Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 2

< November 1	November 3 >

November 2

Category:Campaigns of the Pacific Coast Theater of the American Civil War

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

empty and useless. Tedernst 23:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

should be ~~Speedy~~ Delete. --Monkbel 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Empty categories are not subject to speedy unless they have been proven empty for 72 hours. Also, listing empty categories may prompt population if they are useful categories. «»Who?¿?^meta 03:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, it seems you're right. Not so speedy... --Monkbel 05:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Battles of the Expedition from Camp Douglas, Utah, to Cache Valley, Idaho of the American Civil War

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 10:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

empty and useless Tedernst 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

should be Speedy Delete. --Monkbel 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:High school dropouts

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is meaningless. There are people listed from the 19th century in a time when education wasn't valued to the extent is is now, like the Wright Brothers. Also, people who never attended formal high school are not included. Different countries and cultures, as well as different periods in history have different standards. Rogerd 23:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. (Edit based on below conversation: Keep and listify.) First: Keep the context of this category in mind at Category:People by educational degree; do you want the "College dropouts" category deleted too, or do you consider that one a different situation?

Second: Of course the function of "high school", and education in general, has changed over time, because everything changes over time. If anything, this category has less variance than most do, since "high school" has only really existed since the early 19th century, so there's infinitely less variance than, say, Category:Assassinated people or [[:Category:African Americans

Third: "in a time when education wasn't valued to the extent is is now"; so what? Plenty of people valued it then, and plenty of people don't value it today. The fact that more people value it today means nothing, and doesn't weaken the category at all. Times change, but over a mere 200 years, in many ways they also stay the same.

Fourth: "Also, people who never attended formal high school are not included." - Of course they're not concluded. Art thou mad? We would have to include everyone in all of human history prior to the early 19th century, and a huge number of people after that! A change like that really would make the category meaningless, contrary to its fairly meaningful status now. And even if we decided to make a category for people from the last century who never attended high school or something, we would certainly not put it in the exact same group as people who attended high school and dropped out; the two concepts are 100% different.

Last: If you think we should be more careful to distinguish between time periods of changing general attitudes towards education, why not suggest an alternative way to categorize people based on their secondary and higher educations, rather than removing valuable information altogether? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with "20th century high school dropouts", "19th century high school dropouts", etc.? I've also been considering various additions to make to the current category system at Category talk:College dropouts, if you want to check out a few. Deletion isn't the answer, though. -Silence 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete. What's next? Elementary school dropouts? Kindergarten dropouts? To be fair, Category:College dropouts should also be listified and deleted. Next, we'll start seeing by grade. Why categorize people by every little nuance? Dropping out of school is not an notable achievement. RedWolf 03:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, something doesn't have to be a "notable achievement" to be worthy of categorization. Are the place or year you were born in or the color of your skin or the name you were given or a medical condition you have "notable achievements"? Categories aren't just for accomplishments or credentials, they're for any important part of a person's life that can easily allow different people to be grouped together in a certain way.

Question: What would be wrong with an elementary school dropout category or list? Slippery slope arguments are more effective when you specify what the problem is with the slope being gone down. :) I've seen plenty of noteworthy people who have dropped out of 8th grade, 7th grade, 6th grade, etc. as an interesting and significant part of their lives, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I can see a couple of disadvantages such a category might have (though they may not outweigh the advantages), but what problem do you have with it?

I also really wish you would explain why you want this put on a list, since that's actually an interesting proposal. Especially since it'll just be put up for VfD again if it becomes listified, because almost every list gets attacked repeatedly by the anti-listites on Wikipedia. :) But what would be the point of the list? Lists are mainly more useful than categories when it's important to specify something about each item listed, but that's more of a big deal with contentious lists or things that need citations, not something as simple as whether you dropped out of a school. If you imagine that such a list would have details such as the school the person attended, why he dropped out, when he lived, etc., then I'd be perfectly fine with such a move (though I don't see the point of eliminating the category, whether we add a list or not; the category has the advantage of providing a link from each individual's page with which interested parties might see other dropouts, whereas the list has the advantage of being more centralized and observable to be careful that noone gets added or removed without permission (which is easier to prevent from happening when you have, say, a list to compare the category to and see the discrepencies :)), so having both would get the best of each world, as far as I can see), I'm just confused as to why you want a list. You act like your suggestions are obvious, pure common sense, and thus don't explain your motivations or what problems you really have with the current situation. If you think that we shouldn't be categorizing people by every little nuance (under the assumption that dropping out of college or high school is a "nuance"), then why do you think we should be listing people by every little nuance? Doesn't that raise all the same problems, and then some? Still, an interesting recommendation. -Silence 13:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, dropping out of high school is a very significant event in someone's life, and users should be able to find people who did this but still achieved fame or notoriety. Kappa 15:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. Useful for readers who are looking for famous and/or successful people who dropped out secondary school. — Insta ntnood 20:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "High school dropout" is not a universally used expression. To me as a Briton it sounds specifically American, although it may be used in other countries / dialects of English as well. It is certainly not regularly used in the UK where it is basically impossible to drop out of school or fail to graduate high school in the American sense (and indeed the term high school is not universally used in the UK). People currently in the category - e.g. Cary Grant, John Major who did not attend school in the US (or other countries were the term has meaning) should therefore not be included under this label. Alternatively the category should be renamed Category:People who did not complete secondary education (or similar) so that it can be applied more internationally. (In fact I'm removing John Major from this cat now as he left school at 16 with 3 O-levels. 16 is the normal school leaving age in the UK!). Valiantis 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd already been considering replacing "high school" with "secondary school" for more universality, and thus more usefulness. What do you think of "Secondary school dropouts"? The reason I'm reluctant to remove "dropout" altogether is because there's no appropriate synonym that wouldn't double the length and complexity of the list; I care less about whether the phrasing sounds too "American" than about whether the phrasing is clear and easy to understand. -Silence 14:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible to drop out of secondary school in all countries. This will only be possible in those countries were there is a definitive final qualification for completing a period of secondary education, but where it is legally possible to leave school prior to completion of the period. In England and Wales (for example) this is not possible (one can remain in secondary education until 18 (or older) but one can leave at 16 - there is no single leaving certificate, but a range of exams taken at both 16 and 18. In the event that a person stays to 16 - the earliest legal age to cease education - then even if he fails to pass a single exam, he would not be referred to as a "drop out"). Also, I have always understood the term "drop out" to refer to people who have voluntarily left education. The cat appears to include people who were expelled too. This may be my cultural ignorance. Valiantis 14:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ambigious name, questionale usefulness--nixie 23:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's ambiguous about it, specifically? -Silence 14:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could just possibly be tolerable as a list. I would also like to see the useless Category:People by educational degree and all its subcategories deleted. Uppland 14:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a tad extreme. What wouldn't you like to see deleted? "Educational degree" is a much more valuable category than hundreds of others. What about Category:People by educational institution? -Silence 14:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the Category:People by educational institution, but prefer lists for that (some academics have affiliations with a dozen institutions or more). But Category:Doctoral degree holders, for instance, is unmaintainable. If complete, it would actually include practically all bios of modern academics of all nationalities and all academic disciplines, as well as quite a few other people. Right now the category has only eight names, including two porn stars. Uppland 15:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kappa and Instantnood. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 18:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and list. Many parts of the world do not have "high school", and many areas that do have high school did not in the modern past. Even with a change of terminology, this is not an important enough feature to categorize by. It's interesting information, and can be preserved in a list with creating clutter. siafu 21:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, there's clearly a lot of support for turning this category into a list, significantly more than for deleting it altogether (thus far only Rogerd and nixie have voted for just "Delete" without acknowledging listifying as a possibility; RedWolf, myself, siafu, and to a lesser extent Uppland are interested in the possibility of having a list; and Kappa, Instantnood, Taco Deposit, and myself would like to see the category survive, though if the list is a success I may change my vote), so I've started working on a possible list the category could be moved to (or replicated at, if the category survives; so far, at 4 keep votes and 5 delete votes—if you count Rogerd's nomination as a vote—it's too soon to tell if a consensus will be reached), since we should probably come to an agreement on what sort of list we should have if we're going to create one for this topic. So, check out the current prototype at User:Silence/Dropout and tell me what you think, and feel free to edit it at will if you see any way it can be improved. I'll put it on Wikipedia if y'all like it (or once we decide on a version we like), and then we can do the exact same thing with the "College dropouts" category. Incidentally, the page names I'm currently considering are List of secondary school dropouts and List of college dropouts; I know "dropouts" may not be the perfect, PC, sterile, global word, but sadly, there aren't always perfect, PC, sterile, global words available that convey the right meaning succintly, and "dropout" certainly does the job. -Silence 04:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should call the list List of high school dropouts (hey, that already exists! and incorrectly includes numerous Brits...) and specify it refers to American high school drop outs only (or Canadian etc. as well if that is culturally meaningful), rather than attempting to get a global consensus for a concept that does not exist globally. Valiantis 14:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But why exclude valuable information on countless people who are famous for dropping out at some point or another, like Albert Einstein, just based on nationality? The fact is, that while the names may vary from place to place, and the specifics certainly change, the concepts in many countries are quite similar! If they weren't, would we have "secondary school" be a redirect to high school? In fact, a better argument, in my view, for having the article at list of high school dropouts instead of list of secondary school dropouts is that it would be consistent with treating "secondary school" and "high school" as more or less synonymous (and they are quite interchangeable in a global sense, you must admit) and thus going with the one that gets the more Google hits, high school—which is, if I'm not mistaken, exactly what was done with the high school article! But I decided, just this once, to not be totally consistent with the "high school" article terminology for the sake of political correctness and technical accuracy, even though I'm the last one to go to any great lengths to be unnecessarily PC or fixated on terminology. But yeah, why not list secondary/high schools in other countries, where they're pretty clearly a good equivalent for the American institution in terms of age group, etc.? Plus if we did only list one country's dropouts on a "List of high school dropouts", then the list would just be accused of being American-centric due to not having equivalent lists for anyone from other countries, as though saying that only American dropouts are important!

Perhaps I am being unclear as you appear to be missing my point. I don't have a strong preference as to whether the term is high school or secondary school (as an aside, high school is used locally in some parts of the UK). My point is about the term "drop out" - this is a culturally specfic term. I'm quite happy for there to be a list or a cat of high school drop outs which could be used where "dropping out" is something a pupil can do in a given country, but I see no point in trying to rename the cat or list to be global as dropping out of secondary education is not a global activity. (Again as an aside, one can drop out of university or college in the UK as attendance is voluntary) Valiantis 13:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that list of high school dropouts.. that is interesting. I'm extremely surprised that I've never noticed it before; must be because it's not a category, and thus is linked to on very few pages—confusingly, it's linked to from college dropout but not from dropout, secondary education but not high school! Very silly stuff. It's clearly not nearly as beautifully implemented format-wise as my User:Silence/Dropout list, though it's length is impressive. Fufufu. If we've pretty much got a consensus for having a list page, then, I guess the next question is whether to have the list at list of secondary school dropouts or list of high school dropouts, or somewhere else..? Since that page already exists, I guess I'll move my content there for now so we can simply decide whether to move that page or keep it where it is. -Silence 00:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*See also Category:Autodidacts for similar scenario. I'm frankly to naive to wikiways to comment on list vs category debate. The Autodidacts category as well as this category both make for interesting material, however. I'm not sure that a list would provide the same effect as would somebody not need to be able to find the list (as opposed to just stumbling upon the category at the bottom of an article). This could be a significant concern as many important discoveries are accidental...—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep and simply make sure the list is kept in context. Joan of Arc was listed on the Category:Wrongfully convicted people until I removed her (leaving a note on her talk page, why it wasn't contextual) Sherurcij 01:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Music by nation to Category:Music by nationality

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 12:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And also

Category:Heavy metal by nation → Category:Heavy metal by nationality

Category:Hip hop by nation → Category:Hip hop by nationality

Category:Folk music by nation → Category:Folk music by nationality

Category:Classical music by nation → Category:Classical music by nationality

Category:Opera by nation → Category:Opera by nationality

Category:Jazz by nation → Category:Jazz by nationality

Category:Rock music by nation → Category:Rock music by nationality

"by nation" is an oddball; all other cultural categories use "by nationality" in category names. -The Tom 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support renames. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all --Monkbel 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:_____ by country. Category:Film, e.g., uses Category:Films by country, not nation *or* nationality. 12.73.194.215 01:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Film is one of a few residual non-standard ones, it's up for relocation shortly, too. I'm trying to keep the flow reasonable. -The Tom 19:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Music, especially folk, traditional and classical, is deep rooted within different cultures. Films can be classified by places of production, or background or funding of the production companies. — Insta ntnood 10:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jersey City

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 10:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicate of Category:Jersey City, New Jersey --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 16:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Passic County, New Jersey

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typo duplicate of Category:Passaic County, New Jersey --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Communication theories to Category:Communication theory

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge duplicative categories. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Executed revolutionaries to Category:Revolutionaries

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge with revolutionaries, although they should be added to Category:Executed people (unless people think that cat should be deleted). Arniep 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

note it's parent category, Category:Murdered revolutionaries was nominated yesterday. Arniep 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no arguments in support of merging. --Monkbel 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Excessive categorization; trivia: what next, Category:Suicided revolutionaries, Category:Fatal heart-attacked revolutionaries, Category:Pneumonified revolutionaries, Category:Paretic revolutionaries, ad nauseum?
Keep. Group these people under one category rather than two categories. — Instantnood 20:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The way I work out whether categories are sensible is if anyone is likely have a school assignment on a category. I can see students being set an assignment on revolutionaries, but just executed revolutionaries...imo no. It is pretty obvious that being a revolutionary is risky, and that many revolutionaries would have been killed in some way. Arniep 00:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guess executed ones are much more notable than heart-attacked or pneumonified. Execution is not like simply being killed by their opponent(s). — Instantnood 10:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Was Trotsky executed or Assassinated? Do we include people executed by their own side (Robespierre) or only those executed by their opponents, wait! perhaps we could divide it into 2 more categories (see ...). Arniep 14:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Current form will lead to endless disputes on POV as outlined by Arniep. Valiantis 14:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This really isn't any less POV than "Murdered", and differs from other people categories in seperating live from dead and by type of death. siafu 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish American actors

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over-categorization and a bad precedent; the possibilities for similar sub-cats are endless, Italian-American actors, German-American actors, British actors of Irish origin, Jewish Australian actors etc. JW 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American actors, if we are to be consistent. Arniep 15:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. Many are already categorised under "American actors" as well, but a merge would ensure none are left behind. JW 11:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. Over-categorization. RedWolf 03:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One's ethnic and cultural background is of encyclopædic interests. If this is voted to be deleted, make sure they're all categorised under category:American actors and category:Jewish Americans, and the existing category is converted into a list. — Insta ntnood 20:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (modified 08:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. It s well-populated and refines overpopulated American actors and Jewish Americans cats -Mayumashu 19:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it's not being used to refine those categories. As I said before, it's being used in addition to those categories, so people are appearing in "American actors", "Jewish Americans" and "Jewish American actors". JW 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of that was my own over-zealous categorising, before I fully understood super- and sub- categories. I undid most of my redundant categorisation recently, and will pick it up again if this category survives the vote. RMoloney (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Mayumashu. RMoloney (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2005 (UT

comment I really think this should be deleted as many people in it have only one parent (in some cases one grandparent) who was jewish, do not even identify themselves as Jewish American and are in other (ethnicity)-American categories. Arniep 00:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shalom! - Darwinek 13:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if this category is to be kept I am moving out anyone who has not been shown to describe themselves as jewish, otherwise it is totally unencyclopedic. Arniep 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will move the above people to category people of jewish descent which will be much more accurate. We cannot call people xxx american if they do not describe themselves as such. Arniep 15:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't categorize Chris Rock as a black person if he doesn't call himself a black person! In fact, I hear the other day he called himself a white guy, let's move him there!" -Silence 18:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People may be of mixed ancestry, part jewish, part something else, we can't apply an xxx-American label to them just because they have a forebear who identified as xxx unless we know for certain they identify as that, i.e. Robert De Niro identifies as Italian American but he only has one grandparent who is Italian. He also has German and Irish grandparents but does not identify wih those ethnicities. Arniep 22:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It s a good point that s raised. i m in favour of keeping the cat (i voted above) but the De Niro case points out how subjective this whole procedure is. enough people want these ethnicity cats that they have to remain. with them i m in favour of allowing anyone on the list with partial ethnicity despite how they themselves publically portray their ethnicity (for whatever reasons). i d have De Niro in all three lists, which makes them in them very long and not very useful, which emphasizes the point for not having them. -Mayumashu 11:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one more point - i thought Jewishness is passed strictly from one's mother - if you mom's Jewish, you must be Jewish (regardless of the origin's of your dad). or is that the case just if the non-Jewish father converts to Jewish faith? - Mayumashu 11:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment People are being included in Jewish American categories who are not just jewish in a religious sense, so, even if only their father or grandfather was jewish they are being added to this category. It just seems totally non sensical to have people described as jewish american actors if they do not identify as jewish and are also of mixed ancestry like Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Michael Douglas, people like these should be in a category like Americans with Jewish ancestry to avoid these sorts of labelling problems, the same goes for all the other ethnicity categories. Arniep 12:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell (who's done a lot of work on ethnicity categorisation) made the point on User talk:Arniep#Jewish American actors that ethnicity categories generally apply a 1/4 rule, so one "fully" Jewish grandparent makes one categorisable as ethnically Jewish. In my view that is the most NPOV criterion to apply. RMoloney (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree with CalJW, the point is we shouldn't mix nationality with profession with ethnicity, otherwise for people of mixed ethnicity they will end up in multiple mixed profession/ethnicity categories, i.e. an actor and director who is half French and half jewish and will end up in Jewish American film directors, French American film directors, Jewish American actors, French American actors which would obviously be ridiculous. And don't even think about someone who was half French born in Italy who became a U.S. citizen. Arniep 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. They are American actors. Their Jewishness is incidental in this context. CalJW 12:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Overcategorisation. As this is a subcat of category:American actors and category:Jewish Americans it means that those articles in this cat should - by the rules of categorising - not also be included in either of those cats. We categorise by nationality and occupation (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)) if we try and add an additional level within each of those hierarchies we lose the coherence of the overall cat. By the general rules, Richard Dreyfuss (for example) should only be in this cat, not also in the American actors cat and the Jewish Americans cat - this is patently ridiculous. This is not a comment on the desirability of such a cat (I have an opinion, but that is not relevant here) merely on how the existence of such a cat interferes with the cat structure. Valiantis 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please mayumashu is right Yuckfoo 01:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm what you think mayumashu is right about (they have made many different comments)? Arniep 14:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Valiantis. This category is actually two (2) categories, and I don't see why the overlap between them is so important. Ashibaka (tock) 23:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it is sufficient to put Jewish American actors into the two existing categories of American actors and Jewish Americans. 66.167.253.200 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Merge I've already expressed the opinion that a category combining ethnic or other minority status with occupation should exist only when that combination is itself a particular phenomenon of specific and encyclopedic interest. Gay literature, for example, is a specific literary subgenre in its own right, so a gay writers category is valid and appropriate. African American music is a specific cultural phenomenon with a distinct and identifiable history, so an African American musicians category is valid. Such a category should not exist, however, just to group people who happen to simultaneously belong to two categories that don't combine to create a unique and specific cultural context: "Gay linguists" would be an invalid category, because there's no identifiable phenomenon of gay linguistics that's distinguishable in any meaningful way from the mainstream version. "African American economists" would be inappropriate, since there's no distinct field of African American economics.

"Jewish American actors" has to be considered one of the latter kind: actors who are Jewish don't exist in a distinct culture of Jewish stage, film and television — they're just regular actors who happen to also be Jewish. Accordingly, I have to vote to merge this back up to the parent cats. Separate filing in American actors and Jewish Americans serves the purpose more appropriately. Bearcat 02:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge this back into both American actors and Jewish Americans.Vulturell 06:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge this back into both American actors and Jewish Americans. (echoing Vulturell). One trouble with these ethnic/national occupation categories is that unless you already know the ethnicity of an actor (for example), you can't easily navigate to them. As far as over-populated categories go, I don't mind having to go a few pages to find something alphabetically. I know that Paul Newman's last name start with an "N", whereas I have no idea what his ethnicity is. Willmcw 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment everyone suggesting a merge or a delete is aware that there are a lot of other cats in existence on the basis of the exact same criteria - ethnicity plus occupation. to be consistent we also have to be willing to delete Category:African American athletes and Category:Irish-American politicians. are you? -Mayumashu 03:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. They would all have to be merged since there is really no specific cultural industry of Irish American Politicians, unlike African American Musicians. Also, people like Pat Buchanan are in that Irish politicians category, despite being only 1/4 Irish - which is fine for "Irish Americans", but the extra profession at the end repeats the problem of "Jewish American actors".Vulturell 08:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Washington Metro stops to Category:Washington Metro stations

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This renaming will correct the category name to more properly reflect what the contents of the category are. This category holds the articles for Washington Metro stations, and should be named as such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. --Monkbel 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:Washington, D.C., subway stations and standardize as such for all other subway listings. Not all subways are called "Metro"; this is mixed corporate name and slanguage. 12.73.194.215 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, not all subways are called "Metro", but in this case, the intent of the name is the stations of the "Washington Metro". In other words, "Metro" is being used as part of the title of the system, and not as a generic term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 21:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Football culture to Category:Football (soccer) culture

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most soccer related cats (which apply worldwide, not to the specific countries) have Football (soccer) in their names to decrease ambiguity. The same question about Category:Soccer computer games, Category:Football songs and chants, Category:Footballers by club (Category:Football (soccer) players by club?).

Rename to maintain one common style. Monkbel 11:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The fact is that the sport is known by different names in different places, and simialrly that the word football refers to different sports in different places. Not everyone likes this, but it is the way it is. This suggestions will decrease ambiguity and increase effecient searching for information. Cheers, --Daveb 23:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Xian rugby league

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Change format to Rugby league in X, this seem to be more consistent with current wiki policy. The affected categories are:

Grinner 10:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support all. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:British rugby league should probably be renamed Category:Rugby league in Great Britain instead, as the UK does not ever operate as a unit in the rugby world—Northern Ireland has always had an integrated rugby system with the Republic. Other than this minor catch, rename all -The Tom 06:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, with Tom's note. --Monkbel 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Tom is correct re GB. Grinner 10:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed, but ignoring Tom's suggesting. He is factually correct, but the variant name will not be helpful. It assumes that people know that the Irish category is elsewhere. Coverage of rugby league in Ireland belongs here just as legitimately as in a Republic of Ireland category. One should be able to reach all articles about a sport in the UK via the main UK category. CalJW 19:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I withdraw my above comment. The other UK sports are done this way (see Category:Sport_in_the_United_Kingdom so consistency should rule. Grinner 10:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a rugby league in Xian? siafu 21:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just got that. Good one! --Kbdank71 16:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities on U.S. Highway 66

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Communities on U.S. Highway 66. "City" is a legal designation for a particular class of municipality in the United States, and this category by its description and contents includes communities of all sorts whether incorporated or not (and limiting it to literal cities just to conform to its current name would be silly). I honestly don't see much value in the category under any name, but as long as someone can promise that this type of category is only going to be used for such culturally significant roads, I won't suggest deleting it outright. Postdlf 01:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No offense, but it seems to me pedantic to rename the category for this reason. Common usage of "cities" includes communities that aren't officially incorporated municipalities. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedantic? Perhaps. But accurate, and in line with our category system for American communities that maintains separate categories for different classes of municipalities, CDPs, and other unincorporated communities. That the public commonly uses a term imprecisely is no argument for us to do the same, particularly when state law and the local governments themselves observe the difference. And particularly when a simple one-word change would make the category name consistent with both the common and the "pedantic" meanings and avoid any ambiguity. Postdlf 18:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Pedantry is important in encyclopedic writing. I'm sure that many (most?) of the settlements in the category are not commonly called cities. Grinner 16:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I have to agree with postdlf — I shudder to think of the notion of every highway having such a category, although Route 66 probably should have one since the song lists some of them in the lyrics anyway. Bearcat 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The word "city" has multiple meanings. (It was exactly for the same reason I have been getting into trouble with another user over whether some certain places are cities.) — Insta ntnood 20:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 21:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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