Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 22

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. ∞Who?¿? 06:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-standard category which was abandoned some time ago. There was nothing in it more recent than June when I found it. The articles are now being placed in Category:Years in the United Kingdom and its subcategories, which belongs to category:Years by country, which has 18 national subcategories. I have transferred the articles which hadn't already been dealt with. Delete CalJW 23:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bhoeble 17:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as absurdly overbroad. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Reinyday, 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete JobE6

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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 07:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the subcategories of category:British people by occupation are in the form "British Xers" (apart from the four national categories and the special case of category:Administrators in British India, which contains the word British in any case). I didn't spot this anomaly earlier because it is a subcategory of category:British legal professionals. Rename category:British barristers. CalJW 23:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 16:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 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.

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 14:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was up for renaming before when it was called something like Buildings/monuments for American Presidents. Surely this absurd amendment is a processing error. Rename category:Buildings and monuments honoring American Presidents. CalJW 22:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something more specific (as per nom). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed, but we'll probably want the parent category too. James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean category:Buildings and monuments honoring presidents? I doubt any other country has more than one or two relevant articles, and can go in category:monuments, so it is not a priority. CalJW 18:49, 25 September 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.

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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 06:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be just Category:Playwrights? As our article makes clear dramatist is either a synonym for or a subset of playwright. No other category, to my knowledge, has such a double name. We don't have Category:Authors and writers or Category:Actors and thespians, we simply have Category:Writers and Category:Actors. This is proper, as category names should not be longer than they need be, and they should also follow common usage. - SimonP 21:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This was all decided long ago. If we have categories for playwrights, we will also get categories for dramatists and the usage of them will be completely random. The categorisation system is a navigation tool and the way we do things is the only effective option. CalJW 21:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  If we worry about a category for Dramatists being created, why don't we do what we do with Category:Authors, which is a soft redirect to Category:Writers? Also the current system causes the double problem of articles being added to both Category:Playwrights and Category:Dramatists on a regular basis. - SimonP 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Many people, me included, prefer the term dramatists, but there is no need to give primacy to either term. Also your proposal would transfer the hassle from editors (relatively very few) to readers (relatively very many). CalJW 23:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer Category:Colour, but I would consider a Category:Color or Colour to be ridiculous. With every other category Wikipedia picks only one usage, why should this be the one exception? Also how would this proposal inconvenience readers? It takes just as much time to click on the playwrights link as it does to click on the playwrights and dramatists one. - SimonP 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not spending any more time on this discussion as I prefer to concentrate on aspects of the categorisation system which haven't been resolved to general satisfaction already.CalJW 23:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bhoeble 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Osomec 15:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the current wording is a bridging term. James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 06:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is superfluous as category:London is throughly subdivided by subject area and by location based on the London boroughs (see category:Districts of London) without it. The West End is not and has never been an official subdivision of London. There are at least three major definitions of the term (for retailing, for entertainment and for general socio-economic purposes) which are all quite different and all lack fixed boundaries (see West End of London). The widest definition of the West End covers perhaps twenty times as much ground as the narrowest. If everything which could be added to this category was added to it, it would contain closer to a thousand articles than the current 30. Category:Westminster more or less covers the two narrower meanings of West End. The articles are mostly in two other London categories each. Finally, it is not in regular use, having hardly grown in the last six months. Delete. CalJW 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've considered nominating this before. The reasons stated above are accurate. Mrsteviec 21:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'd been considering it too. James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 07:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this category is not helpful. All notable canadian mathematicians should already be in Category:Canadian mathematicians. All Canadian math professors who are not notable mathematicians, probably do not deserve to be listed on Wikipedia (as for example, high school teachers or community college professors). Oleg Alexandrov 21:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oleg Alexandrov 21:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant. siafu 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Reinyday, 05:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Osomec 15:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though, erm, does "professor" really apply to low-level academics and even school teachers in Canada? Gosh. James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bhoeble 21:13, 28 September 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.

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 Category:British professional bodies. ∞Who?¿? 06:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal this one, but I don't think this is quite the ideal name. It blurs slightly and unnecessarily with category:Learned societies, which is related but not the same thing. I believe renaming to Category:British professional bodies is the most standard term in British English and the main article is already called List of British professional bodies. CalJW 19:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can only really speak to American English, where "professional societies" is slightly better sounding than "professional bodies". How about a redirect from Category:British professional bodies to the existing one? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • American and British English have equal status in Wikipedia and this should not be ignored when voting. CalJW 00:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed; "professional bodies" is the standard term in British English (or, certainly, in my useage of it). James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, reguardless of the dialect, the main article is bodies, category should match main article. ∞Who?¿? 07:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as requested. Carina22 18:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated. Osomec 20:37, 28 September 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.

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 Speedy deleted see log. ∞Who?¿? 05:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misspelling of county name. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What's the proper spelling? This, btw, is a good candidate for a speedy. siafu 18:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  There are two existing categories: this misspelled one up for cfd and the correct one, Category:DeSoto County, Mississippi. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. -- Reinyday, 05:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as unnecessary duplication of existing properly-named category. Bearcat 00:38, 24 September 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.

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 (no change) --Kbdank71 14:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent renaming of category:American poets, let's continue the quest for consistency and prevalent usage. This category is inconsistent with its parent category:American writers, its grandparent category:American people by occupation, its great grandparent category:American people, most of the other American writer categories and most of the other American occupational categories. Rename category:American dramatists and playwrights. CalJW 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, new title is better. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to simply Category:American playwrights per above. - SimonP 22:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  See above. That would be a breach of a well established policy and would return this area of the categorisation system to the chaos it was before. I note however that this is a vote in favour of using American rather than U.S. CalJW 23:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually it bring the article in line with the near universal standard of only using one name. - SimonP 23:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Everyone seems to appreciate the importance of this exception except you. CalJW 02:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per original proposal. Bhoeble 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. To many people, American includes the whole of the Americas. CDThieme 19:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:American dramatists and playwrights. In standard English usage American means "from the United States". I never hear it used in any other way. Osomec 15:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the poets one, I dislike "American" to mean USA only, especially in categories and article names (in an article body the context can be clear). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Dramatists and playwrights of the United States" or similar. James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The alternate proposal by James F., or Category:United States playwrights are fine. Jonathunder 07:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to standard category:American dramatists and playwrights as requested. Carina22 18:05, 27 September 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.

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 (no change) --Kbdank71 14:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a standout non-standard item in Category:Military people by nation, very likely because it was created before a standard was created (there is also a people/personnel issue, but let's leave that for another time or this debate will become a muddle). "Military people/personnel" is preferable because it does not rule out pre-indepdence soldiers, irregular soldiers, volunteers who fought in foreign forces and the like. The sub-categories deal with strict membership of the specific forces. Rename Category:American military personnel. CalJW 18:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, for consistency. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Bhoeble 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose. To many people, American includes the whole of the Americas. CDThieme 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States military personnel - per CDThieme's valid objection. CDC (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Said objection does not indicate why this should be chosen over Category:Military personnel of the United States. siafu 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, consistency. ∞Who?¿? 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American military personnel. This is what American actually means in English. Osomec 15:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "United States military personnel" or "Military personnel of the United States". James F. (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The alternate suggestions of James F. are fine. Jonathunder 07:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American military personnel. "United States" is inappropriate because it should not just be for members of the official armed forces, which that would imply. Carina22 18:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per James F. --Kbdank71 14:26, 29 September 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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Previously listed on votes for deletion and delisted on grounds it should be here instead, but apparently it was not relisted. Delete CalJW 17:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is another category that would be rather massive if populated. siafu 18:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (Disclosure: I am the person who created the category in the first place.) It is empty only because the person who originally suggested it be deleted did not follow proper procedure, and emptied the articles that had been added before going on to file the request for deletion in the wrong place (I will be glad to repopulate it when and if the axe passes from over its head). As for size if populated, compare the size if fully populated of Category:Teetotalers, Category:Ancient Greeks, and Category:American people (note that Category:American slaveholders is a proper subset of the last). As usual, if the category becomes so populous as to be unwieldy, the solution is to create sub-categories (e.g. by geographical region, by epoch, etc.) to ease the burden on the main category. Radgeek 03:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perjorative and uninformative. If we know that someone is a prominent white pre-Civil War southerner we don't need a category to tell us that they owned slaves. This category serves no purpose other than to rub in the modern deprecation of this status. category:Teetotalers should probably be deleted too. Category Category:Ancient Greeks and Category:American people are not properly comparable to this one.Osomec 15:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To Osomec: well... prominent, white, southern, male, and rich. Not quite 100% even with those, but pretty close; and pretty close to 0% if any adjective doesn't hold (in the USA, that is). I think despite the fact it meets WP:V and WP:NPOV, it still amounts to "commentary by categorization". More interesting would be the (almost) inverse set, something like Category:Southern US abolitionists. It gets closer to why John Brown (abolitionist) is notable, or even secondarily Paul Morphy, for example Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: 'I think despite the fact it meets WP:V and WP:NPOV, it still amounts to "commentary by categorization".' Do you have the same objection to Category:Gangsters? Radgeek 05:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm OK with gangsters as a category. It's somewhat of a question of the intrinsic notability of the fact. Most people aren't gangster, nor are most, e.g. Italian Americans (nor even NYC Italian Americans who are notable). And in fact, even most antebellum southern white men weren't slave owners either (most were poor); but an awfully large percentage of those who are notable (which for better or worse, usually means "rich") were slave owners. Those that were rich but were not slave owners are basically "abolitionists." I would not object to a fact related to this was itself notable; for example: Category:North American owners of more than 100 slaves. The fact that George Washington did not only own slaves, but owned a huge number of slaves is notable. I guess the fact that some supposed abolitionists also owned slaves, even a small number, is notable too. But not really the fact that a antebellum rich southern white man owned four slaves (yes, it's disgusting, but that's not the same as notable). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete cause for speculation and unverifiable, also I do not see cats for other countries that started the Triangle slave trade, which the Americas weren't even a part of. Unless I missed them somewhere. ∞Who?¿? 17:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Titles to slaves were matters of public legal record, and are quite easily verifiable. Concerning other groups of people involved in the slave-trade, if you want to start Category:British slave-traders or something of the sort you're free to do that as well. I'm unclear on why this is supposed to be an objection. Radgeek 05:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename at the very least to de-capitalise the second word, and possibly rename to "Slaveowners of North America"; I'm not sure that it's necessarily perjorative, nor that it would be "unverifiable" - indeed, as slaves were property, owning them would be relatively well-documented. Part of a system of such. Not sure. James F. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Some people had slaves before 1865 in America, and this is simply a fact which doesn't necessarily imply a judgement on those who had them Aldux 13:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think anyone will put an article in this category unless they are feeling judgemental. Carina22 18:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Empty and biased. Bhoeble 21:12, 28 September 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.

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, list already exists. ∞Who?¿? 05:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categorization asks that "Categories ... be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article." I don't think it is useful to someone reading about Giuseppe Garibaldi to know that someone has named an asteroid in his honor. In addition, I believe that asteroid naming is not a major topic at all. It may have been major in the days when only a few score asteroids were known, but at present there are tens of thousands of asteroids waiting for names. If I wanted to get an asteroid named after Wikipedia, I probably could. --Smack (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is similar to the cat on corporations with ballparks named after them. Having an asteroid named after you does not connect you in any other way to the asteroids, or astronomy in general. (So, when is U2005WIKIPEDIA going to be named?) siafu 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Otherwise, we'll have to have all the numbers (not to mention letters) after which asteroids have been named. WP:NOT Sesame Street. -Splash^talk 12:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Category is expressly limited to eponyms that are historic people, not numbers; not, above all, mythological figures or corprotations. Septentrionalis 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You can have a star named after yourself or a place on the moon, too!!  ;-) Obviously, Haley's comet and the like are notable bodies that should be detailed within their respective articles—I wouldn't want to see Category:Comet eponyms. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 12:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can see the value in having categories for the asteroid articles such as Category:Eponymous asteroids, but not categories for the articles of the people they are named after. Caerwine 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the wrong way of dealing with the problem. The existence of the asteroid will be interesting in some articles on asteroid eponyms, including those of astronomers. In such cases, it should also be in the cat. If you feel that 4317 Garibaldi is boring, fine: remove it from Giuseppe Garibaldi, and remove the cat, as unsupported, from that article.. I will go do so. Septentrionalis 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Any scientist who has an asteroid can link to the asteroid directly. The additional benefit of a cat is trivial. If we have a category, unless we meticulously tailor the name, we're asking for trouble. Some eager beaver will go to List of asteroids, look up the namesakes of every asteroid he can find, and add them to the cat. --Smack (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although I feel that some asteroid names are important, I feel that the list is more sutied for such. There are 1000's of names and only a few articles, and as mentioned above, the biography article can have that info listed and a link to the list. ∞Who?¿? 03:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a list would be more suitable, indeed. James F. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 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.

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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most music singles now have videos. If this category and its subcategories were fully populated they would be almost identical to Category:Singles and its subcategories. In fact, Category:Madonna videos is already almost identical to Category:Madonna singles. If anything it would be more useful to have a category for singles without videos. Moochocoogle 00:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is confusion as to what should be in these categories. Category:Duran Duran videos seems to contain articles on video albums. --Moochocoogle 00:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please tag all the sub-cats effected with the appropriate tags, {{cfdu}} or {{cfru}}, or they will not be affected by this discussion. ∞Who?¿? 02:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Most music singles do NOT have music videos; only those for bands popular with MTV/VH1/FUSE/etc. generally do. siafu 12:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, only major singles get videos (though there are now rather a lot of them due to the broadening of the music market), but it would only be appropriate to add this to articles about singles which mentioned the video with at least some significance (who directed it, where it was shot, what it involved, etc.). James F. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems like a useful cat. Also is a parent cat, or should be of other music vid cats. ∞Who?¿? 07:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Carina22 18:13, 27 September 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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is this category for? ≈ jossi ≈ 00:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Astronauts and cosmonauts?) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  how about Astronomers and Astrophysicists as well Arnie587 15:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep great work 3 so far :D Arnie587 00:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Four articles is insufficient for a category, even if it does sound like something that should be on the muppet show (JEWS! IN! SPAAAAAAACE!). siafu 12:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the muppets... it's a Mel Brooks skit, from the end of History of the World.

  I was thinking of the Muppets skit "Pigs in Space" featuring Miss Piggy. But that too. siafu 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I wanted to do that, but figured it would make people mad :) But I thought of muppets and not Mel Brooks, but I would think it would go more with Spaceballs and the "Druish princess". Oh yea, delete. ∞Who?¿? 01:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Will it be obvious why the article is in the category? Yes. Can it likely be expanded to more than a few articles? Yes. Can a few paragraphs be written about the topic? Probably, yes.Delete, overcategorization, and transitorily named. -Splash^talk 12:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What are those medieval rabbis doing in this category? Anyway, no point in such a category, so delete. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 04:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same story as the scientists one below. Wrong wording.

Arnie587 (who created the category) improperly changed the target of the renaming while the vote is in progrerss (in good faith, just as a new user who isn't familiar with Cfr's). I had proposed Category:Jewish musicians, composers and conductors. I'm fine with his new suggestion (and its narrower scope), but other prior voters might want to make sure they concur. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC). In truth, I would rather simply delete categories like this since they always mix up people who are "Jewish" in a variety of different senses: religious belief, matrilineality, culturally, "racially", victims of anti-semitism. But at the least, the name should be less awkward sounding.[reply]
• Rename I considered a similar category that you have suggested but isn't it best to keep the categories nice and short? Arnie587 00:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. ∞Who?¿? 03:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Osomec 15:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed (either form). James F. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Jewish classical musicians Carina22 18:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. siafu 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The below voters voted on the prior proposed renaming (see comment at top). Voter who feel the same on the modified proposed renaming should move their votes above the line.

• Keep I prefer the slight vagueness of this title. Otherwise, we get arguments about whether singers, arrangers, etc should come in this category. RachelBrown 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, though I'd go for the serial comma. siafu 12:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Siafu can have his serial comma if he must. -Splash^talk 12:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:Jewish musicians and make the others subcategories. The proposal is like category:English footballers, strikers and goalkeepers. Osomec 16:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Support new proposal as above. Osomec 15:21, 24 September 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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 01:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same story as the scientists one below. Wrong wording.

• Rename - Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC). In truth, I would rather simply delete categories like this since they always mix up people who are "Jewish" in a variety of different senses: religious belief, matrilineality, culturally, "racially", victims of anti-semitism. But at the least, the name should be less awkward sounding.[reply]
• Keep please see my comment below for the Science category, also I think it's OK to list people of jewish descent in specific fields just as it is OK to list any other nationality i.e. French Artists, Italian opera singers, Italian Americans etc. Arnie587 00:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The rename suggestion isn't about whether it's OK to list people of Jewish descent who do certain occupations. It's just a suggestion to use a verbal form consistent with other categories (just like all those you mention above). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 12:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -Splash^talk 12:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 12:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 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.

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. ∞Who?¿? 01:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old name is ugly sounding and inconsistent with other similar categories, e.g. Category:Swedish scientists Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• RenameMerge (I see now that the new cat already exists) - Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC). In truth, I would rather simply delete categories like this since they always mix up people who are "Jewish" in a variety of different senses: religious belief, matrilineality, culturally, "racially", victims of anti-semitism. But at the least, the name should be less awkward sounding.[reply]
• Keep I was hoping to transfer some of the lists at List of Jews into categories so you can actually see their inclusion on the linked pages I have started: Category:Jews in music Category:Jews in the visual arts and this one, I was hoping to keep to the Jews in... format, i.e. Jews in theatre, Jews in politics, Jews in sport, Jews in cinema maybe there is an easier way to transfer these lists to categories? comments appreciated Arnie587 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Lulu. Fooian Fooers. siafu 12:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. -Splash^talk 12:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nom. Need consistency!! -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 12:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. And can I order Fooian Fooers at any restaurant, or is it a special order? ∞Who?¿? 07:15, 25 September 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.