas stated?" From an Anthropological point of view, this categroy should be allowed.Chaos4tu (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You would really have to provide some serious citations to back up that assertion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Yes, the Cherokee exist where they started, and where they were later removed to. That does not warrant a category.
Southern Mexico? No, sorry.
Delete. Varlaam (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:A (TV system) network shows to Category:CTV Two network shows

Nominator's rationale: The system got re-named today to CTV Two, would this be grounds for a rename? ViperSnake151 Talk 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Normally, it might be too early to bother, but I've found a few miscategorizations lately as this category is often confused with Category:A-Channel network shows (which itself needs renaming), so I think renaming immediately could be helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It makes sense to do this right away. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Internet marketing by method to Category:Internet marketing

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Another of User:Stefanomione's "x by y" categories, its sibling Category:Internet advertising by method was renamed here. The nominated category should be changed or pruned in some way, as articles in subcat Category:Incentive marketing companies are not "methods." The target category has a lot of "method" content already, I'd say an upmerge would at least put everything in one place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2011 (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: Speedy merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Respiratory care to Category:Respiratory therapy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The term Respiratory care redirects to Respiratory therapy and the current content of the two categories aren't indicative of a clear distinction between them. Pichpich (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (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: Move per the outcome of the RM. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tron to Category:Tron (franchise)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. cf. Tron and Tron (franchise). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. (It seems unlikely that we'll need to create categories about other Trons, but the name of this one should match the article.) Robofish (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Maybe we should move Tron (franchise) to just Tron. There could be a good argument to be made that the franchise is the primary topic. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move Discussion Here: Talk:Tron (franchise) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:10, 30 August 2011 (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. The other categories mentioned need to be separately nominated. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films relating to Anne Frank to Category:Films about Anne Frank

Nominator's rationale: "Relating to" her is a very poor phrasing, imo. Just rename per parent article List of films about Anne Frank. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might as well throw in Category:Films relating to Joan of Arc and Category:Films relating to Malcolm X. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Don't see any reason not to. Robofish (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Relating to X" seems less restrictive than "about X." We also have Category:Books relating to James Joyce and Category:Books relating to Anne Frank.--Sum (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category used to be used by Template:Archive but was removed from the template in September 2008. Now only contains a few talk page archives where the category is hardcoded in the page. WOSlinker (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category used to be used by Template:Talk archive but was removed from the template in September 2008. Now only contains a few talk page archives where the category is hardcoded in the page. WOSlinker (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Discussion archives should probably soft-redirect to Category:Wikipedia discussion archives afterwards. -- œ ^™ 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out. The subcategories in there are underpopulated for the same reason. I'll nominate those as well -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (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. WOSlinker (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As this is the English Wikipedia is this really a necessary category? I don't see the point for having it at all. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure there's a reason for this being created, but for the life of me, I can't see it. Delete per the above rationale. Lugnuts (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every article can be in this category. Secret ^account 19:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above rationale. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per other peoples.. I just don't know how this even got on.. lol. I dunno. kiranerys(u,c) 06:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason for this is due to the use of the ((En icon)) template (on pages where there is a choice of site per language) which then calls the ((Language icon)) template which adds the category. I have put a version in the sandbox which doesn't categorise when the language is en. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, once WOSlinker, whose among wikipedia's best in template work, fixes the langauge icon so it doesn't have to categorise when the language is english, this category is resolute and should be speedied. Secret ^account 08:20, 2 September 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spokesmen to Category:Spokespeople

Nominator's rationale: Spokesmen only includes males (I guess) and spokespeople is more gender neutral. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match the corresponding article, Spokesperson. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:BCS conferences to Category:NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences

Nominator's rationale: The qualification of "BCS conference" is somewhat of a misnomer since the Bowl Championship Series applies to all of the NCAA Division I FBS participants. In practice, the term "BCS conference" is often applied the six conferences that receive automatic bids to the BCS. As such, this category is misleading. Moreover it seems unneeded from an organizational standpoint. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support upmerge per nom. Technically, all FBS conferences are BCS conferences, and all FBS schools are BCS schools. This category uses the colloquial meaning of the term, for which "Automatic Qualifier" or AQ conference is better. But terminology aside, there's not really a need to categorize these six conferences separately from the other FBS conferences. cmadler (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only the main article, which is very short. I'm not aware of anything else currently that could be added to the category. I suggest deletion without prejudice to a future creation when there are more articles or subcategories to be added. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed at this time, unlikely that more articles will be created in the foreseeable future. Robofish (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally do not categorize people by their parents' occupations or identities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this category is not to recognize an individual by the parents’ occupation; instead the purpose of this category is to identify a unique study of humans who have chosen a field of work / lifestyle that is similar to their parents due to either genetics or environment. It is the nature v. nurture argument that, in the past, has not had a group of distinguished people, such as entertainers, to research. What I find quit remarkable is that many children of entertainers follow their parents into entertaining, but children of writers / authors and artists / fine arts usually painters do not. Entertaining, writing, & art are all considered “arts,” or “right brain” activities, but why is it that many children of entertainers become entertainers while children of writers and painters usually do not follow their parents’ work? Is there something about entertaining that is in the DNA, while writing & painting is not? More research needs to be done on this issue. This category is just the beginning of an important study. Antonio Damasio, famous physician and scientist, credited to understanding of higher human cognition, author of "Descartes’ Error" bases his theories “upon the standard neuroscientific conceptualization of brain function, a framework which originally derived from work on the visual system. Essentially, objects in the external environment cause patterns of activation of retinal receptive cells, and these retinal patterns are processed serially and in parallel to extract the visual aspects of the environment that we perceive. Patterns in the external world correspond with patterns of nerve cell activity in the brain, and these brain patterns are termed cognitive representations. So ‘thinking’ is done by means of patterns of nerve cell activation.” If this theory is true, the performing arts of entertaining when seen by the children of entertainers become the child’s world, thus, the children of entertainers must become entertainers. On the other hand, the internal conceptualization of writing and painting cannot be seen by the children of writers and painters, thus, very few children of writers and painters follow in their parents footsteps. Again, this is a theory that needs to be researched at length.The potential research that this category represents is enormous Chaos4tu (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the point the category would need to be named Category:Entertainers who are children of entertainers, but I doubt such a category would have much support. It sounds like something that should be the subject of a list, if anything. (Rather than any genetic component, it's probably far more likely that having a parent in the entertainment business simply gives the child name recognition and/or other "ins" to the industry, which is notoriously difficult to break in to.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find the argument above particularly convincing. It seems based on anecdotal evidence, vague intuition and speculation with a pretty thin scientific basis. But I want to stress that even if I did believe that this was an important phenomenon to study, I would still favour the deletion of this category. For one thing, there may be great potential for research on this topic but there currently isn't large-scale well-known research on this topic. (And it's not Wikipedia's role to push for this or that research program.) Moreover, I don't think this category would be a place where readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find say Geraldine Chaplin or Lenny Kravitz. Pichpich (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how it's dressed up, this is still a categorization by parent's occupation. The same pseudo-scientific rationale given for retention could as easily be used for Category:Children of military leaders (John McCain, Robert E. Lee and his three sons), Category:Children of political leaders (Benigno Aquino, Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., George H. W. Bush, Mitt Romney), or Category:Children of business leaders (James L. Dolan, Thomas Watson, Jr., Mitt Romney again) just to name the first three obvious examples that come to mind. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called Pseudo-Science often changes to science. Just look at the phenomenon of microbiology & the prevention of disease. In 1895, people did not “believe” that there were little “animals” so tiny that one could not see them yet these animals caused numerous diseases that resulted in human deaths. That is until Louis Pasteur changed science with his “pseudo-science” of pasteurization. …The argument of nature v. nurture is not settled. There is a great many areas to research concerning human behavior, thought, consciousness and so on. There is a great deal that needs to be studied concerning children of military leaders, politicians, U.S. presidents, murderers and more, but this particular research needs time & for others to add their own thoughts, ideas, studies, & conclusions. This category is just the beginning. For instance look at the familiar history of Tyrone Power: his entertainer family can be traced back to the late 1700’s in England. How is it that all of Tyrone Power’s families are entertainers? Even his daughter, who never knew her father, is an entertainer. Is this DNA or is it family nurture? Perhaps both. Like Antonio Damasio writes in his ground breaking book “Descartes’ Error” human consciousness is altered by one’s environment, so much so that it may change the DNA. It is a well known fact that the human body changes DNA when the environment is altered, for instance look at the humans that live closest to the Equator they have darker pigmentation in their skin than those who live near the North Pole. Again, the category Children of Entertainers is new and perhaps for some it may be “heretical” according to Wikipedia and should be deleted, similar to the Church’s position who wanted to delete Galileo. Chaos4tu (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2011

I think that's the first time the CFD process in Wikipedia has been compared to the Galileo affair. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We do not generally categorize people by their parents' occupations or identities. 14:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Children of the Entertainers have assumed their parent's occupations, thus their identities are somewhat attached or intermingled with that of the parent. When one sees, reads about or hears Liza Minnelli, does not one think immediately of her mother Judy Garland? When Martin Sheen got arrested for protesting of Nuclear Power plants, did not one think of his sons, especially Charlie Sheen? These children of entertainers are not normal children; the Wikipedia guidelines of not categorizing children by their parents' occupations is a valid one, that is for normal children. Children of Entertainers are anything but normal. Their upbringing, their educations, their home life, their environment, their parents are anything but normal. Chaos4tu (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I don't personally find the pseudoscientific rationale compelling.
Rather, I come from a family of academics that is multidisciplinarian, and likes to see information grouped or associated in unconventional ways, because that can be illuminating.
Things are revealed when cast in a different light.
I wouldn't object to Category:Children of military leaders, Category:Children of political leaders, or Category:Children of business leaders, automatically.
The argument that, "We generally do not categorize people by their parents' occupations", I do not see as a strong one.
Creating a precedent is otherwise called leadership.
My personal reaction upon seeing the list was, "This is really American and pop cultural".
So, in order to assess it fairly, let's open it up a bit and see. So I quickly added Placido Domingo (son of zarzuela performers), Mozart, Charles II's bastard, et cetera.
Varlaam (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am more interested in seeing people classified this way than in seeing them classified by what school they happen to have attended for half a term.
If we are going to support that dubious classification scheme, then why not this one? It is far more reasonable. Right?
My parents influenced me more than my gym teacher.
Varlaam (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS#Special subcategories: 'Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.' I don't think that is the case for 'Jewish porn actors'. 'Jewish actors', yes, but Jewish porn actors? While I am aware that there are various subgenres of pornography which emphasise the ethnicity of the participants, I'm not aware of any such genre as 'Jewish pornography', and Ethnicity of performers in pornography makes no mention of Jews. Therefore, I don't think this category should exist. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amused by this nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. Plus, there is always the endless debate about who is Jewish. --Cox wasan (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although in the case of male pornographic actors, you might have a clue right off the bat. ;) Jweiss11 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Bwwhahaha.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming this is a valid intersection (it isn't), it should be deleted anyway because of the inherent unverfiability. Most of the info comes from an interview with the porn star who uses a pseudonym. We should not consider anything verified if we have no way of substantiating it independently. We don't even know her name. She could very well be claiming a religion (1) she wants to confuse anyone trying to uncover her RL name and (2) cover up for her own real religion that she is now embarrassed to confess to.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at Daisy Marie's Wikipedia page. One of her categories is "Hispanic pornographic film actors." How can the category "Jewish poronographic film actors" be deleted if Wikipedia allows "Hispanic pornographic film actors"? Seems unfair. Chaos4tu (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and someone should also nominate: Category:Jewish actors too for identical reasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Contrary to what some of you are saying that are other pages of such nature and to give an above mentioned example. I see absolutely no reason get rid of this page. There should be no debate, if the person claims they are of a certain religion then they are of that religion, isn't that how we define religion a choice of beliefs. The Terminator p t c 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "there should be no debate"? Just because someone is an X and they self-identify as a Y, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia automatically has to have a category for Xs who are Y. We aren't debating the person's choice of religion or ethnic background; we are debating whether there should be a Wikipedia category for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Chaos4tu made this point about this category, when he pointed to other such categories such as Category:Hispanic pornographic film actors, If, as you say, there is not debate on a person choice of religion then I don't see how this is any different Category:Hispanic pornographic film actors. The Terminator p t c 15:53, 3 September 2011 (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.

August 29

Category:Cherokee-speaking countries and territories

Category:A (TV system) network shows

Category:Internet marketing by method

Category:Respiratory care

Category:Tron

Category:Films relating to Anne Frank

Category:User archives

Category:Talk archives

Category:Articles with English language external links

Category:Spokesmen

Category:BCS conferences

Category:Ghana – South Africa relations

Category:Children of Entertainers

Category:Jewish pornographic film actors