Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 9

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 8 July 10 >

July 9 edit

Category:Christian rappers not involved in Christian hip hop edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, but the other categories mentioned need their own debate. --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarcely populated category that has POV intentions with a bad name. Delete 12.75.70.156 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I believe the point was rappers that started in Christian music but no longer do it. For example, Jessica would be a Christian singer no longer performing christian music. However, that said, the cat is still as pointless as a sphere and needs to go very quickly. there is ZERO objectivity in how the artists were selected (Kanye West for example, never came out as a Christian rapper? what about Play (from Kid and Play) or Salt (from Salt 'n pepa) who left mainstream hip-hop to do gospel rap and are now returning? do they fit? Delete this right now!! Antares33712 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Police forces of the British Isles edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand exactly how this is different from Category:Police forces of the United Kingdom. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, "British Isles" refers to a region extending beyond the territory of the United Kingdom. A regional category might be worthwhile, but certainly shouldn't be a subcat of Category:Police forces of the United Kingdom; if anything, wouldn't it be the other way around? Luna Santin 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure how useful a regional category would be, but "Police forces of the British Isles" is too narrow to be useful anyway; at least it should be "Police forces of Europe" (but again, I think regionalization here is probably unnecessary).--Pharos 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ProveIt, the British Isles are the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. There's no real need for this category, though. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland categories are already in Category:Police forces of the United Kingdom. Honbicot 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete, delete, and now!! Antares33712 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, seems like a simple mistake to me... gren グレン 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This cat will be deleted. However there is a notable difference between the British Isles and the United Kingdom. The UK does not include the Republic of Ireland, though the history and development of that country is entangled within the history and development of the other countries within the UK - and this includes the history and development of the police force - so British Isles is a more encyclopedic category than the UK. Sadly the term British Isles is challenged and often rejected on nationalist grounds. SilkTork 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Pointless, irrelevant category that will simply end up causing POV rows and edit wars between British and Irish people if an attempt was made to link the Garda Siochána, much less the Republican Police of the Irish Republic 1919-1922, into it. Re- the claim that it is rejected on (Irish) nationalist grounds. It is all too often promoted on British nationalist grounds, hence its widespread offensiveness to Irish people, and the growing dislike (to put it mildly) of the term British Isles in Scotland and Wales. Internationally British Isles is generally interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as meaning British (i.e., United Kingdom). So such a category would cause edit wars between British and Irish Wikipedians, offence it if is used (to Irish people and some Scottish and Welsh people), offence it is not used (to British people), while confusing others as to what it actually means. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per SilkTork. This is going to be deleted, but consideration should be given to the police forces (and other categorisations) of the Category:Law enforcement agencies of the Channel Islands and Category:Law enforcement in the Isle of Man, neither of which should be labelled as by country. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Left and Right in France edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (6k:4d) --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, redundant and POV / OR classifications. Political parties can and should only be classified by their ideology, not by vacuous terms. Move articles up in categorization, or into the ideological categories. Intangible 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (* added later)[reply]

  • Strong keep. We have been through this before: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 10#Category:Far right political parties in France. User:Intangible is the only one that seems to have a problem with clasification, and he instead supports his own criteria for classification, which are not enforcible. Anyone remotely familiar with the French context will understand the use of such categories, and their practicalities are explained in header on the categories; see for exmple the one for Category:Political parties in France: Due to historic reasons, France doesn't divides parties into "liberals" and "conservatives" as in the US, but according to left-wing and right-wing. Thus, this categorization is used in order to avoid confusion (what US people call "liberal" is generally considered "center-left" in France, while what French people understand by "liberal" is a party that supports economic liberalism or neoliberalism, and this is generally considered in France as "right-wing"). Some few parties, such as the Radical Socialist Party may with difficulty enter one or the other category, because they have moved during their history (most left-wing parties have a tendency to go closer to the center and, in some cases, cross the treshold to become right-wing during their history). Thus, the Radical-Socialist Party is included in both categories (it has members which belong to the center-right and others to the center-left). Parties that claim being "neither right nor left" are categorized in "right-wing parties" (left-wing parties never claim not to be left-wing; but some right-wing parties claim to be left-wing, this has been called sinistrisme by political scientists). Most eurosceptic parties are also "right-wing", apart from the Citizen and Republican Movement which is a "socialist euro-sceptic" party. Furthermore, "Socialism" in France is a very large category, which includes social-democracy as well as communism (although "socialism" is usually thought today - in France - in opposition to "communism", having become a synonym of "social-democracy"), and may even be close in some cases to social-liberalism (Dominique Strauss-Kahn, member of the Socialist Party, represent such a trend). Finally, even the French Communist Party (PCF) may be considered social-democrat since it has participated in left-wing governments since François Mitterrand's 1981 election (like most left-wing parties, it has a tendency of getting closer to the center while the years pass)." (excuse the ungrammatical parts)
May I add that the French wikipedia uses such criteria without any visible problem: fr:Catégorie:Extrême droite française. Dahn 22:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Dahn has supported deleting Category:Left-wing parties in France and Category:Right-wing parties in France earlier. Intangible 22:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to comment If you want to go that way... I have supported that before I was proven that there is no problem with applying the concept in France. I had always supported the Far right categories (hell, I created them), but I originally had doubts about their moderate "prolongations" (given that it was apparently hard to pinpoint where they began and ended) - I was proven wrong, as the user who created the category was perfectly capable to indicate where and how the criteria apply. Dahn 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. From Category:Political parties in France:"Parties that claim being "neither right nor left" are categorized in "right-wing parties" One clearly can see the absurdity here. Intangible 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That "absurdity" is one cointained in French discourse: it is not categorizing that establishes that, it is French society. For an explanation of that, look into the history of the Second French Republic and see who made this claim originally (back when parties were not clearly defined, and the Left was comprised of deputies who affiliated with the Left - leaving the others to be classified as "opposing the Left"). Dahn 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how an abstract notion of "French society" can justify anything. Wikipedia editors are the ones who justify. Intangible 07:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If terms like "left-wing", "right-wing", "far right", etc., aren't classifying political parties by their ideology, then I can't even begin to theorize what else they're doing. Keep, at least until the nominator can come up with a more coherent reason why they should be classified any differently than this. Bearcat 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What ideology does "right-wing" stand for? Liberalism? Conservatism? Monarchism? Clearly if you know the answer you know why this categorization would be redundant then. Intangible 22:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It stands for several of each: it comprises all those groups that can be described as conservative and monarchist (with all monarchism being conservative, but not all conservatism being monarchical), and part of those that describe themselves as liberal. Throughout, the right-wing, and especially the far right, are discernable and intelligible phenomenons - especially since this has been the favoured reference in French society. Dahn 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does "liberalism" mean? Does it mean the same thing in France that it means in the United States? Would a "Liberal parties in France" classification belong in the same category tree as "Liberal parties in Canada" does? Clearly if you know the answer to those questions you'd know why these articles should be classified according to France's own conception of its political culture, rather than by outside meanings that don't correspond to France's political reality. Bearcat 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Liberal party of Canada is member of the Liberal International, an organization which includes many liberal parties in Europe. The example is more striking if one looks at conservative parties. The Conservative Party of Canada is member of the International Democratic Union, which also included the membership of the conservative French party UMP. So this cross-country and cross-Atlantic comparison is certainly possible. For other (European) cross-country comparisons one can look at other international organizations, such as ELDR, the European People's Party and the European Green Party, among many others. Intangible 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are to add that criteria, I see nothing relevant about why we should dismiss the Left and Right categories as über- ones for subcategories. Also, a category "Conservative" would be absurd, since the term is the vaguest possible (it would include both Gaullistes and the FN); a subcat Gaullist parties would, however, be a proper subcat for the Right. And I see nothing against keeping the Far Right categories, which cover all the ground they need to cover and are perfectly adequate (unlike your Category:French nationalist parties, which is the vaguest one possible and suggests no familiarity with French politics and European ones at large. Dahn 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UMP being a member of the International Democratic Union is vague?! Intangible 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No,Intangible. What is vague is defining a party that is not a member of that as conservative! Dahn 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a party's foremost ideology is conservative it can be added; clearly for the Gaullists and FN this is not the case: the Gaullists are foremost Gaullist, the FN is foremost nationalist (see its international alignment in Euronat). Intangible 01:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the UMP is a "Christian-Democrat" party! excuse-me Intangible, but allow me here a polite LOL! What is the common point between the Christian-Democrat MRP founded by Georges Bidault and the current UMP? Does Chirac's opposition to Sarkozy's amazing proposal (for a French politician) to finance religious schools in the name of the respect of the Republic's laïcité is enough an argument for you to understand that a party which strongly supports laïcité for consensual reasons (don't misunderstand me: laïcité is first a left-wing value, as the 1980's strikes showed) can hardly be called Christian-Democrat? Tazmaniacs 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You try to refute something I do not claim. Go read up on International Democrat Union. Intangible 14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and find more meaningful sub-categories for specific policies. I think Intangible at least has a point here. We don't seem to have a need to label each party in Canada in terms of an ideology category (e.g., British Columbia Liberal Party has no such tags). And right economically is not the same thing as being a social conservative, etc. You can also click on my name tag to see some stats on how I think some terms have been over-used. Just as we decided to delete the category "Canadian social justice activists" in favour of "Canadian anti-poverty activists", "Canadian LGBT-rights activists", and "Canadian free speech activists", etc, I think it may make more sense here to find suitable specific sub-categories rather than the one-size fits all set of categories this currently is. By being more specific this would make it easier to align categories across countries (rather than trying to figure out that a Democrat is a liberal in the U.S., but would be practically far-right in Canada - supporting private medical insurance and all). Deet 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Align categories across countries? Nice idea Deet. But not really practicable. For example, Liberal in the US seems to me to be a term of abuse, it is definitely not such in Europe. Conservative in the US is pretty hard-core right from what I can tell, but in the UK a Conservative is anything from that to Liberal (!) and so it goes on... Marcus22 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete all into appropriate parent categories. The complexities should be discussed in the articles, but these labels will mislead people who don't know about French politics. Honbicot 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per Honbicot. "far right" ones at the very least need to be renamed. RN 05:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Second Afd. There are strong objective criterias for classifying several French political parties as far right, and that can be easily sourced by various articles from members of the Institut d'Etudes Politiques of Paris and other political science teachers. Left & right are political categories totally relevant to France, which were invented during the French Revolution (refer to left-right politics if you have any doubts.) Furthermore, Intangible's claims that "Political parties can and should only be classified by their ideology, not by vacuous terms" is meaningless (pardon me Intangible), because first of all, "left & right" is not at all "meaningless" in France, second, ideology is of course a main component of this categorisation, third, political parties are not only classed by their discourse but by their acts (just as human beings, strange isn't it?). Intangible also wonders "what ideology does "right-wing" stand for? Liberalism? Conservatism? Monarchism?" and claims that one who knows the answer would find this category (left & right, again see left-right politics) "redundant". If Intangible had any knowledge of French politics (which I assume he has), he would be familiar with René Rémond's (famous historian and member of the Académie Française) classification of French right-wing families into three families, legitimism, orleanism and bonapartism. Legitism stands for hard-core royalists, Orleanists for liberal (at the time royalists, but they've rallied the Republic during the Third Republic and Bonapartists which represent a more populist movement, which claims to be neither right nor left (this includes gaullism, which any French knows is right-wing although de Gaulle claimed to be above right/left distinction: of course, this is the basis of nationalism, refusing political divisions! and nationalism is a right-wing ideology . Again, it must be noted that "liberal" in French refers to economic liberalism, which is considered right-wing here (I'm sure Intangible is aware of what many US observers find as a regrettable French archaism which refuses economic liberalism, and explains the various strikes!) Moreover, it should be stressed that asking for a "merge in parent categories" is absurd, since "left" & "right" are the parent categories, and not "liberalism", "conservative" or "nationalism". Wikipedians should be aware that political contexts differs from country to country, and that the US division between Republicans & Democrats has absolutely no sense in France! In fact, according to French standards, even most Democrats are not considered left-wing! Finally, if it is very easy to classify French political parties according to left & right-wing, based on serious Sciences-Po sources & others, "liberalism", "conservative" and "nationalism" are much more slippery: what would you qualify the UMP if you refuse the "right-wing" classification (which actual Nicolas Sarkozy proudly represents)? "Conservative"? But it is in fact quite "liberal" if you consider "liberalism" in the US sense of the word (most UMP deputies would never dream of reversing the legalization of abortion, for example). Liberal then? But Chirac has claimed for year being the heir of gaullism? "Gaullism"? Any French political commentators would laugh at Chirac's pretention to represent de Gaulle's inheritance! "Nationalist"? Chirac's action against Bush's war in Irak could have been seen as "nationalist", although his support of European construction & opposition to Jean-Marie Le Pen (one of the first right-wing deputy to openly revendicate himself as such, according to René Rémond)? Actually, the best NPOV classification for the UMP is right-wing, since it is neither liberal, nor conservative, nor gaullist, nor nationalist either!!! I think further nominator for deletion should first provide valid serious sources to back-up his claims, since it is so easy for someone familiar with the French context to back them up, and to explain the vacuity of US political categories in the French context. Would you classify Russian revolutionaries according to those whom supported "apartheid" and those that opposed it (that is, the division line during the US Civil war?) Of course not! So why would you want to transpose US political criterias to France, which has enough of an original political history to have forged its own concepts? Tazmaniacs 11:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Rassemblement démocrate is "far right"? Intangible 14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Rassemblement démocrate is a meaningless party which is completely unknown, and whatever its claims, being in favor of monarchy in 2006 in France, where the king was guillotined during the French Revolution, certainly qualifies you as "far right". You do realize that any attempt to create even a "constitutional" monarchy in France would immediately provoque a civil war, don't you? If you don't, I urge you to read you a bit on the French revolution and on Vichy France, when some royalists found it the defeat a "divine surprise"... (I'm sure I don't need to refer you to whom exactly said that). Tazmaniacs 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You keep saying that Intangible doesn't understand the French definitions. This is just proving Honbicot's point, which for all your text you have still not addressed. Giving the few of us a history lesson on how to interpret the categories will not help everyone else. Deet 02:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The terms are those used in France and in the English-speaking world by numerous scholars with an abundance of reputable published sources. Intangible has already deleted the term "far right" from dozens of pages, and is embroiled in contentious debates on several pages for attempting to force his POV by denying that the published scholars actually know what they are talking about and that only Intangible is able to properly classify political ideology. This is POV and OR run amuck.--Cberlet 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that scholars use these terms does not mean they use the same definition of these terms. Intangible 14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment. So what? What's the point? The issue is not whether or not Intangible thinks that scholars can't agree. This is not part of any Wikiepdia guideline. However, cites to reputable published sources is a Wikiepdia guideline. When Intangible publishes a study complaining about this issue, Wikipedians can cite it. Until then, this is all POV/OR.--Cberlet 15:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? My argument is not that only that scholars cannot agree upon a definition, but basically everyone else as well! Total POV thus to have these categories. Intangible 15:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to note that you have not addressed Honbicot's point. Deet 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What? "Left", "right" and "far right" is not understandable for non-French people? Well, I guess they'll have to get used to it, but I'm sure you know that left-right politics is not reserved to France! There is a need for categorizing French political parties, because they are various types of them, and politics is about taking sides! Apart of the Intangible which refuses to call the National Front far right, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of it, Nicolas Sarkozy clearly states he's to the right wing, the UMP is universally known as a right-wing party, the UDF as center-right, the PS as center-left, the PCF, LO and LCR as far-left. There is no trouble whatsoever with these categorizations which are used in polls, newspapers, at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques, by political analysts, and by politicians themselves. There are various characteristics which defines you to the left or to the right, and those may changes with time & place, which doesn't mean they are not unidentifiable. There is a very very low percentage of people who refuse this split (not the categorizing itself, but the split) between left & right, and these come from the vast majority of them from the far right, the rest from the far left. I challenge you to find me a source from some political analyst which claims French political parties can't be classified from left to right, as we have provided many sources in the relevant articles justifying these claims. This is... ridiculous, pardon me. Tazmaniacs 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful categorisation. There are some good points here but I have to say that I have no difficulty understanding the concepts which lie behind these classifications and I see no reason why anyone else should find them confusing or misleading or anything else. Marcus22 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep standard political science and public debate terms in Europe and further afield. (It seems one of the few places that doesn't use the term is the US, which has two parties which, by international standards, are both right if not centre right.) The terms in fact originated in France where they described where people sat in the chambers of the Third Estate and the revolutionary National Assembly (far right meant those who occupied the seats on the far right of the chamber and were reactionary). To choose not to use standard political science terms, in particular in the country where the terms originated, would be bizarre, absurd and patently POV. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wildlife of North Carolina edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relist. Conscious 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fauna of North Carolina. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if there's consensus we can merge. However, I feel that the merge should be more inclusive; I intend to expand some of my articles into the all-inclusive, full-fledged documentation of the flora and fauna in North Carolina. Perhaps best is to merge everything into Category:Ecology of North Carolina. Remarks? Nimur 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that below there is a debate about Flora and Fauna by subdivision or state of the U.S. this is a bigger issue that I don't hope to be able to take on... hopefully someone who knows what they are doing will get it right. gren グレン 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Smash Bros. to Super Smash Bros. edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm proposing to rename the following categories:

to Category:Super Smash Bros., Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters, and so on. After all, the official name of the series is Super Smash Bros. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. Matches main article, as well. Luna Santin 21:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. The category title should be consistent with the main article title. --Cswrye 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the aboves. -- Steel 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Amorphis albums edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Overwhelming Keep --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly seven albums by the Finnish metal band Amorphis, all of whicha re listed in the main article. This category is superfluous. Just zis Guy you know? 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur -- While I know a lot of people are irrationally opposed to templates for this sort of thing, I think a template for Amorphis albums would be a much better way to go, than this category--which is, as the nominator says, superfluous. See, for example, Template:Metallica. Tomertalk 20:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    reversing myself to Keep per the WikiProj... as long as you guys over there are dedicated to keeping this business consistent. Tomertalk 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums where it says albums should be in an "Artist albums" category, even if they have only *one* album. This is to give a standard way of finding albums under Category:Albums by artist. If there's a desire to change this, we should start a central discussion on the project talk page. We have many "Artist albums" categories for artists with only one or two albums. So, we need to be consistant. Some minimum number of albums should be agreed to by consensus before having CFDs like this. --Rob 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums writes: Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future). Circeus 20:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- There...I made Template:Amorphis. It probably needs some touchup. Have fun!  :-D Tomertalk 20:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WikiProject Albums. There are thousands of such categories and they are very useful. Jogers (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WikiProject Albums. Spearhead 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WikiProject Albums. --(chubbstar) 06:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as usual.--Mike Selinker 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see any arguments for keep from User:Usual, and I can't find the WP:USUAL policy... Just zis Guy you know? 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended. This type of nomination comes up a lot, and so I was just using shorthand. The category header is clear, though, that Albums by artist does not care how many articles are in a category.--Mike Selinker 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... while I don't think making such cats for artists with 1 album is very warranted... it is harmless... and this is actually useful. gren グレン 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:French royalist parties to Category:French monarchist parties edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct categorization. The former cat can just be deleted now. Intangible 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection Does not meet the speedy renaming criteria. Honbicot 07:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alas, then the long road will be taken now. Intangible 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection withdrawn, but the speedy criteria have to be strictly limited to avoid abuse. Honbicot 06:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. Strong oppose. While monarchism is the standard term used internationally, in France the term used is royalism. So French royalist parties is a standard description in the French context, as historians who write about French history politics know. They use French royalist rather than French monarchist all the time. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I was the one who created the Category:French royalist parties not knowing there was already a Category:Monarchist parties hierarchy out there. Royalist seems to be specific for those cases when there is actually a monarchial ruler to which one can adhere to. Monarchist is somewhat broader, but good enough for categorization imho. Intangible 05:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fauna of the United States subdivisions to Category:Fauna of the United States by state edit

Circeus 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States Presidents Who Served Only One Term to Category:United States Presidents who served only one term edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:NBL seasons to Category:National Basketball League (Australia) seasons edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of the National Basketball League (Australia). -- ProveIt (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Israeli members of Knesset to Category:Members of Knesset edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Knesset are Israeli by virtue of being MKs. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - There are Palestinians in the Knesset. Mário 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it, but only because the new name is more neutral, however, those so-called "Israeli-Arabs" are Palestinians who have their homeland occupied by Israelis. Mário 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This seems a rather insensitive proposal to me. Merchbow 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not only is "seems insensitive" not grounds for opposition, without some kind of rationale for why it seems "insensitive". As for the assertion that there are Palestinians in the kneseth, that's patent nonsense. There are Israeli Arabs in the kneseth, but not Palestinians. Tomertalk 20:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To be a member of the Knesset one must be Israeli, so the designation is superfluous. "Israeli" is not the same as "Jew", there are over 1 million Arab Israelis. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per nom. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes about as much sense as "American members of the United States Congress." It's... shall we say, there's a certain association implied when you're a member of a nation's main legislative body. I don't see how the Palestine/Israel flamewar is relevant to naming this category; I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I'd like a more substantial argument, please. Luna Santin 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem here, in my opinion, is the assumption that the Arab members of the Knesset are Israelis, i.e., the problem is the nomination statement, not the move itself. Cheers! Mário 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Political opinions are irrelevant to this discussion. Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel and with few exceptions, of no other country. There is no problem with the nomination statement, only with a gross misunderstanding of history and of the criteria for renaming and deletion of categories. Please review the criteria for cfd again. Thanks! Cheers, Tomertalk 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the irrelevance of that point to the discussion, you are right. I misunderstood the nomination and opposed, but I corrected myself later. Further discussion about this should be carried in a talk page. Cheers! Mário 23:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's redundant to talk about Israeli MKs. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. 6SJ7 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My first thought was that "Israeli" meant "Israeli citizen", and therefore it was redundant. However, Israeli is actually not defined on WP (it just redirects to Israel) (Unlike, say British, Irish, Danish or Lebanese, just tested at random). (Also see: [1], especially note 29.). But since "Israeli" is not defined here, the category Category:Israeli members of Knesset is actually equal to Category:members of some group called "Israelis" who are also members of Knesset. This is clearly absurd. On the other hand, Category:Members of Knesset is a clearly defined group, so the category Category:Israeli members of Knesset should be moved there ASAP. (I honestly cannot see what is insensitive about this; if you are a member of Knesset, you are a member of Knesset, regardless of whether you call yourself "Israeli Arab", "Palestinian", "Palestinian Israeli", or, say, "Druse" or "Jew".) Regards, Huldra 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And, if you are a member of Knesset, I presume you must also be an Israeli citizen, regardless of whether you are Arab, Jew or otherwise, and also regardless of whether you consider yourself an "Israeli." I don't think the issue is sensitivity or insensitivity, I think it is changing a poorly worded title to a properly worded one. 6SJ7 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I agree, but somebody called the proposal "insensitive", therefore brough it up ;-) Huldra 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I still have no idea what makes the proposal "insensitive", but the business about "Israeli is a redirect to Israel" can easily be addressed by making it a disambig like the others you cite. Tomertalk 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The current name is redundant. --Stephan Schulz 11:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Members of the Knesset. David Kernow 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC), converted to vote 11:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Disney TV Series & Movies edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by Category:Disney television series and Category:Disney films. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Opendisc edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, article deleted --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category will become redundant when the article about Opendisc is deleted (see AfD). Ezeu 13:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hawaii native fauna to Category:Native fauna of Hawaii edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with the 50 other "Fauna of State" categories. Circeus 13:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. That one sticks out like a sore thumb. Luna Santin 19:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename post haste. This doesn't even require a discussion. Tomertalk 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. None of the other categories have "Native" at the beginning of their names though, so shouldn't it be renamed to just Category:Fauna of Hawaii? --musicpvm 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd stick with either native or indigenous. Cardinals, for example, are common pests in Hawaii, but they're not native fauna. The i`iwi, on the other hand, is native--I think a category that includes introduced pests is ultimately worthless to a reader looking for native fauna... perhaps we could consider Category:Indigenous fauna of Hawaii and Category:Introduced fauna of Hawaii as subcats of an otherwise empty Category:Fauna of Hawaii? Tomertalk 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or...maybe we should just listify all of Hawaii's fauna and separate them in the list into native and introduced... the pronghorns aren't exactly "native" either... Tomertalk 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have trouble listifying this cat without listifying all, which is impossible. At worst, a parent "Fauna of hawaii" cat can be created later. Circeus 20:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing I supported changing the name of the cat then, before coming up w/ my silly list idea. ;-) Tomertalk 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wi-Fi to Category:Wireless networking edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to merge or rename --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topical overlap; usage of term varies. Cwolfsheep 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom (that is what you want to do, right?). Recury 15:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is good, but it will likely create a need for some subcategories under Category:Wireless networking to separate out articles about the technology, issues, implementations, etc. -/- Warren 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Wi-Fi is already a subcat of Category:Wireless networking. Nothing should be changed. Vegaswikian 18:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category: IEEE 802.11 132.205.95.27 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Vegaswikian. Mário 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Wi-Fi is a marketing term for Wireless networking, and in my opinion extremely vague -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Mon Jul 10 23:39:55 UTC 2006
  • Oppose. WiFi refers exclusively to 802.11 wireless networking, and this category appears to have a sufficient population to merit distinction from different wireless technologies suited to different applications. The difference between WiFi a/b/g is quite a bit smaller than between WiFi and, for instance, Bluetooth or cellular WLANs.-choster 04:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Playboy Cyber Club edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Out of process deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club. Warning, not emptied before deleting. --William Allen Simpson 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories were listed for deletion by another user, as part of this AfD; I'm tagging and listing them here without listing an opinion on the nomination itself. Luna Santin 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I say wait for deletion of the articles, but in this case I'd be happy with a merge into category:Playboy models (unless it somehow is required that a woman be in the magazine to be one).--Mike Selinker 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Heirs to the English & British thrones to Category:Heirs to the thrones of England and Britain edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another unpleasant ampersand Tim! 10:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English & British princesses to Category:Princesses of England and Britain edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as for princes below (or should the two be merged?) Tim! 10:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • More or less agree with the above. (Although there was a time when it was known as 'The Kingdom of Great Britain'). Merchbow's alternative is much better. Same for other categories listed here. Marcus22 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whoever thought up the proposed new name obviously doesn't know what they are doing. There is no such thing as a Princess of Britain and Princess of England has not been used since 1707. The original title was careful not to use actual titles but generally generalised terms. British covers all states on Great Britain since 1707 and is not a specific title. The proposed new title is also guaranteed to confuse because many royals are not described as a Princess of the United Kingdom (the technical term) but in a title liked to their father's title. Technically Princess Beatrice of York could not appear in the ridiculous new title as he is neither a Princess of England nor a Princess of Britain. But the more ambiguous current category could include her, because he is a British princess. Merchbow's proposal, though far more accurate than what is proposed, is needlessly complicated and long. The current wording is perfect — short and descriptive, not perspective. If there is an issue with the & that can be fixed. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nothing else, at least replace ampersand with "and". David Kernow 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English & British princes to Category:Princes of England and Britain edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged back in March, not sure if this was discussed before or never listed. Seems like a reasonable rename to remove ampersand. Tim! 10:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There has never been a "Kingdom of Britain" except in legend. Possible alternative category:Princes of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Merchbow 11:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whoever thought up the proposed new name obviously doesn't know what they are doing. There is no such thing as a Prince of Britain and Prince of England has not been used since 1707. The original title was careful not to use actual titles but generally generalised terms. British covers all states on Great Britain since 1707 and is not a specific title. The proposed new title is also guaranteed to confuse because many royals are not described as a Prince of the United Kingdom (the technical term) but in a title liked to their father's title. Technically Prince William of Wales could not appear in the ridiculous new title as he is neither a Prince of England nor a Prince of Britain. But the more ambiguous current category could include him, because he is a British prince. The proposed new title embodies the sort of screw-ups amateurish renamings can cause. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nothing else, at least replace ampersand with "and". David Kernow 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Theatres in Georgia to Category:Theatres in Georgia (U.S. state) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is how similar categories are named. Olborne 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States music history to Category:American music history edit

and

Category:United States media history to Category:American media history edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States media was recently nominated for renaming to Category:American media (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 24#Category:United States media to Category:American media). These two should also be renamed to be similar with other American categories and for correct grammar. --musicpvm 07:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm for consistency, whatever direction the previous nomination goes when it's closed... though, shoot me if I'm wrong, should it be "American musical history"? Luna Santin 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, I'd say leave it music history since all of the other music history categories are named that and IMO they both work equally well. Recury 15:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point. I suppose the field of study is generally just called "music history," that might be the reasoning. But yeah, whatever direction the other cats go, I'm for consistency. Luna Santin 19:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Honbicot 06:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but it might be better to avoid using American, since it could mean North and South America. --Jordan 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Twittenham 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Choalbaton 14:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Children of famous people edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN Uninformative, serves no purpose. Could include everyone from Uday Hussein to Angelina Jolie. Not notable. Maybe I could understand "children of actors", "children of dictators", "children of alcoholics", something like that. But "children of famous people"? Kasreyn 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fame-by-association is not overly encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 07:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's POV, depends on who somebody considers "famous". --musicpvm 07:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every royal could be put in this. Merchbow 11:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an eternally non-NPOV category. Mário 16:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV cat. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are a couple of people in this category for whom being a famous person's child is the only claim of notability they have (e.g. Frances Bean Cobain, Coco Gordon Moore, Sean Preston Federline), mostly it's POV and unnecessary since a lot of the people in here don't need this category to justify their inclusion in Wikipedia. People like Jamie Lee Curtis, Natalie Cole and Lisa Marie Presley are doing just fine in the notability sweepstakes on their own. Bearcat 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This information is not notable enough to merit a category. --Cswrye 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'll also save this one away as an example for the proposal or essay I may someday write, arguing that it would be better to eliminate categories entirely than what exists now, where about 5-10 percent of the existing categories have any merit. 6SJ7 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete according to Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles notabilty should be established independently, and "reflected glory", even you you are the child of an indisputable celebrity, does not count.--(chubbstar) 06:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cloachland 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, other than Sean Federline or Chelsea Clinton, most of these children are very unnotable. And famous is TOOO subjective, since anybody is famous in a certain context :-) Antares33712 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Academy Awards edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Academy Award/Oscar categories are inconsistent and out of line with Wikipedia's usual naming style:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Former Jews edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete with prejudice (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is inappropriate because Jews don't become "former" Jews any more than Arabs become former Arabs. It is different than, say, "former Catholics" because Jews who don't follow the religion Judaism are still ethnic Jews who follow a religion (or no religion) other than Judaism. The people (formerly) placed in this category do not identify nor are they identified as "former Jews", it is original research to label them as such. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not different from former Catholics, because when a Catholic is baptised they are consider Catholic for the rest of their life. The people in the Former Jews category were all people that converted to another religion or idealogy. 75.3.49.50 05:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I think both "Former Jews" and "Former Catholics" are lousy categories, but "Former Jews" is even more so. I suppose that in some sense one can become a "former Catholic" by being excommunicated or a "former Jew" through Cherem. Still, one may be casually connected to Judaism in a way that one may not be casually connected to Catholicism. There is no such thing as a "lapsed Jew". I'm an extremely secular person, and an atheist, but as an ethnic Jew, I could walk into pretty much any Jewish congregation or minyan in the world tomorrow, and at worst they would think of me as ignorant. I wouldn't have to go through some equivalent of confession to be accepted back into the fold. "Jewish atheists", "Jews who converted to Christianity", "Jews who converted to Islam"? Perfectly valid concepts. But it doesn't make any of them "former Jews". - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jewish is an ethnicity, whereas Catholicism is a religion. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a religion too Antares33712 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy kill- per all the above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SlimVirgin and Jmabel -- Avi 06:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CJCurrie 07:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments on the catTalk page, delete with extreme prejudice and send the category's creator back to Hebrew school [or the stockades, whichever, makes little difference to me]. Either this was created out of abject ignorance or an unacceptable wish to make a point of some sort. In either case, it has to go. Jmabel brings up the topic of cherem, but even cherem, which is often poorly translated as "excommunication" and then faultily compared to the RCC idea associated with that term, does not make a person a "former Jew"...anyone under cherem is still a Jew, they're just severely castigated...the admonition to those under cherem is just as strong as it is to the rebbe who forgets to count the omer on day 49... the invitation to "tshuva" applies equally to both [and so it goes w/o saying that both are still unequivocally Jewish, as are Jewish converts to other religions, including Baal worshipers, Molekh worshipers, Khali worshipers, Jesus worshipers, and Self worshipers]... A Jew who converts to Catholicism is a Catholic, but is also still a Jew, a wayward Jew, but still a Jew, not a "former" Jew. A Catholic who converts to Judaism is a Jew, a former Catholic perhaps, obligated perhaps by previous vows to the RCC taken, as it might happen, before God, to make tshuva to Catholicism, but they're not Catholic anymore. "Catholic" refers exclusively to the practitioners, nominal or otherwise, of Roman Catholic Christianity. It is not an ethnicity. A "former Catholic"'s children are not Catholics, regardless of which parent is the former Catholic. A wayward Jewish woman's children are Jews, even if they were raised Catholic. I could delve into a whole discussion about the curse of those who reject Hashem or those under cherem, whose children are condemned to remain estranged from the Jewish people for up to 4 generations, but I think such a discussion is really superfluous here, since I believe I've already demonstrated that the category is w/o merit w/o having to go into such a discussion. Tomertalk 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, "in some sense". But point taken. - Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially per Slim. Its a mixed ethnicity and religion, but typically the ethnic factor is a) stronger and b) one you cannot get rid of. --Stephan Schulz 08:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. One can't quit one's ethnicity. Kasreyn 08:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Leifern 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom gidonb 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Of course you can't change your ethnicity, so the category is obviously talking about the religion of Judaism. You can definitely change that. If you can convert TO something, of course you can convert from it. Your parents' religion can't decide your religion. Don't give me that crap about "they take the religion of their mother." This isn't the middle ages. People get to think for themselves. Judaism is just a religion like all the others. --Macarion 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me if this seems a little blunt, but it seems clear to me that best encyclopedic practise is to assume one's readers know nothing. This being the case, we cannot behave as if our readers will know that Judaism is "obviously" referring to the religion only. That would be an unwarranted assumption. Kasreyn 18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why aren't we just changing the name to "Former members of the Jewish faith"? --Macarion 18:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you're looking for is Category:Jews who practice other religions or no religion at all, which is not only entirely too long for a category name, it's a completely worthless category. If you disagree, please tell us, of what possible use is such a category? Tomertalk 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WTF? How is that a worthless category? And who gives a shit about the length of the category name, which I didn't even mention so I don't know how you're yelling about me trying to say that when my initial category name is the same thing, akjiwaefgewrg --Macarion 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even excommunication makes a Jew not an ex-Jew but an isolated Jew. While Judaism is no ethnicity, one's "personal status" does not change even if he eats barbecued pig on Yom Kippur with the specific intent to upset God. A bit like being an alcoholic. JFW | T@lk 17:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor a bacon double cheeseburger... Tomertalk 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "An isolated Jew"? What the hell? --Macarion 18:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    cf. shunning. Tomertalk 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One cannot quit one's ethnicity. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, esp TShilo12. This is a nonsensical category. --Doright 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Clearly the issue here is not the name. We could of course have Category:Converts from Judaism as easily as we have Category:Converts to Judaism, but I don't think "converts from" categories would be particularly helpful.--Pharos 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primarily because of the difficulty in defining the subject of the category. I do not completely share the reasoning of many other "Delete" voters. While I fully realize that "Jewish" is an ethnicity, there also is a school of thought that someone who affirmatively converts to another established religion no longer "Jewish." I have been making some version of that argument for years to people who call themselves "Jews for Jesus." In any event, I did a random sampling of the people who had been in this category, and 4 of the first 5 were not "converts" to another religion, but were identified as "atheists." That does not justify calling someone a "former Jew". 6SJ7 04:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment So if a Chinese man converts to Judaism, if he has a son, is that son a Jew? I WIN --Macarion 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to traditional Judaism, it would have to be a Chinese woman, but yes, then the child would be considered Jewish no matter what their religious practice. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion, though.--Pharos 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're saying this is about ethnicity, but the Chinese woman obviously isn't from the same gene pool as the "real Jews." And also, you're saying if there is a Chinese brother and sister, and and Jewish brother and sister, and the Chinese man and Jewish woman have a son, and the Chinese woman and Jewish man have a daughter, the son is Jewish but the daughter isn't, even though they are the have the same percent of Jewish in them? Is that what you're saying? That makes zero sense. --Macarion 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ethnicity is not genetics. Any convert to Judaism is considered a part of the Jewish people, as well as the Jewish religion. Maybe it makes "no sense", but that's tradition. In your latter example the son would certainly be a potential target for Chabad-Lubavitch "missionaries" and the daughter wouldn't.--Pharos 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're saying there are no black Jews? Their ethnicity becomes Jewish? So that category should be deleted?
            • There is no inconsistency with someone being both black and Jewish. From a traditional Jewish prespective, the most important ethnic distinction is between Jews and gentiles; a convert of course does not cease to be to have non-Jewish ancestors but they do cease to be a gentile. Their matrilineal descendants for a thousand years will still be considered Jews whether they practice Judaism or not.--Pharos 22:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is an African who converts to Judaism still African by ethnicity? --Macarion 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't aware of this until Wikipedia, but I have to admit this is pretty loopy if Judaism really interprets it that way. As European and Islamic societies generally go by patrilineal descent it could mean there are people who are Jewish who not only don't know it, but also are Jewish with as little as 1/1,048,576 part Jewish ancestry. It's the most extreme version of "one drop" I've ever heard of. I'm not meaning to be insulting, but is this really what it means. (I'm aware that "yes this is what it means at Wikipedia" but I'm asking if this is what it actually means. What Wikipedia agrees to say is true is only relational to truth in most cases)--T. Anthony 05:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • African is not a ethnicity. --Stephan Schulz 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • African isn't an ethnicity? Are you retarded? --Macarion 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Erm...at least I know about WP:NPA. No, African is not an ethnicity. Or do you seriously claim that Tutankhamun, Frederik Willem de Klerk, Nelson Mandela, Shaka Zulu and the Queen of Sheba all share an ethnicity? --Stephan Schulz 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • OK, you want to split hairs. The specific ethnicity obviously doesn't matter. Pick any and put it into my example. --Macarion 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, if an Irishman converts to Judaism, he will be both Irish and Jewish. If a Jew converts to Christianity, he will still be an ethnic Jew who follows Christianity. --Stephan Schulz 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • So converting to Judaism changes your ethnicity. Weird. Why doesn't Christianity do that? What if an Irishman converts to Judaism, but then converts to Christianity? Is he still an ethnic Jew? What if an Irish woman converts to Judaism, has a son, and then converts to Christianity? Is that son still a Jew? --Macarion 01:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Isn't it nice that the world does not always fit into preconceived categories? Christianity is only a religion. Converting to Christianity has historically been trivial. Conversion to Judaism requires learning Jewish traditions and customs and convincing sceptic people that you seriously intend to follow them. So you receive a crash course (and a test) in Jewish culture. Being a Christian is different from being a Jew. Live with it. --Stephan Schulz 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Is that a no? --Macarion 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • The answer is "it depends". Do you have any examples where something like this has happend? --Stephan Schulz 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • It depends? No, someone is either a Jew or not a Jew, and that works because Judaism is a religion that people pick for themselves. Also, it doesn't matter if I have any examples of that happening. --Macarion 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • No. You can start following the teachings of Judaism today, proclaim yourself to be a Jew, but you will still not be a Jew. And you can reject Judaism, convert to Buddism, and still be a Jew. You may not like this, but it's a fact. Words come with a meaning. We do not get to choose a "rational" approximation of it, but have to work with the language as it is. And I ask about concrete examples because we are discussing the deletion (or keeping) of a Wikipedia category. If this is empty anyways, this wole discussion is just a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There is an article Who is a Jew? and the talk page there might be more appropriate for this discussion; I'm not sure if it is even appropriate there, but it sure isn't appropriate here. 6SJ7 00:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Of course it's appropriate here. We're trying to settle the issue of whether or not someone can be an ex-Jew. Please answer the question. --Macarion 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't think that's the issue we're trying to settle at all. I don't think it matters whether someone can be a "former Jew." What matters is that this category would be absolutely guaranteed to be the scene of endless, bitter wars over who is or is not a "former Jew," as evidenced by the people who were placed in the category in the first place. So, Woody Allen says somewhere that he questions whether there is a God (I'm just assuming that because it is not in his article) and suddenly he is a former Jew? Isaac Asimov, who wrote at least one book of Jewish humor and is clearly identified as a Jew both ethnically and culturally, happens not to believe in God and that makes him a former Jew? And what about Bob Dylan? Do we have to have a category of Former Former Jews for him? The whole thing is unnecessary, and it has nothing to do with how someone "becomes" Jewish. 6SJ7 02:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Good point. There are more than one reason to delete this worthless category. What standards could we even use merely to show someone is a former Jew in the sense of religion? I don't think we could even do that. Kasreyn 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Jews are simultaneously both an ethnicity and may also belong to a religion -- Judaism, unlike Catholics or Muslims who are only a religion and not a single ethnicity. (See the Jew and Judaism articles that explain this as well as the Who is a Jew? article.) Threfore it is impossible for a Jew to become a "fomer Jew" in the ethnic sense even though it may be that that Jew is no longer connected to Judaism. A better choice of category name would be Category:Jewish apostates to Judaism. Thanks. IZAK 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put this train wreck out of its misery and speedy it right now Antares33712 16:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It just has to go. TheGrappler 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename... Jew can be an ethnic and religious distinction in modern parlance. As a result it's necessary to distinguish. gren グレン 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Stephan Schulz; this discussion has been a rather painful read. Carlossuarez46 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Izak, Gren, et al....but mostly Macarion's latest comment—"We're trying to settle the issue of whether or not someone can be an ex-Jew." Any category that leads directly into a thorny theological question needs to go. If someone wants to try to invent a new, more objectively definable and popularly defensible category (that's not excessively long), go for it. --zenohockey 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly a Category:Former Judaism adherents could be done someday unless it's too controversial.--T. Anthony 05:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Neanderthal Wikipedians edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no Neanderthals editing Wikipedia. Even if I weren't vaguely aware this relates to some kind of POV about Asperger's syndrome, I'd still think of it as pure silliness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Deet 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 06:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are only 2 neanderthals left, and they're far too busy doing GEICO commercials to be editing WP...and even if they weren't too busy, 2 WPans is too few to warrant a category. BTW, I highly recommend the roast duck with the mango salsa. Tomertalk 06:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course Neanderthals are allowed to edit Wikipedia (I meet them on a regular basis) and their perspective on NPOV is invaluable, but I suspect the two editors listed here don't meet the criteria for Neanderthalism. JFW | T@lk 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 30,000 years too late. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm tempted to suggest Category:Self-described Neanderthal Wikipedians, but it would be frivolous. - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category serves no purpose. --Cswrye 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and for some reason I'm not feeling very hungry now. And do a little research next time. (I love those commercials). 6SJ7 04:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this silliness Antares33712 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stupid... but, I see no reason to delete it any more than many of the other harmless userboxes that have been created. If it's somehow being used as a person attack then individual users should be punished for that. Not that I'm going to shed any tears when it's deleted... gren グレン 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joke userboxes are fine, but they shouldn't be made into categories. --musicpvm 01:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. Punkmorten 11:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is no consesnus that Neanderthals are extinct, and a recent study claims 5% inheritance in Europeans. IOW, 5% of Caucasians could possibly identify as Neanderhal if they wanted. --Rdos 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Guttural R edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is quite senseless, as a "Guttural R" is quite a common phoneme and we don't seem to have any categories for other phonemes either. Language examples should (and are) instead be listed at the appropriate phoneme's article. — N-true 00:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casper Claiborne (talk • contribs)
  • Delete not only per nom's relatively weak argument, but also because "guttural R" is not a bona fide linguistic term, it's simply a perception, encompassing uvular R, fricative R and a number of other phonemes and, conceivably, their allophones. Particularly ridiculous is the inclusion of languages in this nonsensical category, for example Yiddish, Danish (which almost exclusively uses a uvular /r/) and Hebrew (which, in fact, only has a uvular /r/ in the speech of the descendants of Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe...the vast majority of Ashkenazi immigrants from elsewhere use either an apical or [esp. among Anglophone speakers] retroflex R), meanwhile completely ignoring German (from which Yiddish, the traditional language of eastern Ashkenazim got their uvular /r/), Portuguese (which has a fricative or even africative /r/ in some dialects of Brazilian), French (the most widely known [affricative] "guttural /r/"), and Spanish (which has both uvular and fricative /r/ in some idiolects, esp. of PRan). I have no problem with an article on [the concept of the] "guttural R", since it does exist as a colloquial concept, but this category gives undue weight to this colloquialism-passing-itself-off-as-a-legitimate-linguistic-concept. Tomertalk 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too general a category. A pointer, though. We're not talking about a phoneme, but a series of sounds that are pronounced in relativly close proximity to one another (in the throat), and are generally perceived as very similar to one another. / Peter Isotalo 07:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A pointer, though...they're only "perceived as very similar to one another" in the mind of people who are unfamiliar with them. No French speaker would regard a uvular /r/ as being "very similar to" an affricative /r/, just as no English speaker would regard a retroflex /r/ as being "very similar to" an alveolar lateral /l/, despite the supposèd common "confusion" of the two sounds by speakers of Japanese, Korean and [to some extent, depending on their native "Chinese" language] Chinese (as well as, I'm sure, others). Perception of similarity of a variety of sounds [to the anglophonic ear] is not strong enough grounds for a category, however, eventhough it is, as I said above, sufficiently notable to warrant an article (especially since that characterization [i.e., as "guttural r"s] of these sounds are commonly referred to as such by Anglophones as "guttural 'r'"[s]. Tomertalk 09:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strange thing to have a category on. Recury 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Tomer. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tomer. User:Angr 09:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Inuit language isn't a Guttural R... although it may use them. gren グレン 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_9&oldid=1136104475"