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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American architects by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American architects of Armenian descent

Category:American architects of Asian descent

Category:American architects of English descent

Category:American architects of Finnish descent

Category:American architects of French descent

Category:American architects of German descent

Category:American architects of Hungarian descent

Category:American architects of Irish descent

Category:American architects of Italian descent

Category:American architects of Luxembourgian descent

Category:American architects of Polish descent

Category:American architects of Romanian descent

Category:American architects of Russian descent

Category:American architects of Turkish descent

Category:American architects of Ukrainian descent

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Upmerge. Another egregious WP:OCAT by ethnicity issue. There is no documentation linking heritage with architecture for any of these ethnicities, or more specifically, for any of these individuals. Bulldog123 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom except for Category:American architects of Asian descent, on which no opinion for now. The others seem overly specific and of little cultural consequence as intersections, but I know that in other arts at least, there is a recognized study of Asian Americans as a group, so I'd like to see some arguments for that category as it relates to architecture. postdlf (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to 'American people of xxx descent' parents or grandparent. No known articles to support this set of occupation categories. Hmains (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all. Pointless category intersection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, and do not try to do away with national origin / ethnicity articles in this way. The nominator has been on a tear trying to get rid of these categories throughout the encyclopedia, and widespread changes like this need to be handled in a better way than mass deletion nominations. CfD is simply not an adequate tool for considering a policy change like this. To consider any of this per OCAT as it currently exists we would need to separately consider each category and determine whether it is a notable subject. That some American architects are notable for their national or ethnic background is unquestionable - there are no doubt many books and articles on the subject. Others, perhaps not. Generalized comments that the subject itself is worthless are not helpful, and run against the spirit of encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects. I suggest that this process be aborted in favor of a wider discussion. - 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a brief followup, although there is no possible way an editor can or should respond to so many simultaneous deletion nominations, as a case in point there isn't even a category at the moment for Cuban-American architects. But here is an article describing the importance of the subject.[1] It's not just happenstance of birth or heritage. The point is that people's culture influences their aesthetics and life story, and they take that to their careers. There is a distinct Cuban influence in American architects and architecture, just as there is Italian-Americans and Italianate/Mediterranean architecture (plus a streak of modernism), French, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wider-policy discussions" lead to stalemates and inaction, like, for example, when people tried to add "ethnicity" to WP:BLPCAT, specifically because they lack focus. Case-by-case XfDs are and always have been a perfectly legitimate way to judge whether material is encyclopedic. Your final sentences are just a lot of WP:OR and assumptions. If slim-to-no external coverage on these intersections, we don't create them per WP:SYNTH. Bulldog123 09:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog, if these discussions go against you, will you conclude there is no point in this crusade? Its your assumption that there is no importance that is the OR. DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly trying to convince me that it's WP:OR for me to say that no external refs exist to support these intersections when.... no external refs actually exist and you can't even provide them? Really? No, I don't consider the same group of users hounding my cfds as being representative of "Wikipedia-wide" consensus. It's not coincidental that whenever these users miss the cfds, they end in a unanimous Upmerge/Delete consensus (See the actors and sportspeople categories). It's also not coincidence that we have a specific policy designed to make sure these categories don't get made. (WP:OCAT) I'm not saying there's no importance to ethnic classification... I'm saying there's no documentation of the importance for these ethnic/occupation classifications (for these individuals). Therefore, we don't report it as true. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Honestly, if it were anyone else nominating these cats, they'd end in upmerge/delete consensus without hesitation. FYI You're actually one of the few opposing users who doesn't hound my contributions (just has a very nichey opinion), so I'm not accusing you personally of anything. I actually respect your opinion even if it baffles me. Bulldog123 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per above keep -- well said. Wholly agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest keeping all. I just had occasion to add two new entries to American architects of French descent. Even though the number added is small it makes the category look more complete. The number of entries has grown from 4 to 6 and I can easily see that number climbing quite a bit higher.

  Why not leave all of these categories alone. In time most of them will surely contain worthwhile infomation.Lukascb (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ethnic background a swell as nationality is important with respect to artists. I note almost none of the delete or upmerge opinions give an actual reason beyond ITISNOTIMPOTSNTTOME. Perhaps a wider discussion is needed, for the end results of cfd discussions like this tends to be essentially random results.
• Upmerge all. Unless one can prove that people of Ukrainian, Turkish or another descent have a specific separate view of architecture in the United States, this is a trivial intersection.--TM 14:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Most architects when identified as an American architect of ethnic descent are identified as such, not only because of their background, but because it informs their designs. Many American architects of Italian descent (Nicholas Saracino, etc.) enjoyed special praise for their Baroque, Renaissance, and Italianate stylings, Polish for the Polish Cathedral styling, Irish (Jeremiah O'Rourke, etc.) for Irish Gothic works, English for (F.C. Merry, Robert W. Gibson, Richard Upjohn, etc.) for English-influenced Gothic Revival works, German (J. William Schickel, Arthur Bohn, Bernard Vonnegut, Sr., etc) for German Renaissance and Baroque, French (Pierre Charles L'Enfant) for the relevant French classical contemporary styles, Ukrainian (Apollinaire Osadca) for modern Ukrainian Orthodox stylings, and certainly architects of African-American heritage are relevant. In one of the earliest posts (by postdlf), I find the latter category's exclusion from deletion, along with that of Category:American architects of Asian descent, to be particularly distasteful in judging those more relevant than any other group. Pointless intersection (as Necrothesp suggests)? No. These are not scuba divers or tennis players by ethnic origin, these are artists with highly relevant backgrounds that inform their art.---James R (talk)

I think what you're asking to keep is something like :Category:Architects of the Irish Gothic style... which is not at all equivalent to Category:Architects of Irish descent. these are artists with highly relevant backgrounds that inform their art. Source for each person listed here? Wikipedia is about verifiability, not what you believe to be true. We don't lump together people whose ethnic background is irrelevant just because some wikipedia editors believe the statement "architect's background informs their design" should apply to everyone. Where's, for example, the evidence that we have to now classify Alexander John Majeski as an "architect of Polish descent?" I'm not seeing his Polish descent being mentioned anywhere regarding his architecture. Bulldog123 11:33, 1 March 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: keep. However, since this is a subcategory of Category:American people of Asian descent, any non-Americans should be pruned from the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American theatre directors of Asian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rename to Category:Directors of Asian American theatre and prune the WP:OCAT by ethnicity entries. Asian American theatre directing is not a potential article. Also there is not an Asian-American-way of directing theatre, or anything to distinguish being Asian American and directing theatre from merely directing theatre. Any claims that there might be is WP:OR. Bulldog123 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Asian American theatre directing is a bit of a straw man, as the claim isn't always that the way an ethnic group performs a job is different, but that Asian Americans in theatre directing may have had a distinct, culturally recognized experience. Which I am not prepared to defend here (nor do I know it can be)...but that's often the argument. This category has been discussed once before (CFD here) to rename it. postdlf (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you have a distinct, culturally recognized experience if you put on a theatre show the same way as everyone else? Doesn't it cease to be "distinct" then? Bulldog123 20:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that you can read, I'm not going to waste my time schooling you on the diverse experiences of ethnic minorities in particular occupations. Suffice to say, sometimes it's a question of how people got there and what they had to do to get there that made their experience distinct, not necessarily the output of their work once they got there. As your rhetorical questions indicate (the equivalent of repeating "I don't get it"), this is clearly a subject area that you have problems with, so maybe you shouldn't be knocking your head against it over and over again. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't a rhetorical question. And if you want to be catty, I'll leave you with this: Freshen up on WP:OR. You still don't seem to have a good grasp of it, given those assumptions you just threw out there (and that you've thrown out in the past regarding ethnic categorizations). I also get the feeling that the reason you're not "schooling" me on what other way an Asian-American can make his theatre play Asian-Americanish besides directing/creating/producing it differently... is because you yourself don't know. There's a reason all academia on the subject of Asian American theatre only includes plays about Asians or the Asian-American experience. Whatever other way you wish to concoct doesn't have external references to back it up... Bulldog123 10:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You think I've violated WP:OR by observing, in this deletion discussion, that you're ignoring one of the ways this category could be analyzed? That's an interesting claim. This is the same tactic you've used in XFD after XFD regarding ethnicity-based lists or categories: insisting that the only way an ethnic group's participation in an occupation could be culturally or historically significant (i.e., notable) is if their output in that occupation is somehow different from that of other ethnic groups. Which, as I said, ignores that in many cases the relevant question may be how that ethnic group got to that occupation or other activity and what they had to do to get there. African Americans do not vote differently in Congress; African Americans do not play baseball differently; Irish-Americans did not fight differently in the Civil War; and Puerto Ricans did not arrive in New York by unique methods of transportation. But in all of those cases, those groups may have faced different barriers that they had to overcome, or were subject to different motivating factors that compelled them towards certain activities as a group, which is at least part of why they are studied as distinct groups within those areas. Why is that observation WP:OR, but not your assumption that an ethnic/occupation intersection is only meaningful if the ethnic group performs that occupation differently?

  I already said I didn't know what the situation was for this category, when I said "I am not prepared to defend [this category] here (no do I know it can be)." So kudos for calling me out on not being able to do something I had already expressly said I could not do. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And what I'm saying is... it doesn't matter what possible way (we might think) it affects them If there is no external documentation explicitly citing "this person's ethnicity influenced his becoming a ____ in [enter way here]." We don't lump people into a category/list just because some of them might have had their ethnicity influence their profession. That's the WP:OR issue that keeps evading you (as it evaded you during the list of Jewish actors DRV - which, by the way, remains the same indiscriminate owned article it's always been - no changes whatsoever despite all those "it can be fixed" claims). Categories and lists don't exist to house everyone that fits the two independent criterias... they exist to only house the relevant examples (per WP:BLPCAT, WP:EGRS, WP:OCAT, WP:OR, WP:NOT... it goes on and on). My nomination rationales are just based on the most common way to link ethnicity and occupation - that being that the person creates or exudes something distinct. If there are other ways, okay then, but that's certainly not relevant to this particular nomination or the architects or sportspeople nominations I made before. I asked a legitimate, non-rhetorical question specifically about this category and you jumped all over it in a passive-aggressive way. Also, there's only one instance of an ethnicity in any of those straw-man examples you just gave (some of them being WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); that example was Irish-Americans in the American Civil War and it happens to be a rather poorly written article, not an indiscriminate, criteria-less list/category. Thereby, I don't understand how it's comparable to any nomination I've listed recently. Irish-Americans and the civil war is a distinct cultural topic apparently. However if we were to make a list form, not everyone who happens to be of Irish descent should be included. That's the ultimate point. Bulldog123 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Asian American theatre is certainly notable. Not all of the directors may be notable for directing Asian American theatre – some are probably Asian Americans who happen to direct theatre. But the ones that are notable should be categorized, and I don't think they should be dumped in the parent Category:Asian American theatre. Since we're only talking about people who meet WP:N, I don't see a problem including the so-called impostors with the notables. --Pnm (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you took a look at the CFD I linked to above, but a proposal to rename this category to directors of Asian American theatre was previously made and rejected. And apart from Category:Musical theatre directors, there are no other subcategories of theatre directors by type/genre of theatre. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with that... but, in that case, it should be Keep and Prune, not just Keep. I'd also prefer if Asian American theatre had more sources to back it up. It's looking very WP:SYNTHy at the moment. You'd also need explicit citations that say these theatre directors participate in Asian American theatre, as it is defined. Bulldog123 10:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you do that then the category clearly needs renaming, as it is not just for American theatre directors of Asian descent but for American theatre directors of Asian descent who direct Asian American theatre! Otherwise you're implying that American theatre directors of Asian descent only direct Asian American theatre! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'd support a rename. I was taking the "delete and then remake as relevant category" approach, but whichever way is fine. I'd also advise that Asian American theater be cleaned up of all the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that's in it right now. Bulldog123 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Directors of Asian American theatre for those who actually direct in that genre. Upmerge those directors who are simply of Asian descent but direct general theatre to Category:American theatre directors and Category:American people of Asian descent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the presence of a clear parent article in Asian American theater and the presence of multiple texts on the subject archived by Google Books and elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it hasn't got a clear parent article. Just because some Asian American directors specialise in a specifically Asian American form of theatre doesn't mean they all do. Presumably some/many/most operate in the wider sphere, which is not covered by the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And should I point out this is starting to look like WP:WIKIHOUNDING... as Alansohn makes the same copy-and-paste argument in nearly every one of these nominations I make, paying no attention to exactly what Necrotesp points out is the main problem they all share in common (relevant examples versus everyone). Bulldog123 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, and do not try to do away with national origin / ethnicity articles in this way. Please forgive the cut-and-paste argument, but the nominator has been on a tear with cookie-cutter nominations trying to get rid of these categories throughout the encyclopedia. That isn't wikihounding, it's a policy issue. Widespread changes like this need to be handled in a better way than mass deletion nominations. To consider any of this per OCAT as it currently exists we would need to consider each category in detail and determine whether it is a notable subject. Generalized comments that the subject of national or ethnic background is impertinent to people's life work are not helpful, and run against the spirit of encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects. I suggest that all of these nominations be aborted in favor of a wider policy discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this is wikihounding. There is no "policy" that states I have to bring these CfDs to a RfC or a policy-discussion. However, this is a policy that states that random ethnicity intersections lacking in significant external documentation should not exist. In fact, "Wider-policy discussions" lead to stalemates precisely because they are too broad and lack focus. The most recent example is the attempt to include "ethnicity" in WP:BLPCAT. Case-by-case XfDs are and always have been a perfectly legitimate way to judge whether this type of material is encyclopedic. Now... do you actually have an argument for why we should pigeonhole people of Asian ethnicity using this category? Bulldog123 09:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Wikidemon -- well said. Wholly agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one, and add a category for " Category:Directors of Asian American theatre " -- an excellent suggestion of Bulldog's. for it is a different topic. Perhaps an equally important topic, too. I would keep all cateogries of this sort in the arts, wherte background really matters. As for proof of importance, see the LATimes and Newsday. both discussing the direction by asian americans of classic western theater. Thereare many works on Bulldog's topic also. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 25 February 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 to Category:Rivers of the Black Sea drainage basin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea to Category:Black Sea Drainage Basin rivers Category:Tributaries of the Black Sea

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As it exists, it is a tripple intersection which we generally try to avoid. Move these up to an appropriate level category at the drainage basin level. Open to the best naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to believe the parent categories, this probably should have been named Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea of Romania. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note based on other categories, I have modified the nomination to better match other categories. This category was not included in the other tree so it was easy to miss. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Tributaries of the Black Sea as that seems to be what the articles are about. I could not figure out what they were with the existing name. Hmains (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Rivers of the Black Sea basin. Per the article Tributary, "A tributary does not flow directly into a sea, ocean, or lake," so "Tributaries of the Black Sea" does not seem to make sense. The category could be split for each river system that enters the Black Sea. Cjc13 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If consensus is in that direction, it would need to be Category:Rivers of the Black Sea drainage basin which I would not oppose. We are trying to get away from the ambiguous uses of basin. Clearly the current name is wrong and needs to be fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion re-name to Category:Romanian drainage basins of the Black Sea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – this is all very bizarre. The Danube doesn't get into any Black Sea category at all. This category has a lake category as a parent and states "for rivers in the endorheic basin of the Black Sea"; but the Black Sea is not a lake, neither is it endorheic. Category:Rivers of the Black Sea drainage basin seems to be the best option above, and more rivers then need to be added (as this did start life as a subcat of rather small Romanian rivers). Occuli (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment if what Cjc13 and Tributary is correct about tributaries only flowing into rivers, then we have a problem with the following subcategories of Category:Tributaries and their subcatgories: Category:Lake tributaries, Category:Rivers of the Falkland Islands, Category:Tributaries of Hudson Bay, and Category:Rivers of Antarctica, all of which would need to be re-categorized. But how? Hmains (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tributary is defined as A stream that flows into a larger stream or other body of water. at The Free Dictionary. Or a stream feeding a larger stream or a lake from Merriam-Webster. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and a sea is none of those things. OED agrees that a tributary is a stream contributing its flow to a larger stream or lake. So none of Hmains list is a problem under that definition other than Category:Tributaries of Hudson Bay. SpinningSpark 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC), edited 07:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That leaves us with Category:Black Sea Drainage Basin rivers, Category:Black Sea drainage basin rivers or Category:Rivers of the Black Sea drainage basin. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, why do you say that a sea is none of these when sea is identified as a body of salt water? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        Because OED and Merriam-Webster (ie the serious dictionaries) have not included sea, and even the Free Dictionary definition does not specifically include it. I am not convinced that drainage basin is a technically correct term either: "Drainage basin. A part of the surface of the earth that is occupied by a drainage system, which consists of a surface stream or a body of impounded surface water together with all tributary surface streams and bodies of impounded surface water." - US Geological Survey; "Drainage Basin In hydrologic terms, a part of the surface of the earth that is occupied by a drainage system, which consists of a surface stream or a body of impounded surface water together with all tributary surface streams and bodies of impounded surface water." - NOAA, also "Basin An area having a common outlet for its surface runoff. Also called a Drainage Basin.". This would seem to exclude seas (unless endorheic) since they are not impounded and some, perhaps most, of the water arrives through ocean currents rather than rivers draining into it. There does not appear to exist a hydrological technical, collective term for all the rivers draining into a sea. So we can either ignore the technical definitions and tell the hydrographers to go jump in the nearest lake, or else use some slightly clunky construction such as category:Rivers of the Black Sea and their tributaries. SpinningSpark 13:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Rivers of the Black Sea drainage basin seems to be the least clunky and it has every necessary word in it Hmains (talk) 05:54, 26 February 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 to Category:Rave culture in the United Kingdom.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Raves to Category:Raves in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. No general category Category:Raves yet exists but would seem to be appropriate.Tim! (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Rave culture in the United Kingdom, as the category contains articles about venues, sound systems, organizers, and events variously related to the rave scene. I don't believe we have any articles about individual rave parties, which is what I would think "raves" in a category name would suggest.- choster (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with choster's alternative suggestion for a rename. Tim! (talk) 08:43, 19 February 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: triple-upmerge to Category:Israel Defense Forces disasters, Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion, and Category:Israeli Air Force.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IAF's CH-53 Yas'ur helicopters disasters to Category:Israeli Air Force helicopter disasters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems a bit over-specific to combine IAF, helicopter disasters, and the kind of helicopter. I suggest broadening this to "IAF helicopter disasters" (whether Yas'ur or non-Yas'ur) and expanding "IAF" to read "Israeli Air Force". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. This specific type of Helicopter has been in most of the worst disaters of the Israeli Air Force. I still have three more articles to write which would use this category. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Triple-upmerge to Category:Israel Defense Forces disasters, Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion (convention of Category:Helicopter accidents) and either Category:Israeli Air Force or Category:History of the Israeli Air Force (subcategory of Category:Israeli Air Force and Category:Air force history). Even with more articles, there is no need to have a quadruple-intersection of event (disaster), equipment (helicopter), model (CH-53) and operator (IAF). Repurposing into a category for the triple-intersection of IAF helicopter disasters would be an improvement but perhaps not enough. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). I can support that suggestion if it's felt my nomination didn't go far enough. The current category name is extremely granular, and I thought it should be broadened at least a little bit, but your suggestions sound most in line with the current category scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 18 February 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 to Category:Fellow Members of the IEEE, revisit if this is not satisfactory. This one is most inline with the other Member categories and per the IEEE correspondence below. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IEEE Fellows to Category:Fellows of the IEEE

Nominator's rationale: The category was recently speedy moved from Category:Fellows of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers justified by this debate at which, however, it was not specifically mentioned. The current title is inconsistent with Category:Members of the IEEE and Category:Senior Members of the IEEE. It is also inconsistent with numerous categories of the form Category: Fellows of the foo such as Category:Fellows of the American Physical Society. SpinningSpark 19:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per IEEE's usage of "IEEE Fellow grade" (compare with Senior Member Grade). Same usage in IEEE Fellow. Even IEEE's plural usage is "IEEE Fellows." --Pnm (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely the formal honorific is still "Fellow of the IEEE" per the honorific letters FIEEE (not IEEEF). One can still talk of IEEE Fellows and have that as the title of the list of fellows on the IEEE (or Wikipedia) website while the formal title remains something different. The IEEE do not appear to disapprove of the term, "Fellow of the IEEE" gets numerous hits on their website. Perhaps we should contact them and ask their opinion, but common usage and Wikipedia consistency also need to be considered here. There at least needs to be consistency between the categories for Members, Senior Memebers and Fellows. SpinningSpark 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am in correspondence with the IEEE on this, please do not close until I have had a chance to post their views. SpinningSpark 00:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I suggest posting on the one (or two) relevant wikiprojects, to see if we can can some further views.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• From personal correspondence with the IEEE;

The proper term is IEEE Fellow. However, you can use either term. Fellow Member of IEEE, or IEEE Fellow Member.

which I guess makes me wrong. I will provide the correspondence in full if requested by e-mail. SpinningSpark 23:53, 16 March 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Self-immolations in protest to Communism in Eastern Europe to Category:Self-immolations in protest of the Eastern Bloc

Nominator's rationale: The individuals in the category self-immolated to protest the communist regimes of the Eastern Bloc countries and/or Soviet dominance and influence in Eastern Europe, and not merely the presence of communist ideology in Eastern Europe. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per my participation in speedy discussion. I think the new name is much better, the immolations were more about the Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc regimes than it was about communism as an ideology. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 20 February 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: do not split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Google employees into Category:Google employees and a new sub-category, Category:Former Google employees

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing a split of this category, moving all former Google employees into a new subcategory, Category:Former Google employees. As it stands, current and former employees are lumped together c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This reflects accepted practice of grouping together former and current affiliation and status (see here for a list of precedents). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – current and former employees should be lumped together, as are current and former anything else. Occuli (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose split No valid reason to split the category in current and former. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, 25 February 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: listify to Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization by non-defining characteristic.TM 18:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame is the hall of fame for former Ohio State University athletes, so it isn't like this is something out of left field regarding these subjects. I don't see any other such university-specific halls of fame with their own categories, however, so this probably is an example of WP:OC#AWARD. postdlf (talk) 04:21, 21 February 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piezo Audible Components (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category elements are largely electromagnetic in character, not piezoelectric. In only few instances are microphones, tweeters, loudspeakers and buzzers piezoelectric. The category should be deleted. If editors think that the concept of this category is sound (pun intended), then it should be named Category:Piezoelectric audio components instead. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. of the six current members of the category, four are not specifically piezoelectric and one is not specifically audio, leaving a category with a single member only. SpinningSpark 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most current members are only peripherally members of this category. There doesn't appear to be enough it the way of core articles to justify the category. --Kvng (talk) 19:58, 20 February 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Jewish paramilitary organizations to Category:Militant Zionist groups

Nominator's rationale: There's a lot of duplicative categorization around pre-IDF Zionism and it seems for instance that Category:Haganah and Category:Irgun are in every conceivable parent. In the case of the two categories here there are only three pages that aren't in one of the subcategories, and I don't see a compelling reason to distinguish one of them from the other two. If a reverse merge were suggested I would be agreeable to that instead. At any rate the three subcategories ought to fall into only one of these categories. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I created Category:Jewish paramilitary organizations recently and I have no objection to it being merged if it is correct to classify Bar-Giora and Hashomer as "Militant Zionist" groups. By the way, I initiated a discussion yesterday to merge Category:Militant Zionist groups ... perhaps the two discussions should be consolidated? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That would probably make sense since one category is involved in two discussions. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 19 February 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avian surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a category of surnames that are also names of birds. Seems overcategorization to me, but at the very least the name perhaps should be adjusted as my first thought on seeing it was where in the world does "Avian" refer to. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A pretty questionable and more or less trivial categorization of mostly disambig/navigational pages. And I have to say I had something of the same reaction: where's Category: Leghorn? Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The categegory was created by Mixedsoup (talk · contribs) and I noticed it being added to articles by 114.180.28.157; I suspect both are sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned this on the 18th, coincidently Mixedsoup's last edit was on the 18th. Look at Emeth-entry (talk · contribs) who registered on the 26th, and has done nothing but fiddle with this cat and add articles into it. He also removed the deletion notice for the cat, but hasn't left a comment here [2]. I'm not sure who he thinks his fooling.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same user(s) has now added Category:Piscine surnames and Category:Animal surnames which suffer from the same issues as this category. Can those be included in this discussion or do they need separate CfD nominations? older ≠ wiser 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I think it's interesting. I was actually thinking of starting a similar cat. Please don't decide to delete just because of which user actually created it. If it wasn't for this cat I would never have known any of the non-English names were derived from the names of birds - so it is useful that sense atleast. We could rename it to something like "Surnames derived from birds" though, or something like that, because I don't think "Avian surnames" is a term used by anyone else.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you actually know, from this category, that these surnames were derived from bird names? Take Spacek, for example; it's in the category, but says nothing about the origin of the name or whether it has anything to do with birds. Same with Columbus, Hus... If we removed every article that doesn't support this category, how many would be left? postdlf (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. I'm really only familiar with British and Irish names. According to the Oxford Dictionary of American Family Names, Špacek originates from a Czech word meaning "starling". I think the word columbus means "pigeon" or "dove" in Latin, but who knows if that has any bearing on the surname. I agree with what you and Good Olfactory have said below, and I believe Williamb has it about right. I think there's potential for a useful category/list, it's just hard to defend something without having some good content or theory to back it up first.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial category; offers no meaningful encyclopedic insight. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an interesting study, but no documentation to speak of. Seems somebody should start with a regular article with documentation and references, so one would better understand why people have bird surnames etc. before starting categories. Williamb (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or a list. --Pnm (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a pretty straightforward example of things to be avoided per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the article subjects are names, however, I'm not sure that guideline is relevant. postdlf (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline says "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Isn't the italicized part relevant here?—the fact that these names are also given to birds seems to be a "characterstic" of the names that are categorized here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm assuming this category asserts that these names were actually derived from bird names or words for birds, not that they merely coincided (not that anyone's actually shown that yet, which is one reason why I haven't !voted keep), so no, it's not relevant. The guideline talks about "a subject's name," not names that are subjects, and that's an important distinction. Category:People with surnames derived from bird names would be categorizing by a subject's name, i.e., categorizing by a trait one step removed from the actual article's subject—the origin of the name of the subject of the article. Category:Surnames derived from bird names would be categorizing a subject (a surname that is the topic of an article) by its origin. In any event, good luck to anyone who tries to create a sourced list or article once this category is deleted. I'd like to see that. postdlf (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you are right about that; thx for the good explanation. (But as you say, the contents seem to be placed there largely because of coincidence between the two names with no indication in the articles what the connection is, if any, between the bird name and the surname.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial point of commonality, and most of the pages in it are disambiguation pages (which generally don't need much categorization) anyway. Bearcat (talk) 10:45, 25 February 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools with Junior Civitan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, nondefining. The category is meant to include any schools where a Junior Civitan International club has been formed. This is not actually part of the schools as institutions, but rather an extra-curricular club that students may start at their school under the sponsorship of the organization (kind of a franchise thing, I imagine). Based on a sampling it seems that many (most?) included articles don't even mention this fact. postdlf (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete quickly before it spreads Categorizing high schools by programs is a maintenance nightmare, and never mind the relative notability of the Civitans. It's WP:NOTDIRECTORY at its worst. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree about maintenance nightmare. Listify content if desired. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't even find a list on the Junior Civitan website (maybe I didn't look in the right place?), so I don't know what the source would be for that. And I think it would be contrary to WP:NOTDIR anyway, as none of these clubs are notable in their own right, and which schools have them doesn't really tell you anything useful about Junior Civitan as a topic beyond the statistic of 400 clubs worldwide. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 25 February 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historiographers of Islam to Category:Historians of Islam

Nominator's rationale: Category contains only historians, no need for a category for historiographers. TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Historian & Historiographer are apparently synonyms, the distinction not significant enough to warrant separate cat's. By definition, every Historiographer is also a Historian (but not necessarily vice versa). So, Rename per nom. Nahum (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment a single person may be both a Historian & a Historiographer, but not necessarily so. History is the study of events as written by historians; historiography is the study of historians as written by historiographers. Hmains (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Nahum that every historiographer is also an historian. Studying the way history is written makes you a student of history, too. --Pnm (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It looks like "historiography" may have special meaning in Islam, or in religion. See Muslim historiography (dab) and Historiography of early Islam. It's unclear whether Nahum is alluding to this. I'd rather more clarity about this point. I sampled only five entries in this category, but 40% of them contained "historiography" (Aziz Al-Azmeh and Franz Rosenthal). Would they really be impossible to sort? --Pnm (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Historiography, put crudely, is the study of historians, and a branch of history. No, "historiography" has no special meaning in Islam, or in religion. The articles are a very mixed bunch, and the proposed name is far better. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 20 February 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.