Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12

< November 11	November 13 >

November 12

Category:Anti-Semitic people

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There has been significant IP canvassing for editors to oppose; see [1] and [2]. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is being a Whip against the rules of voting in Wikipedia? Valley2city 03:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Antisemitic people, per November 2nd discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 23:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not a speedy. Existing form is preferable. Hawkestone 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this is a protected category, it can't be tagged. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tagged. All you had to do was ask an admin... Mairi 05:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom, per Nov 2 discussion, and per 'antisemitism' being the WP agreed upon name for the article on this subject. Hmains 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom, makes sense to be consistent with the other article/category renames that occurred in the referenced Nov 2 discussion. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've always used the hyphen myself, and secondly the logic that we have to change this because the main article has been renamed is flawed, remember Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Thethinredline 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV magnet. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to antisemitism. Semite doesn't really exist as a word by itself. The whole reason it was invented was to give scientific cause to Jew hatred. Thus, it really only exists as antisemitism and shouldn't be broken up into two words, anti-Semite. --aishel 15:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have always used the hyphen myself, and my "American Heritage dic•tion•ar•y of the English Language" also list the word with a hyphen. I don't know where some folks comes off saying the word Semite is never found by itself, but if you read older literature, the word most definitely exists by itself to mean people of Jewish, Arab or Aramaic ethnicity. Often the liturature that uses this word would then classify the study of Judaism, Islam or Asiatic Christianity, or the language used to support Judaism, Islam aor Asiatic Christianity as "Oriental Studies"... though in today's world, "Oriental Studies" would include studies of all cultures east of Europe, so it can include Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc., as well as the languages of Asia. CJLippert 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at anti-semite and semite, you'll see that they are two totally different things. The word antisemite is used exclusively to describe hatred of Jews, while semite refers to multiple ethnicities/races/cultures.--aishel 15:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose its change. It looks too awkward without the hyphen, and I have always used the hyphen myself, both in English and Spanish, so I don't see the reason for a change --JewBask 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this spelling change. Hyphen is far more widely used. change to Support Was not aware the anti-semitism article was (incorrectly in my view) changed to the unhyphenated spelling.--Mantanmoreland 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I opposed renaming anti-semitism to antisemitism, believing that it really didn't make any difference, so why change; however, since the article has changed, the categories should as well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. Any category that actually requires a disclaimer saying it may be being used to vandalize pages is better left unmade. Its use will border on WP:BLP violation even when the allegations are well sourced. Many other anti-x categories have been deleted recently, this one should go the same way. --tjstrf talk 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Partially per Jpgordon. I have no strong preference which one is used but consistency between article space and category space is good.JoshuaZ 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename in hopes that antisemitism will result in fewer pedantic lectures regarding the Semitic nature of Arab people. Gzuckier 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No compelling reason given to necessitate a change from the generally-accepted spelling. The existing form is preferable. Streltzer 17:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom and Hmains. --tickle me 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and previous decision, Tewfik^Talk 18:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beit Or 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Jewbask, CJLippert and Thethinredline - I've always used the hyphen; I've always found variants without the hyphen awkward-looking; antisemitism seems less used; and my dictionary lists anti-semitism, not antisemitism, just like Anti-Americanism, Anti-Canadianism, etc, etc --It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename for consistency Elizmr 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought we were moving away from "anti-blank people" categories because it's potentially libelous, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 4#Category:Anti-French people.--T. Anthony 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beyond doubt, anti-Semitic is the correct spelling; I have checked several dictionaries.--Runcorn 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be "supporters/critics of x" category? Opposing rename, the hyphen is consistant with other "anti-" terms, as noted above. - jc37 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - for consistency. To have Antisemitism and Category:Antisemitism, Category:Antisemitic publications but Category:Anti-Semitic people would be awkward. BTW, both spellings are acceptable but unhyphenized is less confusing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categorization by oversimplified description of opinion/belief that is too difficult to verify for category purposes. Categorize people by actual conduct/achievements (such as by active membership in explicitly anti-Semitic groups), not their words or thoughts . Postdlf 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With the hyphen is the standard spelling, though without is an accepted alternative. Also note that since the word comes from German, it is likely that originally it did not have a hyphen. marbeh raglaim 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Tom e r ^talk 00:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - While antisemitism is a well defined term for hatred of Jews and Judaism, use of a hyphen implies the existence of "semites"; there is no such thing as a "semite." There are, however, "semitic" languages. Language does not define people. How many different peoples, for example, speak English.--Lance ^talk 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language may not define a people, but your example has the problem English people still exist. Saying "there is no X, only people who speak X" is usually inaccurate unless we mean constructed languages. Now if you want to say "being a semite just means speaking one of the Semitic languages and no one hates anyone for that" you'd be right. (Or so I assume, there are oddballs who will hate someone just for speaking a certain language) In any event I voted delete because it seems this category is protected and too often misused.--T. Anthony 07:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your statement, T. Anthony, is that it's comparing apples to oranges. The analogue between Semitic languages and Semites is not English language and English, but between Anglic languages and Anglites, which, oops! don't exist...nor, for that matter, do Anglo-Frisians... Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red-herring as "Anglic languages" is a much newer termed that described a much narrower phenomenon. English is classed as one of the West Germanic languages and Germanic peoples is an article. For that matter Semitic is an article. Saying "Semite" is not an article, and that that proves anything, is almost like saying Finno-Permic isn't an article so this says something about Finno-Permic languages.--T. Anthony 09:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is flawed here, but it's not really worth pursuing. There are no Germanites nor are there any Finno-Permites. The reason I say this line of discussion isn't worth pursuing, however, is precisely because it is a red herring--yours, however, not mine... An "antisemite" or "anti-Semite" is not a hater of "Semites", but a hater of Jews. The situation, however, is not that "anti-Semitism" was derived from "anti-Semite", but vv rather, such that the relevant term is Semitism, which is what anti-Semitism is supposèdly opposed to. As I've said on this page previously, if "Semitism" is such a clearly-defined and well-recognized [note the rational use of hyphens there] ideology or phenomenon, its proponents or opponents should be able to tell us all what it is. So, I'm still waiting...what is "Semitism", and how is it related to "Semites", "Semitic peoples" or "Semitic languages"? Tom e r ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename For consistency. IronDuke 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. --- RockMFR 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is a no-brainer. What's the fuss? IZAK 06:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Results 1 - 10 of about 643,000 for antisemitic. (0.28 seconds)[reply]
Rename per nom. Amoruso 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anti-Semitism is the right spelling according to most dictionaries. Chavatshimshon 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why on earth do we want to alter a correct spelling to an erroneous one?--Newport 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Canvassed vote. [3]

mostly because the "correct" spelling is, in a word, incorrect. Why should Wikipedia be a vehicle for perpetuating error, no matter how widespread? Tom e r ^talk 09:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that original research? The correct spelling is what dictionaries say it is, not what some editor thinks it is.--R613vlu 13:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it certainly isn't OR. You're obviously failing to grasp the point, whether willfully or otherwise, I haven't the desire to speculate. Tom e r ^talk 04:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the most reliable sources say it should be spelled in a certain way and people come along and say that regardless of this they personally prefer a different spelling, it clearly violates WP:V and WP:RS.--R613vlu 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement contains a somewhat spurious assertion, inasmuch as the people who are using their personal preference as the foremost argument in whether they oppose or support this proposal, are those with whom you happen to agree. My preference for nonhyphenation is not based on kneejerk ideology about prefering hyphenation because otherwise words look "too German", or some such nonsense...that particular statement, however, is of special interest here, since "Antisemitism" is a direct anglicization of what was originally a German word, Antisemitismus, specifically. As I have outlined below, there is a great deal of discussion about the "proper spelling", outside wikipedia, and by some pretty respectable scholars. Tom e r ^talk 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote, for example, from the bottom part of this webpage:
*ANTISEMITISM

For many years, scholars including Prof. Yehuda Bauer and Rabbi Emil Fackenheim, have advocated dropping the hyphen from the term anti-semitism, and in most academic writing, the new spelling has become the norm. The hyphen was put into the English translation of the original German and French terms but grammatically it was incorrect, implying that there is such a thing as semitism which it is against, or that it is equally applied to all Semites, neither of which is the case.

As Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin write in Why the Jews?: The Reasons for Antisemitism, (Simon Shuster, New York, 1983, p. 199) “in order to avoid any confusion we have adopted the approach that antisemitism be written as one word.” Emil Fackenheim, the Jewish philosopher, had also adopted this spelling, explaining the spelling ought to be antisemitism without the hyphen, dispelling the notion there is an entity Semitism which anti-Semitism opposes. (Emil Fackenheim, Post-Holocaust Anti-Jewishness, Jewish Identity and the Centrality of Israel in World Jewry and the State of Israel. ed. Moshe David, p. 11, n.2.)

Dismiss those folks as crackpots who don't know what they're talking about, if that's what makes you happy, but doing so doesn't put anything else you have to say on a very credible footing... Tom e r ^talk 05:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing them wouldn't be necessary. All that would be necessary is to note that four scholars do not make up an academic concensus. If Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Edward Witten, and Lisa Randall said we should start calling Multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree "Multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree" that's not necessarily binding. Has there been anything official on a preferred spelling in English?--T. Anthony 03:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is a classic straw man. I never said anything about consensus, academic or otherwise, for one spelling or the other. I simply said the spelling is the subject of scholarly/academic debate. I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to w/ your question, but my guess is that the answer is "no", since there is no official body which could issue any official preferences. Print editors have preferences, for example, but their domains end at their printrooms' doors. Professors sometimes have preferences, but their purview ends at the end of the semester. Tom e r ^talk 00:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. gidonb 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chavatshimshon.--R613vlu 13:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per precedent of earlier renames, for the sake of some sort of consistency. (This is also a problematic category to apply, but it seems fairly clear we're stuck with it.) My personal opinion is that the hyphenless version is slightly less illogical, given the frequent characterisation of various "semetic people" as being "anti-semetic". Alai 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anti-Semitism is almost exclusively spelled with a hyphen. Let's examine google results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,450,000 for antisemitism. (0.26 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,280,000 for anti-semitism [definition]. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 643,000 for antisemitic. (0.28 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,710,000 for anti-semitic [definition]. (0.15 seconds)

So my vote is for it to remain hyphenated. Valley2city 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Canvassed vote. [4]

FWIW, I get much closer numbers when I google each of those pairs (almost identical for "Antisemite" and "Anti-Semite", but even by your numbers, in what sense is closer-than-3:2 ratio "almost exclusive"? Alai 09:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people should be deleted. Category:Antisemitism is enough to tag relevant articles. - GilliamJF 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV magnet and as previously pointed out potentially libelous.--Dakota 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chavatshimshon. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we should go with the dictionary spelling. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dislike the trend in English that prefers single words (a la German), rather than hyphenating them, as is what I prefer, the latter being easier to read (the hyphen equates to a quick tap on the brakes ; stringing it all together leaves one somewhat breathless and confused). Bl a st 11.19.06 0859 (UTC -5)

I agree; excellent analysis. Valley2city 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am generally opposed to "labelling" cats for views and stances on issues, as they are prone to POV, BLP, and V abuses. Crockspot 19:56, 19 November 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 section.

Category:Anti-Semitic canards

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (Aside: Not sure how commonly-known the term "canard" might be...)[reply]

Note: There has been significant IP canvassing for editors to oppose; see [5] and [6]. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Antisemitic canards per November 2nd discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 23:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not a speedy. Existing form is preferable. Hawkestone 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom, per Nov 2 discussion, and per 'antisemitism' being the WP agreed upon name for the article on this subject. Hmains 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename as above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've always used the hyphen myself, and secondly the logic that we have to change this because the main article has been renamed is flawed, remember Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Thethinredline 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to antisemitism. Semite doesn't really exist as a word by itself. The whole reason it was invented was to give scientific cause to Jew hatred. Thus, it really only exists as antisemitism and shouldn't be broken up into two words, anti-Semite. --aishel 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have always used the hyphen myself, and my "American Heritage dic•tion•ar•y of the English Language" also list the word with a hyphen. I don't know where some folks comes off saying the word Semite is never found by itself, but if you read older literature, the word most definitely exists by itself to mean people of Jewish, Arab or Aramaic ethnicity. Often the liturature that uses this word would then classify the study of Judaism, Islam or Asiatic Christianity, or the language used to support Judaism, Islam aor Asiatic Christianity as "Oriental Studies"... though in today's world, "Oriental Studies" would include studies of all cultures east of Europe, so it can include Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc., as well as the languages of Asia. CJLippert 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at anti-semite and semite, you'll see that they are two totally different things. The word antisemite is used exclusively to describe hatred of Jews, while semite refers to multiple ethnicities/races/cultures.--aishel 15:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The point is, "Semite" and "Anti-Semite" aren't opposites, and this is the cause of endless wasted time. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I opposed renaming anti-semitism to antisemitism, believing that it really didn't make any difference, so why change; however, since the article has changed, the categories should as well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Partially per Jpgordon. I have no strong preference which one is used but consistency between article space and category space is good. JoshuaZ 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename in hopes that antisemitism will result in fewer pedantic lectures regarding the Semitic nature of Arab people. Gzuckier 17:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why it would do that. The term still implies it involves Semitic people and that includes Arabs.--T. Anthony 20:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom and Hmains. --tickle me 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, Tewfik^Talk 18:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the issue was settled during the November 2 discussion. Beit Or 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Elizmr 20:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The article was changed for false reasons. There is no academic concensus favoring "antisemitism" and no one in the discussion proved there was. However after looking it up I found out the Simon Wiesenthal Center and B'nai B'rith apparently prefer the un-hyphenated spelling. Considering their importance to the issue I'll assent to them, but still recognize this is not the most common spelling in academia or the press.--T. Anthony 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to abstain.--T. Anthony 09:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Beyond doubt, anti-Semitic is the correct spelling; I have checked several dictionaries.--Runcorn 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - "anti-" is consistant with other uses, as noted in the nomination above this one. (And noting that several above only voted rename because of previous renaming controversy.) - jc37 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - for consistency. To have Antisemitism and Category:Antisemitism, Category:Antisemitic publications but Category:Anti-Semitic canards would be awkward. BTW, both spellings are acceptable but unhyphenized is less confusing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Humus. Though I am a fan of the hyphen in this instance you gotta be consistent.--Mantanmoreland 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The insistence about a perferred spelling is actually somewhat disingenuous, as "the preferred spelling" is a matter of a bit of academic debate presently.[7] Tom e r ^talk 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - There is no such thing as a "semite"; it's purely a linguistic term. Wilhelm Marr coined the term antisemitism in the 19th century to describe hatred of Jews that he advocated. The reason for doing so, was to advance a political movement to reverse the then recently acquired Jewish political rights; and was hostile to Jews as a nation, or race, and not a religion (such prejudice being seen as obscurantist and medieval).--Lance ^talk 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A linguistic term can be used for the speakers of a language. There might be "no such thing" as an "Athabaskan", but there are peoples who speak Athabaskan languages. I think "Semite" would exist in the sense of a person who speaks a Semitic language. In that sense "Anti-Semitic" would mean opposed to the speaking of those languages I guess. "Antisemitic" I guess would mean whatever you want it to mean, but by tradition mean anti-Jewish views.--T. Anthony 07:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a wonderful but entirely pedantic argument. How many Anti-Athabaskans can you name? Tom e r ^talk 10:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny and good point. Still I could have used a different example, like say Berber. Berber is also a sub-family of Afro-Asiatic and hostility to Berbers is something I've heard of. Although you're right that few people seem to have any hostility to Semitic speakers in general or even to Central Semitic language speakers. Central Semitic being the sub-family that includes Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Still I'm not sure why getting rid of the hyphen eliminates any linkage to Semitic as a concept. Antiproton has no hyphen, but it's still linked to the concept of protons. It's seems like an entirely different word would almost be better. Still I agree to the rename as the original word was apparently unhyphenated and those most interested in the issue prefer it.--T. Anthony 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said anything about eliminating association with Semites or some nebulous "Semitic" concept...nor about hyphenating the word somehow lending legitimacy to such a concept. Personally, I think the argument is pretty weak. I'm not sure how the hyphen crept in over the years, but I do know that anti- is a perfectly acceptable and well-integrated prefix in English, and does not require a hyphen (nor does sub-, for that matter, as you used it above in subfamily). Another thing I know is that hyphens are used in English in order to create compounds consisting of two or more distinct and independent words ["anti" is not a word, it is only ever used as a prefix, and so it doesn't count in that class], so...my guess is that the reason the hyphen is used is because of the insistence on capitalizing Semitic, which, without a hyphen, would result in a camelcase word. The argument that Semitic must be capitalized will, I'm sure, now come gushing forth from all the opponents of dropping the hyphen, but that's to be expected. I only wish that they'd demonstrate the same devotion to arguing that "Biblical" should be capitalized (for the exact same reason that is the only possible rationale for insisting that "Semitic" must always be capitalized...)... Then they can run around wikipedia capitalizing "biblical" whereëver they find it. That should be fun to watch. Tom e r ^talk 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually voted rename, but using a hyphen when implying opposition to a group or thing is quite common to standard. See Anti-Americanism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Slavism, and other terms at List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms.--T. Anthony 07:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice the preponderance of the "capitalization exception" I pointed out above... Tom e r ^talk 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm yes of course there's a preponderance of capitalization, they're referring to the names of countries and language groups. I also capitalize the "A" in Ainu people, the nation of Armenia, and the "S" in Semitic languages. Is this incorrect? Since when?--T. Anthony 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the pedantry. The word is not "Anti-Semitic_peoples", the original word was "Antisemitismus", coined specifically to be a more "scientifically sophisticated" term for "Judenhaß" (i.e., "Jew-hatred"). Argumentation about "Semitic languages" and the disgraced theory of "Semitic peoples" is little more than a red herring. In its original form, it is "Semitism" that is relevant, not "Semitic". W/o too much effort, if "Semitism" is such a well-established concept all on its own, you should be able to tell me what it is. ... and more to the point, how "Anti-Semitism" is opposition to "Semitism". This should be interesting. Go. Tom e r ^talk 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pedantry it's the English language and its use of spelling. In English Semitic is a capitalized proper term, just like Ainu or Basque. I think you dislike both terms, "antisemitism" or "Anti-Semitism." For what it's worth I wouldn't disagree with that. The term was created by a bigot and is perhaps intentionally easy to misconstrue. Perhaps we could simply rename this "Anti-Jewish canards" at some point and avoid the linkage to Semitic altogether. Still the notion that there is some relationship between Semitic peoples is not "disgraced." It may or may not be true, but the idea that the peoples who speak Semitic languages are related is a notion that's being studied. I don't know if they are related or not, but I don't see how the notion is disgraceful. Although on reflection I see you likely meant an older version of the idea. Also there is a similar notion of Hamitic peoples and that was disgraced.--T. Anthony 10:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your statement remains that antisemitism is not "opposition to" either "Semites", "Semitic languages", "Semitic peoples" or even "Semitism", it is, and always has been, despite the efforts of antisemitic efforts at subterfuge, "hatred of Jews". Period. I never said anything about the link between Semitic peoples being "disgraced"--what is disgraced is the notion of "Semitic peoples" as an identifiable group [except by the languages they speak] altogether, especially, to clarify, in the racialist sense in which the notion was understood when the word "Antisemitismus" was first coined. I also never said, nor implied, anything about looking for links among populations of speakers of Semitic languages was somehow "disgraceful". I think we're having a failure, hopefully unintentional, to discern between the shades of meaning in my use of the word "disgraced", especially in the historical framework I was referring to. Oh, wait. Now I see you actally did understand what I meant. Tom e r ^talk 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename For consistency. IronDuke 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is a no-brainer. What's the fuss? IZAK 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the fuss is that "anti-semitic", rightly or wrongly, is still the more common usage in English. In the news "Anti-Semitic" -antisemitic gets 2940 hits, but antisemitic gets just 46. At Google Scholar "Anti-Semitic" -antisemitic gets 16000 hits, while "antisemitic" receives 3570. At the Library of Congress "anti-semitic" gets 58 hits, antisemitic got 6 with a spelling suggestion.--T. Anthony 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who voted rename I've probably argued the oppose side too much. I did oppose renaming to antisemitism at first and my reasons I think were sound, but I was working on incomplete information. I went rename in this case because the original word had no hyphen, the version on other language Wikipedias has no hyphen, and the organizations most concerned with this tend to prefer it without a hyphen.--T. Anthony 18:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although much of what I said here is still true, I'm no longer convinced by it. German words change on going into English so changing them back is perhaps unnecessary or a bad move. The organizations I mentioned preferring the unhyphenated spelling is still persuasive, but on its own it's not compelling. The debate here has been negatively effective and made me consider voting against the rename. However I'm mostly uncertain so I have switched to abstain.--T. Anthony 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Amoruso 08:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why on earth do we want to alter a correct spelling to an erroneous one?--Newport 20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Canvassed vote. [8]

Rename per above. gidonb 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per CJLippert.--R613vlu 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, as above. Alai 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anti-Semitism is almost exclusively spelled with a hyphen. Let's examine google results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,450,000 for antisemitism. (0.26 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,280,000 for anti-semitism [definition]. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 643,000 for antisemitic. (0.28 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,710,000 for anti-semitic [definition]. (0.15 seconds)

So my vote is for it to remain hyphenated. Valley2city 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Canvassed vote. [9]

Oppose Anti-semitic is the correct term --Adriaan90 ( Talk| Contribs ) 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Canvassed vote. [10]

Oppose we should go by the dictionary. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:41, 18 November 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 section.

Category:Political chief executives of the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political chief executives of the United States to Category:Political chief executives in the United States

Rename, because there is only one Political chief executive of the United States: the President of the United States. —Markles 22:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both the presidents and the governors cat can stand on their own. No need for this parent cat. Otto4711 23:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, parent cat for two sub-categories is unnecessary. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary neologism. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 Piccadilly 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto, or rename to Category:Governmental chief executives in the United States. Postdlf 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Period. This is an entirely superfluous category whose existence can only be justified by an abject failure to understand the American political system--which cannot be justified as a rationale to keep the category in any encyclopedia, online or otherwise. Tom e r ^talk 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody Valley2city 22:44, 15 November 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 section.

Category:Cabinet secretaries of the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete per below and nom above. David Kernow (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cabinet secretaries of the United States to Category:Cabinet secretaries in the United States

Rename, to differentiate from Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States. —Markles 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another unnecessary parent cat for just two sub-cats. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcat. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 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 section.

Category:X-Men members

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn / category already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge into Category:X-Men. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I almost voted in favor of deletion. Then I looked at the two categories. Category:X-Men contains subcategories on the films, the cartoons, the comic book creators, etc., and articles with general information on the X-Men comic books, including fictional places and X-men jargon. Category:X-Men members contains the individual fictional characters in the X-Men itself. The two categories are distictly different, so they should not be merged, and neither should be deleted. George J. Bendo 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn You're right, if anything I should have suggested a merge with Category:Marvel Comics mutants. I think the best thing is to let the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics decide what they want to do. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else destroyed Category:X-Men members because it was already a list (see List of X-Men characters). I still think that the category was useful. I will ask him to put it back. George J. Bendo 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. The consensus of late is that membership categories for Super-teams (at least) is a bad idea, because so many heroes/villains have joined so many of them that it's become a game of musical chairs. (Magneto is an excellent example of that.) There is a question of re-affirming consensus there if you would like to comment : ) - jc37 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unless the discussion there becomes contentious, please let the subject rest as far as WP:CFD is concerned. Before bringing it back here, if the need is felt for wider community input, please take it to WP:RFC first. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 10:12, 14 November 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 section.

Former colonies

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian colonies to Category:Former Belgian colonies
Category:German colonies to Category:Former German colonies
Category:Scottish colonies to Category:Former Scottish colonies
Category:Swedish colonies to Category:Former Swedish colonies
Rename, Categories list colonies which are actually former colonies. Category:British colonies has long been changed to Category:Former British colonies and so these should also be changed to the more accurate name. - 52 Pickup 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom Hmains 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom, more accurate. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename most, but delete Category:Former Scottish colonies as abject nonsense... Tomer^talk 10:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point. As the Scots established (or tried to establish) colonies before the Act of Union, then this category makes sense. But then, there is no "(Former) English colonies" category to cover the same period. Maybe a separate English category is needed. Keep, just rename for now, this needs a bit more work.- 52 Pickup 13:39, 15 November 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 section.

Category:Wikipedians who support Apocalypse

Category:Wikipedians who support the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants

Category:Wikipedians who support Doctor Doom

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians who read Marvel Comics. - jc37 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of harmless fun on my part when adding categories to my user page. If it's wasteful and/or offensive, then please do remove it, as no one else has exactly rushed to join the category, and I won't miss it, as it is just a bit of fun after all. Sorry to cause trouble. Kelvingreen 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all, just a bit of housekeeping, in response to a nomination at the bottom of this page : ) - jc37 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The creator has apparently endorsed removing the categories. (I would only support the Brotherhood myself.) George J. Bendo 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what's wrong with silly? ;) Kelvingreen 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should ask Mr. Tarquin Fintim-Limbim-Whimbim-Lim Bus Stop-F'Tang-F'Tang-Olé-Biscuit-Barrel about that. (Radiant) 11:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. ;) Kelvingreen 19:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per creator endorsement, & two of three categories being empty. --mordicai. 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ASAP,there is no point for these. No purpose. ->Phoenix741 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per creator endorsement, and these categories have no collaborative purpose anyway. —Cswrye 15:19, 14 November 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 section.

Category:Middle Ages weapons

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Middle Ages weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to correctly named Category:Medieval weapons. Pegship 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and "Middle Ages weapons" is bad english. 132.205.44.128 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom Hmains 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge to better titled Medieval weapons. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Piccadilly 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though some of us who are a little older probably could use some better self-defense tools.--agr 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(lol)Her Pegship 18:58, 17 November 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 section.

Category:Cover songs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cover songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This seems like an awfully expansive categorization to me. Innumerable songs have been covered over the years, and the mere act of having been covered by another artist doesn't seem a useful categorization (being so common). Powers ^T 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category could contain virtually anything. George J. Bendo 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overly broad. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Indiscriminate. Postdlf 15:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe salt the earth. We deleted this category months ago.--Mike Selinker 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be speedy deleted then. Postdlf 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy but low-sodium delete. Alai 22:42, 15 November 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 section.

Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is simply going to gather together random astrophysical phenomena (ranging from moonquakes to gamma ray bursts) that are difficult to construe as "natural disasters" in the typical use of the phrase (usually applied when people, other organisms, or property are damaged by natural phenomena). Because of the overly vague interpretation of the category, it should be deleted. George J. Bendo 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Extraterrestrial catastrophic events perhaps? Otto4711 19:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a rename would still gather together an overly-broad range of astrophysical phenomena. Off the top of my head, I can think of the following "catastrophic" astronomical phenomena:supernovae, novae, gamma ray bursts, moonquakes, volcanic eruptions, "storms" like the Great Red Spot, solar flares, meteor and comet impacts, shockwaves within galaxies' spiral arms, galaxy mergers, cluster-cluster collisions, ram pressure stripping in galaxy clusters, galaxy superwinds, and the Big Bang. These phenomena have little to do with each other. They should not be categorized together. This category should be deleted, not renamed. George J. Bendo 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think such a rename is appropriate, since "catastrophic" can have wildly different meanings when dealing with the univese at large. Compared to say, the ignition of a quasar, or a Gamma Ray Burst, something as small as say, a comet or asteroid strike on the order of the Dinosaur killer would be laughable, even if such an event were to destroy a small astral body. 132.205.44.128 03:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these are not disasters, they do not affect people or wildlife, or living things. 132.205.44.128 03:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the concept of the category still seems worthy enough, even if y'all don't like my suggested rename... Otto4711 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something better, agree w/Otto4711 that the concept of the category seems worthy, it's just named badly. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, overcat. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge where? This category is not a subcategory of anything else. George J. Bendo 14:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about Category:Natural disasters? (Radiant) 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem isn't the "Extraterrestrial" part, it's the "disaster" part. See Talk:Natural disaster for a discussion on the topic. Waitak 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 132.205.44.128. Otto4711's point is well taken, but categories should be created after there's a demonstrated need for them, not a priori. Waitak 15:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially just categorizing by how dramatic the phenomenon are. Without an actual scientific definition or concept, or otherwise established field of study to unify it, it's merely a poetic relationship. Postdlf 15:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nothing inherently wrong with a poetic relationship, IMHO! The real problem is that there's not really much written that belongs in the category. ("Remember that methane storm in the Jovian mid latitudes back in the 70's? Man, that was a humdinger!" :-) Waitak 03:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. It seems like a wikipedia natural disaster that this was nominated for deletion...a much better approach would have been to bring this to WP:RFC to encourage discussion about what the category should be named. I think it's just barely outside the realm of "Systemic Bias" to declare that a comet passing through Jupiter's atmosphere qualifies as a "natural disaster"...only barely, perhaps, but still, just right outside the aegis of that wikiproject. That said, I think something more along the lines of Category:Cataclysmic extraterrestrial events is far more fitting. Can we all agree to remove this from CFD and take the discussion to the category's talkpage? Tom e r ^talk 08:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this category did kind of sneak into CfD, as a side-note on another discussion which then became a whole separate entry. But wouldn't it be a more efficient use of everybody's attention span to just finish the discussion here? I'm just saying... Waitak 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The response to your question is "yeah, sure, you betcha"... The problem with it is that is "Categories for deletion", not "Categories whose names are up for discussion". Take it or leave it, love it or hate it, that's what's going on here. Withdraw or fight, basically, and I recommend "withdraw" here. Tom e r ^talk 10:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This category's deletion is still up for discussion at this moment, and consensus has not been reached. Moving this discussion to the category's talk page is inappropriate at this time. George J. Bendo 10:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's nothing inappropriate about withdrawing a category [or anything else] from consideration for deletion, when the deletion was proposed for less than spectacular reasons. The problem with this category is its name. The appropriate course of action is for a name change to be discussed on the talk page. What's happening here amounts to the same thing as proposing the deletion of an article because there's a problem with its name, or worse, because its name doesn't follow WP:MOS. I stand by my recommendation, since, IMHO at least, it's better to resolve what is clearly a bad name rather than get rid of a perfectly good category and wait for it to reappear with an equally bad name and waste our time with the same discussion at that time. Fix the name now, and be done with it. Tom e r ^talk 23:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not just with the name (please see my comments above). Any category that tried to unite "catastrophic astrophysical events" is going to be so inclusive so as to be rendered useless. I could easily conceive of listing spiral arm, Arp 220, NGC 4631, supernova, Io, Great Red Spot, moonquake, and Copernicus (lunar crater) as "natural disasters" or "catastrophic" or whatever else you would like to call the category. Except for the fact that the events are catastrophic (or violent or whatever), the various phenomena have nothing in common. The categorization is useless, and the category, no matter what it is renamed, should be deleted. George J. Bendo 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think spiral arm is something of a stretch, as are craters and moons. I still think getting rid of the category w/o coming up w/ a replacement for at least parts of it in the process, however, is a mistake—the issue is otherwise sure to come up again, and all discussion about it will have to begin again, essentially from scratch. Tom e r ^talk 04:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — By definition natural disasters are connected to human activities. Thus this category should by all rights be empty, and so is irrelevant. Toss this puppy. — RJH (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Perhaps the various quake articles could be merged into a single article on extraterrestrial quakes? I don't see a need for separate quake articles on each astronomical body. — RJH (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't imagine what should be in it. Anyway, a disaster was originally an astrological term referring to the stars' influence on Earth!--R613vlu 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Twisting semantic of the word disaster. Pavel Vozenilek 19:10, 18 November 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 section.

Category:Gross-out comedy films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gross-out comedy films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
So many films feature gross-out scenes, many of which aren't "gross-out comedies". Does "Borat" qualify? I just don't feel it's a genre. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, In my opinion, yes, it's a genre. But difficult to define in a NPOV way. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Gross-out films -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
borat qualifies. bathroom incidents
Delete per nom. Piccadilly 06:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not objectively definable. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I think this really is a genre, but difficult to describe in a NPOV way. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think categories are the best way to handle such specific subgenres. Recury 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I wish we could use this category, but it is so vague what defines this. As many have said, there is little way we could have this category without being POV Valley2city 22:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague; grossness is in the eye of the beholder (I hope not literally). Her Pegship 00:14, 16 November 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 section.

Category:Award winning actress

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Award winning actresses, per wikipedia policy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the award is major enough then it should have its own category. Otto4711 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use cats by major awards instead (e.g. oscars). (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is hard to have a career in an industry where publicity matters and not win an award. Twittenham 15:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eventually would include all actresses, as per above. - jc37 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned above the lack of specific, notable awards as context makes it too all-encompassing and trivial. Postdlf 21:16, 13 November 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 section.

Category:Quakes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The ground covered by this category is more than adequately covered by Category:Earthquakes plus an additional article or two on non-terrestrial quakes. If ever there are enough articles on non-terrestrial quakes, a category can be created for them at that point, but it seems very unlikely. Waitak 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that perhaps it's not necessary at this point. I've created a more general category Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters which can also include things like the Great Red Spot. Voortle 15:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not needed at the moment, and listing moonquake under Category:Earthquakes probably will not upset anyone. Also, Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters is not needed and should be deleted as well. George J. Bendo 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this could be used as an umbrella for extraterrestrial /geo/physical quakes (starquakes, moonquakes, what have you). But Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters should be deleted because it is not a disaster if it doesn't affect people or wildlife. 132.205.44.128 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we need a category for quakes that happen other than on Earth, I'd suggest something like Category:Non-terrestrial quakes or Category:Extraterrestrial quakes. I don't think we need one just yet, though. I agree that Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters should be deleted, since it's (by definition) not a disaster if it doesn't affect anybody. Waitak 11:08, 13 November 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 section.

Category:Leaders of Pakistan movement

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of Pakistan movement to Category:Leaders of the Pakistan Movement

Rename for style and to make the capitalisation match Pakistan Movement. Hawkestone 14:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom Hmains 04:18, 13 November 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 section.

Category:University of Santa Clara alumni

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect per below. David Kernow (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Santa Clara University alumni, to match Santa Clara University. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, add redirect. The institution was known as the University of Santa Clara until 1977. -choster 22:31, 14 November 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 section.

Category:Santa Clara University, People of

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Santa Clara University people, convention of Category:People by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:55, 13 November 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 section.

Category:Fictional war criminals

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional war criminals

Delete - Ambiguity of the category's introduction and War crime, which I would presume would require citations/references, if applied to a person. It's also slowly becoming a catch-all category for villains. - jc37 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could have serious POV problems. George J. Bendo 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wouldn't this category only apply to fictional characters that are acknowledged to be war criminals within the fictional universes in which they exist? If not, then there should be such a provisio on the category. 132.205.44.128 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a strict definition can be created for what defines a "war criminal" and can be strictly enforced, then I would withdraw my vote for deletion. That does not appear to be happening. George J. Bendo 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (on both counts). - jc37 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is with the category definition statement. Contents should only include war criminals acknowledged as such within their own fictional universe. If they are not so acknowledged, they are not war criminals (afterall, it might be considered heroic to commit genocide in some fictional universes). 132.205.44.134 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why is it any more ambiguous than Category:War criminals (which specifically includes people who are not charged with warcrimes)? Considering that's around, and the problems with incorrectly applying it to real people are worse than calling a fictional character a 'war criminal', I'm not sure what the problem with this one is. Mairi 05:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Based on your description, I think Category:War criminals has serious problems, and it needs to either be strictly edited (to only include people tried and convicted of war crimes) or deleted. George J. Bendo 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of silly categories but this one isn't so bad. It might be a useful list for a comparative lit researcher. Where's the harm?--Mantanmoreland 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a Category:Fictional characters convicted of war crimes to avoid Original research. --tjstrf talk 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the concern about WP:NOR. These are fictional characters. It shouldn't involve OR to find out if they are war criminals or not. Also I would say that only in a small percentage of cases are fictional war criminals "convicted." In every instance I can think of (such as the dentist in Marathon Man), they have never been convicted but had committed war crimes.--Mantanmoreland 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes it original research. Whether or not we as editors may view an action as a "war crime", we need citations/references proving it to be true. The members of a category should be self-evident, with the presumption that references exist for inclusion. That essentially is why the category in question would work better as a list instead of a category. - jc37 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (edit conflict, directed at Mantanmoreland) They can be quite easily covered under Category:Fictional mass murderers then. War crimes are established by conviction under international law. --tjstrf talk 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't think "convictions" would be necessary, only acknowledgment within the fictional work that said character is a war criminal. If several of the "normal" characters in the fictional universe regard another character as a war criminal, it should be sufficient, even if the war crime is destroying a patch of magic strawberries. 132.205.44.128

Comment to closing admin If there is a problem determining consensus, count my opinion as a delete. --tjstrf talk 23:03, 15 November 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 section.

Category:Private railways

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one member, practically defunct with the more specific subcategories of Category:Railway lines, such as Category:Industrial railways, Category:Heritage railways etc.. La ï ka 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this cat overlaps with the others as noted. --Mantanmoreland 21:20, 13 November 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 section.

Category:Orthodox Jewish communities

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Orthodox Jewish communities; Irish-American neighborhoods left for relising (perhaps with other similar categories) if anyone wishes. David Kernow (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox Jewish communities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Irish-American neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Comment I did not nominate Irish-American neighborhoods - it was added by User:Alansohn and should be in a separate CfD discussion, even though it may be related to this one. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any and all ethnic / religious categories should be bundled together in this CfD. There is no reason that all should not be kept OR all should be deleted. The same "ill defined" and "POV" issues exist with Irish-American neighborhoods, in addition to the fact that the Irish-American neighborhoods makes no definition of what constitutes such a neighborhood. Alansohn 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category is ill defined and its usage is POV ArmadilloFromHell 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator ignores the fact that the category explicitly defines which communities are included, and offers no explanation for why it is POV. There is broad precedent for such categories in Wikipedia -- for example at Category:Irish-American neighborhoods and Category:Little Italys or at List of Italian-American neighborhoods -- without making the assumption that such communities are entirely, 100% of that ethnic group. The categories and list provided as counterexamples do not provide any definition whatsoever of what constitutes an Irish or Italian community, as has been done at Category:Orthodox Jewish communities. I strongly encourage the nominator to pursue CfDs/AfDs for every single such use of ethnic and religious group in Wikipedia, perhaps after reading the category he is proposing to delete and then comparing it to other such categories. Alansohn 09:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problems with the category as it exists is that it says "Areas and locations where Orthodox Jews live in significant communities" - that is very open to interpretation. So while I would agree that places like New Square, New York and Kiryas Joel, New York might fit, places like Gateshead, although extremley significant to Orthodox Jews, are not per se Orthodox Jewish communities e.g. from Gateshead The most practised religion in Gateshead is Christianity. The same would apply to other places such as Antwerp which has a significant Haredi population but is not IMO an Orthodox Jewish community. I might even be tempted to argue that Jerusalem should be excluded while leaving in Har Nof. As a futher example I just removed Bathurst Street from the category, as a gross misuse of categorization, while according to that article 73% of the population in this area alone is Jewish it refers only to specific sections, and of that 73%, only a portion is Orthodox, possibly as little as 10%. (Sorry it is too late and my typing is worse than normal) --ArmadilloFromHell 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The category explicitly describes what is included: "areas that have within them an Orthodox Jewish community in which there is a sizable and cohesive population, which has its own community organizations, businesses, day schools, yeshivas and/or synagogues that serve the members of the local Orthodox community" There is nothing here that says that these are places with a majority Orthodox population or -- as you have chosen to misinterpret -- that a place IS an Orthodox community (implying that no other religion is practiced). The category provides an explicit definition of such areas as those "that have within them an Orthodox Jewish community..." That you question whether New Square, New York and Kiryas Joel, New York "might fit" -- despite the fact that both are about 99.9999% Orthodox -- shows that you just aren't reading what the category says. You have still provided no explanation for why this category, or any of the many other similar categories and lists Wikipedia-wide, are POV. Alansohn 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Armadillo: The rules clearly say, especially to the nominator, that articles should not be removed from categories that have nominated for deletion, during a vote, especially when a strong discussion is now under way. You are ignoring that there are different ways of cross-referencing "Jewish/Orthodox Jewish communities". It may well be that sometimes it is a Judenstrase that is the focal point of the the main Jewish/Orthodox community in a city with (Orthodox) Jews living in it. I will revert your move at this time, until some SENSIBLE and knowledgeable resolution to this discussion is achieved. IZAK 10:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you should take a look at the history before making accusations. I deleted the article from the category, and only after that did I decide the category should be consider for deletion. Try a little AGF. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In addition there is nothing to prevent the deletion of a categroy from a singe article even after the CfD is started, it says "Do not empty this category" --ArmadilloFromHell 21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the category stays, then there is equal justification for creating Category:Modern Orthodox Jewish communities, Category:Reform Jewish communities, Category:Conservative Jewish communities, Category:Charedi Jewish communities, and tagging many of the articles with these alternate categories as well. Then we also need a parent categories to hold them Category:Shomer Shabbos Jewish communities and Category:Jewish communities --ArmadilloFromHell 21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are absolutely correct Armadillo. And if thats the case, then every town and city can probably be grouped into many different categories based on religion and ethnicity and that would just get out of hand. I still vote to delete and I would be happy to vote for deletion for all the other categories as well Helical Rift 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Armadillo: If the category would indeed grow then it can indeed be split into sub-categories. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. I would just venture to say that Orthodox Jewish communities happen to be far more noticable and notable than Reform or Conservative communities, Orthodox communities have bigger communal infrastructures like yeshivas, Jewish day schools, and more syngagogues per capita because Orthodox Jews attend synagogues more frequently and because they do not drive on the Shabbat and Jewish holidays they therefore require and build many more synagogues than their Reform and Conservative brethren. Finally, do not forget: Wikipedia is not paper. IZAK 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for Orthodox Jewish communities / Delete for Irish-American neighborhoods: 1) The category provides an explicit definition: "Areas and locations where Orthodox Jews live in significant communities. These are areas that have within them an Orthodox Jewish community in which there is a sizable and cohesive population, which has its own community organizations, businesses, day schools, yeshivas and/or synagogues that serve the members of the local Orthodox community". criteria can be verified and a given community either does or does not fit in this category; 2) Delete for Irish-American neighborhoods: category makes no definition whatsoever as to what constitutes an Irish-American community, thus decision to use category is inherently subject to original research, violation WP:OR and WP:POV. Again as no criteria are specified, readers may misinterpret this category to mean that the neighborhood is 100% Irish ,majority Irish or controlled by Irish. Alansohn 15:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I (originally) created this category because Orthodox Jews are not spread out in any old place and as communities they always tend to live in specific geographic neighborhoods and areas. There is nothing "POV" about this, and this does not mean that other people do not live there. This is a means of stating the obvious because these places are known to Orthodox Jews and no-one denies that they have NOTABLE Orthodox Jewish communities today, since every one of the articles in this category has been carefully reviewed as an indisputable place where many Orthodox Jews reside in significant numbers. I cannot see the sense of deleting this informative category. IZAK 08:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough but by using the word "Community," that gives the sense that it is all of one group. I don't think you realize what you are saying or even reading what I am writing. Helical Rift
  - Helical Rift: You are being too narrow, or shall I say "confining" in your usage or definition of "community". What would you suggest a place be called which has a huge population of Orthodox Jews, that is very notable for such, a "Shtetl" or "Ghetto" or "Concentration camp" or "Jewish Quarter" (look all these up) or what-have-you, you have my head in a buzz? And whatever you are "writing" does not serve as a justified "warrant" to wipe this category off the map as if it has no significance or as if it is "POV" which makes no sense. IZAK
    - Concentration Camp???? I will not even dignify that remark with a response! Helical Rift 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - During the Holocaust they were Jewish communities as well, believe it or not. Do you honestly think that the Orthodox Jews stopped living as Orthodox Jews just because the Germans and their European allies shoved more than six million of them into concentration camps and Extermination camps? My point is, how do you define a Jewish community or Orthodox Jewish community? Indeed there are those revisionist historians who argue that concentration and extermination camps are not the preserve of the Jews because non-Jews died there in large numbers as well, so does that mean we should now not associate the names of the Auschwitz concentration camp or the Treblinka extermination camp with the Jewish people merely because others died there as well? Try to follow the logic of the point I am making and you will see that if we were to follow your line of reasoning, these horrific places would be removed from Jewish categories because they were also places where other "heterogeneous" people were killed. IZAK 10:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alansohn has just copied the definition and posted it here. A town or city should not be defined by a certain ethnic group that lives there. Would we call Calcutta an Indian community? Of course not. The entire country is composed on Indians. To call a town as an Orthodox Jewish community when there may be many other religious and ethnic groups that live there is practically ignoring their existence if they are not credited. If thats the case, then each and every ethnic group needs to be included in that town/city page and thats just ridiculous Helical Rift 08:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Also, after looking at the list again, I noticed Jerusalem and other places in Israel on it. How can you have Jerusalem and Kew Gardens and Cedarhurst in the same group?? I'm sorry, but this is POV. I really think you need stats and facts to include a town in this category Helical Rift 08:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Each article has stats and facts, read them! You may not be aware that there is a long-standing historical and scholarly tradition of knowing and noting predominantly Jewish and/or Orthodox communities such as the shtetls, Jewish ghettos in Europe, and Jewish Quarters -- for better or worse and whether we like it or not (and these places had gentiles living there, or right nearby, too at the same time.) In fact if this category were to be deleted, there would actually be communities that have been founded and are still run by Orthodox Jews only such as New Square, New York, Kiryas Joel, New York, Batei Ungarin, Mea Shearim, Givat Shaul, Bnei Brak that would be flushed down the toilet of deletion here, and it would be a great shame if neighborhoods that today owe their fame mainly to their Orthodox Jews, such as Borough Park, Brooklyn, Golders Green, Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Midwood, Brooklyn, Monsey, New York, Har Nof and many more. Finally please bear in mind two more things: (1) That anyone call Calcutta anything they want to and create categories for it, as long as they are notable according to people who know something about the subject because notability is relative and what may me notable to an Orthodox Jew, may mean zero to one not familiar with this milieu. And (2) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and thus: "...there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability..." (see also Wikimedia "...The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite. As Wikipedia grows, so will computing power, storage capacity, and bandwidth. While there is a practical limit to all these at any given time, Wikipedia is not likely to ever outgrow them." [11].) Thank you. IZAK 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe you should make a category that is for communities that are STRICTLY Orthodox Jewish. Helical Rift 09:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no such "apartheid" at work in the world, and in any case, all these communities come to as "STRICTLY Orthodox" as you can humanly get, otherwise they would not have landed up in the category in the first place. IZAK 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cedarhurst is hardly STRICTLY Orthodox Jewish Helical Rift 09:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is saying it is "only" that, but no-one can dispute that it has not become a major Orthodox community when in fact it is one of the quickest growing ones at that and at this time it's mostly Modern Orthodox Jews who are moving in there. I hope you count them as "Orthodox"? Do you know Cedarhurst? Even the non-Orthodox Jews complain that too many Orthodox Jews are moving in there so that must be pretty significant. IZAK 09:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry but I just can't agree with you. For example, I just looked at the Compton, Ca page. Compton is over 40% African-American according to the 2000 Census, yet, I don't see "Black Communites" on the bottom of the page. Helical Rift 09:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not being logical. You are saying that because there is no category for African-Americans therefore there should be no category for Orthodox Jews, which sounds like "affitmative action in reverse." There is nothing stopping you or anyone from creating Category:African American communities, and add into it any article that deals with such a topic, no matter how briefly it's mentioned in the body of the article, if the facts say that there are many African Americans in such-and-such a place. That would be the correct approach, particularly since there are so many other sub-categories in Category:African Americans. I would not take your approach and delete it on the basis that the community in that place also lived together with a Jewish or Italian or Hispanic community, which happens all the time. For example, would you say that Category:Little Italys or Category:Chinatowns should be deleted because many of these neighborhoods no longer majority or exclusive numbers of Italian Americans living in them or not only Chinese live there? Of course not. This entire vote is ridiculous because if it goes through than the entire parent category of Category:Ethnic enclaves should go. Don't you see? IZAK
        Honestly, I don't think you see. My issue is that why should there be a label for a community when that community is composed of a heterogeneous population. I agree with Alai. I think a Rename would be more appropriate. Also, it clearly states in the Cedarhurst page many times that many Orthodox Jews reside there...so then what is the need for a category? If Orthodox Jewish community is staying, then an Italian-, Hispanic-, Irish-, Indian and whatever else American lives there which does in fact happen to be the case MUST be added. Dont you think the page would look ridiculous? Helical Rift 09:50 12, November 2006 (UTC)
        Helicat: The "heterogeneous" POV is NOT the only way to look at this topic or articles. If you subject was the habitat of xyz, then you would expect to learn that "xyz" lives in such-and-such places. That's all that's happening. Please stop throwing in the red herring that this is going against some sort of "unwritten code" that is defying other ethnic and/or religious communities (and please note that Jews are both an ethnic group as well as a religion, see the Jew and Judaism articles to learn more about this.) In addition, Jews number no more than about 13 or 14 million people in the world, and Orthodox Jews are anywhere from 10-25 of that number depending on where and how you count them, so that we are dealing with a delicate subject and a relatively small group of people, and when they gather in certain towns, or streets, or neighborhoods, to live, it is automatically a significant area of knowledge and information for Jews and oanyone who wants to know and learn more about them and their way of life (aka Judaism) and so it's part of the over-all subject of Category:Orthodox Judaism which is the main parent category here. This is as much "POV" as would be a study of where Native Americans in the United States live and noting where they live as per Category:American Indian reservations -- the only difference being that in the majority of cases, Jews and Orthodox Jews are not given "reservations" nowadays (they once were put into ghettos or worse) and in particular, Jews deliberately and positively choose to live in close-knit communities, and unlike the Amish, they do this while living in the midst of their surrounding host communities and cultures, thriving in that setting, so that this is neither "discrimination" nor favoritism. That is part of community life in Orthodox Judaism 101. IZAK 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to... something better. I think there's clearly a naming problem here: if I include an article "X" in a category Category:Ys, it implies that X is a Y. It's not correct to say that the current contents are OJ communities. They may be locations with OJ communities, or communities with lots of OJs, or something to that effect. Alai 09:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the naming problem? Why is Category:Orthodox Jewish communities any worse than Category:Irish-American neighborhoods? Neither one makes any statement that the specified religious / ethnic group is the only one present. And the corresponding Irish category (or for that matter Category:Little Italys) make no effort whatsoever to define what makes the communities listed an Irish (or Italian) neighborhood. Would "Category:Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods" make this any better? What else would you propose that would make this any clearer than the definition the category already provides? Alansohn 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe I just explained what the naming problem was, in some detail. To answer your second question: it's worse because the term "community" is a stronger one than "neighborhood", and is conversely, being used on places that would be questionable even as the latter, being only small-minority-populated by the group in question, much less exclusively, as is implied by "The Lower East Side is an OJ community". But more to the point, pointing at other categories not under consideration is to risk merely deflecting attention from the actual merits of the current nom. I sketched two forms of possible solutions, I'm flexible on precise wording. But at the risk of offering up a hostage to fortune, I'd have no objection to, for example, Category:Locations with an Orthodox Jewish community. I notice also that it's used on Beachwood, Ohio and Sea Point, in the body of which the word "Orthodox" does not so much as appear once. Alai 10:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your original explanation was gobbledygook. You keep on insisting that the category implies that "The Lower East Side is an [Orthodox Jewish] community" when it states explicitly that it means that "The Lower East Side HAS an [Orthodox Jewish] community". It would help to address what the category says, not what you think it says. Anyone with any concern as to the definition -- as for any category or Wikipedia article -- should look at the source for themselves. I don't see at all why neighborhood is not equivalent to community in the context in question, nor have you persuasively argued for this claim. "Locations with an Orthodox Jewish community" is far more awkwardly worded than the existing name, and it ignores the issue of the far larger corresponding Irish and Italian categories and lists, and those for other ethnic / religious groups. That there are some items in this (or any other category) that don't have clearly-defined support within the article is a reason to ask for a citation or to remove the category from the article in question. But the existing category stands on its own. Alansohn 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will agree with Alai's suggestion (Locations with an Orthodox Jewish community). And IZAK, please spare the history lessons. That is not the issue here as I stated on your talk page. What does everyone think of Alai's idea? Helical Rift 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec)I find "gobbledygook" to be neither an accurate characterisation, not especially civil. I'm not addressing the text of the category page, I'm addressing the name of the category. The articles cited carry a category that at present says simply "Orthodox Jewish community", which please bear in mind, is how it appears on that article, and which as a result is someplace between "misleading" and "entirely inaccurate". It would be helpful if you would address what the name of the category actually implies, as opposed to what you think it should imply. I did indeed not "argue peruasively", or indeed at all, for the non-equivalence of neighbourhood and community, as it's a) not in the least central to my point, and b) pretty darn obvious. Yes, it does ignore those issues: this isn't an umbrella nom, and "other cases could be argued to be as bad" is no case at all for "good". Feel free to let me know when you nominate those for renaming, too. Initially, I didn't suggest a wording. You asked for a suggestion, and I, stating that I was entirely flexible as to the wording, offered one. And your criticism is... my suggested wording. Fine, rename to <something else> that addresses the same point. On your last retort: I realize that entirely, hence the context being "I notice also that", not "I base my argument on". Alai 11:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry sir (IZAK) (and I am saying sir with the smallest amount of respect I have left for you) but bringing up the Holocaust when all I am suggesting is that my hometown can be better categorized than simply an "Orthodox Jewish Community" is UNCALLED for. You can post what you like up here, but I refuse to comment on it further. I am in no way direspecting Judaism. I only ask that my town by described better as in Alai's suggestion. If you want to continue this conversation, this is not the forum to do it in. If you like, I will give you my personal email address and we can go back and forth to your heart's delight. But don't DARE bring up that tragic and horrific time in history when this is not the place to do it in. I am willing to compromise by agreeing with Alai's suggestion. I think now it is your turn. Helical Rift 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Helicat: Oh, I am not a sir at all. You are missing the point of my arguments entirely. I am looking at the subject of Jewish communities in all their totalities as part of Jewish studies. As a scholar I study the ghettos, shtetls, and now other modern areas of the world that have become strongly identified with Jews and with Orthodox Jews in particular. I look at it dispassionately and not emotionally. I do not believe that anyone has the right to say "you cannot say so-and-so because it is my town" -- what exactly does "my town" mean here? I cannot fathom it. Wikipedia is about scholarship, it is not a cyber-Neighborhood Watch patrol nor would it be the place for a cyber-Witch-hunt if some witches chose to move next door to you -- please understand the point of my argument. Should the well-known fact that large numbers of Orthodox Jews live in "your town" still not be put into a category because it is "your town" and with that other towns very different to your town should also be deleted if this entire category should be deleted, which I hope it will not? Percentages alone are not the only criteria for what makes a neighborhood or community Jewish or Orthodox. (Hey, didn't some dude once refer to New York City as "Hymie-town" and then had to apologize for it -- because as anyone knows there are more non-Jews and African Americans in New York City than there are Jews), which only proves that this is not about emotions or prejudices or feelings or even cold out-of-context percentages, it's about arriving at an understanding of what makes a Jewish (Orthodox) community, a true Jewish (Orthodox) community! IZAK 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I can't believe this conversation is still continuing. Have you not read Alai's suggestion? I am willing to agree to the renaming. Obviously, you are being too stubborn to compromise. You are obviously too caught up in your own ideals to realize that there may be others. I never said that b/c its "my town" that I have a right to put what I want. I am merely stating that Cedarhurst is not just represented by Orthodox Jews; hence, it is not an Orthodox Jewish community. I don't see why you have been making such an issue of this when I was ready to compromise an hour ago. You have been completely blowing this out of proportion. As I stated, this is not the forum to do it in. Whoever decides that the category is going to be deleting or not probably has to sift through all this nonsense and it really is getting ridiculous now. I call for a vote for a renaming of the category suggesting by Alai. Can this be resolved soon b/c I would like to get some sleep eventually. Helical Rift 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Helicat: That is why we have talk pages, to have discussions, what's wrong with that? You fail to note that this subject is also part of broader categories relating to Jews, Judaism, and Jewish studies and it's not just about your or my "hometown." The following statement of yours is false because no-one is saying it or implying it in any way but you: "that Cedarhurst is not just represented by Orthodox Jews; hence, it is not an Orthodox Jewish community" because NO-ONE said that Cedarhurst is "represented by Orthodox Jews" -- what nonsense to even imply that. The only meaning to this category is that the number of Orthodox Jews living in it, meaning as an Orthodox Jewish community, is significant, factual and notable enough, that it can also be in this category because articles can and do become part of MULTIPLE categories that may have nothing to do with each other when viewed from only one perspective, but are most definitely connected over-all by logic, fact, and importance, because Orthodox Jews do live in that place as a community. Why is that so hard to accept? IZAK 11:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - And why the hell can't you accept that Cedarhurst is not an Orthodox Jewish community?? Why cant we just change the category as Alai suggests? What is so hard about that??? I'm willing to compromise but you are just repeating the same thing over and over and your ignorance is just showing. Helical Rift
        Helicat: I am not, in heaven's name saying that Cedarhurst is only an Orthodox Jewish community! (That is what you think and project I am saying, but what you are thinking and projecting is false!) The only thing the category means is that Cedarhurst, and other similar places, has/have a vibrant, growing, established, notable Orthodox Jewish community in it, which is perfectly true and legitimate (as you have admitted to me yourself on my talk page [12].) This is not an "all or nothing" debate or issue. I think it is now very clear that you have a poor idea about how categories are formulated and used on Wikipedia. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Categorization. IZAK 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I always thought this one was kinda parochial. Application is an exercise in OR and to a degree POV. - crz crztalk 12:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CrZ: (1) Ok, so then Category:Jewish communities is also "parochial" and should also go, right? (2) In fact any topic that is not in the Encyclopedia Judaica could be classed as off topic and "parochial" -- but we are trying to build an encyclopedia that is broader and more all-inclusive precisely because it is willing to have room for categories like this. (3) How and why is it "parochial" or "POV" that obvious examples like Kiryas Joel, New York, New Square, New York, Mea Shearim, Bnei Brak, to name but a few, are nothing but Orthodox Jewish communities? (4) Furthermore, to follow your reasoning, many places that have unofficial names related to ethnicity or religion, like Category:Ethnic enclaves or Category:Native American people could also be called too "parochial" if it was not one's cup of tea. (5) Finally, remember that Wikipedia is not paper. IZAK 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, I call to delete this category not only on the basis that there have been several votes for deletion, but simply by the fact that this has turned into complete chaos. What started as a simple idea has turned into history lessons and stubbornness. If the category is not going to be deleted, then a simple renaming would suffice as I have agreed on already. And IZAK, you seriously need to learn how to try to understand other point's of views that are different than yours. As I stated, I understand your logic, but clearly do not see mine. Helical Rift
    - Helical: No need to call out so much: To repeat what I wrote on my talk page to you: You are still missing my point and meaning big time, and you are denigrating the significance of the Orthodox Jewish presence and its definition and character. Tell me, what SPECIAL meaning will there be in listing Irish Americans in Cedarhurst? Feel free to do so, but the establishment, growth and functioning of an Orthodox Jewish community has very special meaning. It is highly structured in many ways, although it may not seem so to outsiders, and shares the same features as all other Orthodox communities, such as the existance of rabbis, synagogues, Jewish day schools, yeshivas, Chabad-Lubavitch, Mikvahs (ritual baths), Kosher restaurants and stores, an Eruv for carrying on the Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath), devotion to Religious Zionism and active support for the State of Israel, living according to the Shulkhan Arukh (Code of Jewish Law) and Halakha (Jewish Law) and following the 613 mitzvot (613 Biblical commandments) as well as the whole gamut of observances and rituals that you can find in Category:Jewish law and rituals. Now, I am SURE that the Italian Americans or African Americans in Cedrahurst do not live like this. Please understand that the adherence of Orthodox Jews to Orthodox Judaism is something very marked, distinct, unique and notable, and once you have a critical mass of them in one area concentrated and doing "their thing" you can't just flippantly come along and say, well let's just cyber-"dilute" their identity by throwing in any ethnic group remotely connected to Cedarhurst, because what is true about other ethnic and religious groups is not the same thing that defines and describes what the Orthodox Jews are about and what they do and the way that they do things which is a special phenomenon and that is why it gets its own articles and categories -- it's just not like anything or anyone else, period. This is not "elitism" this is just fact. Thanks for your attention. IZAK 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but I'd reword the Irish-American one to "communities" as well. The category shouldn't mean that the place is an Orthdox Jewish (or Irish-American) community, but that it has one. A community consists of people, first and foremost. Still, we may need to better define the threshold for inclusion. For example, I don't know if my neighborhood would qualify as an "Orthodox Jewish community" with two Orthodox synagogues, several home-based minyans that meet on a regular basis, numerous strictly kosher businesses (bakery, some restaurants,) and several that do mostly kosher food, a Jewish library, and a non-denominational Jewish community center and daycare, but with a roughly equal number of Conservative and Reform Jews, and a 90% gentile population. I suspect it is just below the threshold. But the notion of identifiable ethnic/religious communities seems to me a legitimate one, and historically was even more so (which, by the way, raises another question: does this mean that the communities are currently Orthodox Jewish, or Irish-American, or that they were so at some point in history? - Jmabel | Talk 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis Jayjg should it be kept? Helical Rift 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am entitled to voice my opinion or vote as much as I like IZAK as the same goes for you. Kindly do not change my edits in here. Helical Rift 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? No-one gets to vote more than once. Them's the rules, sorry if you don't know this yet Helical. I have not touched anything you say, and you can say as much as you want, I enjoy hearing you out, but you cannot keep on placing the word "Delete" here as if voting multiple times. IZAK 23:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is simply POV and requires WP:OR. It is too poorly defined to be useful. Alansohn wants to add this category on an article based on its big population of Or. Jews. He cannot supply any source that claims it is a Or. Jewish comm., but insists on leaving as it has a large amount. Admittingly he cannot find a source.[13] Until his category has explicit meaning it will invite POV, which incorrectly labels some communities as OJC and others at not. Arbusto 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User Arbusto/oo has participated in this debate in clear violation of WP:POINT. Despite the presence in the article of a source from a mjaor newspaper idetifying it as an Orthodox Jewish community, and discussing the effects of the community's growth, Arbustoo has chosen to ignore this based on the fact that it is not worded in the form "Cedarhurst is an Orhtodox Jewish community." NNo WP:OR or WP:POV is at issue here; the source included in the article opens by stating that "The municipality had become heavily populated by Orthodox Jews...". While the article states that "Orthodox Jews do not make up a majority of the population in Cedarhurst", this article makes clear that there is a large and cohesive Orthodox Jewish community, the clearly-worded definition of the category. The article states that "their numbers have been increasing in the last decade or so" and given that the growth has continued, there is clear support for the use of the category, as defined. Alansohn 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very useful category. In my neighborhood (Givat Shaul) 100% of people here are Orthodox - the vast majority are Haredim ('ultra-Orthodox'). The Jewish world simply uses this classification. I don't know any other defense than noting that this CfD is completely idiotic, irrational and seems like an attempt at revenge for possibly, allegedly, falsely including a town named Cedarhurst in this category. Regarding that, I also have a comment: there are non-Orthodox Jews in Boro Park, Crown Heights, and just about every 'Orthodox' Jerusalem neighborhood also. This category is simply a bit flexible. For example: Antwerp has only about 20,000 Jews on a total population of (estimate) 400,000 or so. Yet it has the third largest amount of (Orthodox) Jews in Europe, therefore it is included in this category. Get it? There is nothing strange here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are missing the point Daniel. It is not an issue of whether an Orthodox neighborhood can be considered a community, but whether a community that is not all Orthodox Jewish can be labeled as such. Cedarhurst, though it does have a population of Orthodox Jews, also has many other religions and ethnic groups. When I tried to include Italians and Irish in the Cedarhurst page, it was deleted. That problem has been rectified but who is to say that it won't happen in the future. That is why labels such as these should be deleted. Helical Rift 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Helical Rift's characterization is entirely false. When he edited the [[Cedarhurst, New York] article, which has been one of a number of vandalism targets, a number of incorrect edits included addition of info re other ethnic groups. When all of the edits were reverted, he took offense at the reversion claiming that I was denying the presence of other ethnic groups. The deleted text was restored and the article is accurately labeled as having an Italian community. However, despite repeated explanations and apologies, this user has insisted on misinterpreting the explicit definition contained within the category, repeatedly vandalized the article to remove text regarding Cedarhurst's Orthodox community, and blanked another article I have worked on, combined with multiple votes here and repeated attacks on those voting to keep that push his agenda, all wrapped up with an anti-semitic remark that he repeated a second time. Let's deal with the issues here as to whether ethnic / religious categories belong in Wikipedia. Alansohn 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Valid cat; refinement of cat's definition will improve. Ombudsman 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a valid category, then it is not a valid statement about Cedarhurst or other such towns. Definition needs to be clear or renamed and the Cedarhurst page needs to reflect that. I have no problem with the mentioning of Cedarhurst as having an Orthodox Jewish population but it should not be labeled only as such. Helical Rift 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Helical Rift 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Helical: I will appeal to you one more time, STOP voting "Delete" multiple times, this is about the sixth time you put in and voted "Delete" and I urge you to stop doing so if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise we will need admin intervention to moniter this more closely. You seem to be confusing two things, which are, that anyone may add comments to the discussion, dispute the views of others, and defend their own views as much as they want, but noone may vote more than once, and the way one votes is by placing either "Keep" or "Delete" only once here. What don't you get? IZAK 00:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree, you should have a mximum of one (Delete) on this page, or you may get a warning that you are vote-stacking. It's causing this whole dialogue to be even more confusing. Please go back and change it so you have one Delete only, and makee the rest to (Comment) --ArmadilloFromHell 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what's the big deal? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most places are mixed and they change over time. Piccadilly 06:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per MPerel: What's the big deal? This is obviously useful and informative. Dovi 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no need to encourage tribalism. Catchpole 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both are well-defined categories with interesting information that adheres to encyclopedic standards. --Gabi S. 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category is clearly POV. Jrc98 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a separate discussion on the Irish-American one; the issues are too different to be effectively combined. Merge to Category:Jewish communities for the Jewish one. The POV concern may be legitimate for the Orthodox sub-category, but, the existence of a Jewish sub-community is a notable feature of at least some of these communities, so there should be such a category available but I can't see why we need to label them as Orthodox. (There is at least one such community in the Boston area that isn't so categorized at the moment). Also do a clean-up; some of the categorized articles show no evidence of why they belong in the category (an example is Scranton, Pennsylvania). GRBerry 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may need some rehashing of what explicitly constitutes an Orthodox community but the basic notion is a sound one which is useful. At minimum there should be some sort of category for places like New Square, New York and Kiryat Joel. Also agree with GRBerry above that Irish neighborhoods should be considered separately since the issues are different. JoshuaZ 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jeez Louise, why all the angst? A good cat. Let's not overlitigate these things. And p.s. that keep goes double for "Irish American neighborhoods," which I assume is being dealt with separately.--Mantanmoreland 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per MPerel. Do not merge either. But there definitely should be some criteria for making these 'notable'/large communities, and not simply listing every quorum. --Shuki 21:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Consider separately the Irish-American question. HelicalRift has convinced me that s/he's completely wrong. Tom e r ^talk 00:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for Orthodox Jewish communities; DELETE for Irish-American neighborhoods - for reasons aforesaid. --Lance ^talk 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since we have categories on various ethnic communities such as Chinatowns and the like I don't see why we should single out Orthodox Jews for deletion. That being said, I always prefer lists over categories because they are far more informative and rarely lead to the misunderstanding shown here. --JJay 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no need for a seperate disscussion for the Irish category. It is the same situation. 75.3.28.188 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Masterhomer 06:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both These categories make crude and misleading possessive claims. Olborne 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & comment I say we keep it provided we do make categories for Conservative, Reform, etc... There are areas such as Pico-Robertson, Fairfax, Baldwin, Boyle Heights in Los Angeles, Silver Springs, MD, Upper West Side, Lower East Side, Crown Heights, Monsey, NY, and a whole lot of other places that I will not mention here for sake of brevity. There are still pockets, even with white-flight with large communities of Conservative Jews such as, in the case of Los Angeles, Westwood, Encino, and Tarzana which should make for a category of its own. Valley2city 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor pile-on nom of the Irish-American category -- which is just as untidy, but for different reasons. Is it for "places which contain" I-A neighbourhoods, on the same pattern as the rationale for the O.J. cat, or for "places which are" I-A? The fuzziness both of identification or self-identification as an "Irish American", and of what exactly is a "neighbourhood" we may have to live with to some extent, but can at least be somewhat reduced. Currently it seems to be applied both to places described as being overwhelmingly "Irish", and places which are reported as being about 20%. Define scope, if necessary renaming to reflect said scope. Alai 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless we are going to get census data for every community, and then choose an arbitrary percentage necessary for inclusion, the current ambiguity will have to do. Tewfik^Talk 06:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or else rename to Category:Locations of Orthodox Jewish communities. --Eliyak T·C 19:47, 21 November 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 section.

Category:2007 Golf Events

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2007 Golf Events to Category:2007 in golf

Rename, Does not follow the naming convention for subcats of Category:2007 in sports. Ian Cairns 07:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and will then match Category:2006 in golf. Tim! 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per WP:MOS, for consistency. Tom e r ^talk 08:25, 14 November 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 section.

Category:Embrace albums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, but given that the category as presently named appears ambiguous, have listed it for renaming to Embrace (U.S. band) albums (to follow Embrace (English band) albums). Hope this okay. David Kernow (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Embrace albums to Category:Embrace (U.S.) albums

There's something fishy about this category, but I'm not sure which of two possibilities it is. If, as per WP:ALBUM practice, and the statement at Category:Albums by artist that "all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded", this is reasonable to have, it should be at "Embrace (U.S.) albums", given the existence of a different band called Embrace (which I'd think was more notable, having a plural number of albums, having existed for more than a year, etc), this is highly ambiguous. If it's not... Alai 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This 1987 release was their only one. A link in the article should be sufficent. We don't need a category for a single album. If kept per the comment in the category then rename to Category:Embrace (American band) albums to match the one for the UK band, Category:Embrace (English band) albums. Vegaswikian 19:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegas. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If the album stays, the category needs to stay. We have many such categories, and removing them disrupts the categorization scheme for albums.--Mike Selinker 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to one of the choices above. Recury 02:52, 14 November 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 section.

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster. the wub "?!" 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, per Categorization of people occupation categories should not indicate "current" or "former" and "alumni" are former. Otto4711 04:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note, the company went bankrupt in 2001 ... there are no current members. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) is a current promotion but I don't claim to know enough about the wrestling promotions to know if the wrestlers in the nominated cat are in that promotion, the defucnt promotion, both, etc. Otto4711 19:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't notice the new one ... In any event, changing the name to roster means both current (if there are any) and former members can be included. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Roster per above, have the category include both current and former ECW wrestlers. (And to answer the above question, the current ECW brand does include some of the wrestlers from the original incarnation, such as Rob Van Dam, Sabu and The Sandman.) Dugwiki 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. As the organisation is defunct the current name is accurate, and "alumni" is version of English neutral, while roster is not. Olborne 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into roster. Valley2city 22:54, 15 November 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 section.

Category:Nagorno Karabakh

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nagorno Karabakh to Category:Nagorno-Karabakh

Per name of the main article, to wit Nagorno-Karabakh. Alai 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Nagorno-Karabakh, which is the correct spelling. Picaroon9288 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This should probably just have been speedied. Tom e r ^talk 08:25, 14 November 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 section.

Category:Old Reigatians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 08:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Reigatians to Category:Reigate Grammar School alumni

Rename from inobvious, likely neologism/vanity term to clear description. Or delete if we don't want to bother with grammar school alumni, I'm quite comfortable either way. Postdlf 03:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now. If alumni ever become a criteria for inclusion of a school this could support keeping the school's article. So for now I'd leave it alone. However if a schools criteria ever comes about and does not include alumni, then we might consider this for deletion.. Vegaswikian 19:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy look-up: Old Reigatians Association was founded 1906; the school 1675. If you change this there's a hundred similar associations to rename - losing their identity in the process. Ian Cairns 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the style used for English schools, like it or not. The proposed replacement name is closer to being a neologism, as it may never have been used in Reigate. Olborne 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is the form used throughout Category:People by schools in England, almost every other category for former students in Category:People by educational institution in England uses "alumni." -choster 01:15, 17 November 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 section.

Category:Encyclopedias by language

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Encyclopedias by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete All contents is actually in the subcategories of category:General encyclopedias,and any attempt at properly separating these would be a hell for too little gain: we'd need to rename them to Fooian general encyclopedias, and then re-create the fooian encyclopedias categories to keep everything separate, and in most cases, there are not enough articles anyway. Circeus 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Hmains 04:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 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 section.

Category:Mathematics, science, and technology encyclopedias

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematics, science, and technology encyclopedias into Category:Encyclopedias on science and mathematics

Merge, Only 2 articles, not consistent with categories in Category:Specialized encyclopedias. Circeus 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, overcat. (Radiant) 13:39, 13 November 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 section.

Category:Anarchist organizations by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anarchist organizations by nationality to Category:Anarchist organizations by country

Rename, to tie in with related categories. Twittenham 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom Hmains 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom Piccadilly 06:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename more to avoid getting into arguments about the meaning of "nationality" which is very different in many cases than simply "by country". Tom e r ^talk 08:27, 14 November 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 section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in comic books

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was nom withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in comic books into Category:Wikipedians interested in comics

Merge, No real definable difference exsists between these two user categories. --mordicai. 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Actually there is a difference. (See Comics naming conventions). "Comics" can include webcomics, comic books, comic strips, and even comics-related media, like animated cartoons. Also note that there are separate WikiProjects related to comics in general, and one for comic strips as well. See also Portal:Comics. - jc37 00:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This seems reasonable, but then, it does seem like the sub-cats should be shuffled. --mordicai. 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to agree with you. I did a bit of a cleanup, and three are now nominated for merging, above. If you'll withdraw this nom, I'll nominate it for merging to Category:Wikipedians who read comic books (Same standard naming as Wikipedians who play games.) - jc37 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Fair enough. I think that makes a great deal of sense. In withdrawing my nom, should I just strike the nomination text, or delete the entry here & tag? --mordicai. 05:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but please do it on the Wikipedia:User categories for discussion page for now.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per jc37. Comic books are a specific form of comics. Postdlf 03:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jc37 - There is a difference between the two. —Cswrye 15:23, 14 November 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 section.