Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25[edit]

20th-century fencers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are the only by-century category of fencers, and per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
I can find no other categories of fencer by century: see this search. However, this nomination is not intended to prejudice the creation of categories for fencers from the 19th-century and earlier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. I agree 19th (and possibly 18th & 17th) century categories would be accepable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully upmerge appropriately This nomination, while making some appropriate upmerges, ignores others, namely Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too, so/but lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages in turn and/or nominating supracats for deletion first. (i.e. establish first if the line for catting by century is to be penciled in between the 19th and 20th centuries.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation.
      Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century motorcycle racers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:20th-century motorcycle racers to Category:Motorcycle racers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, per the consensus against 20th- and 21st-century categories of sportspeople, as expresssed at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
Per Motorcycle#History, the first production motorbike was made in 1894, so this is a sport less than 120 years old. It makes no sense to divide 120 years of sport into blocks of 100 years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sports journalists by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge all per the consensus against 20th and 21st-century categories of people-by-occupation, because centuries are to broad a grouping for the period which includes the vast majority of biographical articles in Wikipedia. There is currently no Category:19th-century sports journalists or Category:19th-century sportswriters, and this nomination is not intended to prejudice the creation of such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Equestrians by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days (see elsewhere on this page and CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
Equestrianism has a long history, and this nomination is made without prejudice to the creation of by-century categories of equestrians for the 19th-century and earlier. The CfD for racehorse owners & breeders did not support the principle of retaining 20th and 21st-century categories even for those involved in much older sports. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all in principle -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. However the target should be renamed to Category:Equestrian sportspeople as Equestrian is used in other contexts, including of statues of kings, generals, etc on horseback and of members of an aristocratic order (class) in ancient Rome. However, I suspect that this rename will require a separate nomination, sicne this one is now some days old. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Tribute acts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete/merge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are different factors to consider with some of my proposals below, so if you have a single nomination for all three of them, please include them here. Otherwise, please post individual comments in these subheadings. It seemed like this was less confusing than outright merging. Sorry if this is a headahce; feel free to re-format these if they are more trouble then they are worth. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all of noms proposals. -- œ™ 04:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Led Zeppelin cover bands[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Led Zeppelin cover bands to Category:Led Zeppelin tribute bands
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category (i.e. this is a subcategory of Category:Tribute bands.) Also worthy of consideration: this includes the album Encomium: A Tribute to Led Zeppelin.
A bit off-topic: Category:Tributes to The Beatles includes tribute bands as well as parodies, cover albums, etc. but there is no Category:The Beatles tribute bands. Someone may want to make that and subcategorize it under Category:Tribute bands. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AC/DC tribute bands[edit]
Category:AC/DC tribute bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge to Category:Pink Floyd and Category:Tribute bands. After proposing deletion of a related category, I took a look at the four articles in this one and nominated one (Špejbls Helprs) for deletion. This seems too small. Like the Pink Floyd category, there are certainly a number of tribute acts, but very few will ever merit inclusion in Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are five with the addition of Hell's Belles. --2000 Dad (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justin, you have not explained what you want done. I guess that you intend them to be merged to Category:Tribute bands, but that's only a guess, and since I don't know what solution you intend I'll go the status quo (no, not the Status Quo) and say Keep all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops Upmerge to Category:Pink Floyd and Category:Tribute bands has been added. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Thanks for clarifying. This category currently has five articles, which to my mind is enough for an unqualified "keep". I think that the one at AFD is unlikely to survive, and a 4-article category is a bit marginal, but IMO not a clear delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pink Floyd tribute bands[edit]
Category:Pink Floyd tribute bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Pink Floyd and Category:Tribute bands (note that one of these two articles is already in the latter.) There are only a handful of subcategories to Category:Tribute bands and those have four, seven, and nine articles (which is to say that there is not an extensive subcategorization of tribute bands.) This has a pretty small potential for growth as most tribute acts are not going to be notable. I'm skeptical of the notability of one of these acts—it only has two citations on its article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I created this!? I have no idea why! I don't even think there should be articles on tribute bands, much less categories for them. Delete, upmerge, whatever. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World Championship Wresling pay-per-view events[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: already done. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World Championship Wresling pay-per-view events to Category:World Championship Wrestling pay-per-view events
Nominator's rationale: Missing a "t" in Wrestling TJ Spyke 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Yacht racers by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
The three articles in the categories (Ferris, Cook, Mosbacher) are already categorised under the national sub-cats of Category:Yacht racers, so there is no need to upmerge.
Note that there is more support for by-century categories of 19th-century and earlier sportspeople, and this nomination does not preclude the creation of 19th-century category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom per usual arguments. Occuli (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century jockeys[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:20th-century jockeys to Category:Jockeys
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by-century category of jockeys, and per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
There have been jockeys long before the 20th-century, but the consensus of recent discussions has been that even in those cases, 20th and 21st-century categories of sportspeople are inappropriate. This nomination does not preclude the creation of a Category:19th-century jockeys. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom per usual arguments. Occuli (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. I would not oppose a 19th cnetury, 18th century or possibly 1900-50 category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

20th-century bodybuilders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are the only by-century category of bodybuilderss, containing 3 articles between them. Per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
This nomination retains the existing Category:Female bodybuilders, but loses the by-gender categorisation of the one article in Category:20th-century male bodybuilders. This could be avoided by an upmerger to Category:Male bodybuilders, but per WP:Cat gender, a female category does not need to be directly balanced with a male one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom per usual arguments. Occuli (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Blind Side (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Blind Side (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only four articles (curiously excluding the film itself.) It seems like most of these could be easily navigated from one another and only five articles (without any apparent room for growth) is about as small as can be justified for existence. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The 3 biogrpahical articles should not be categorised under the film, per WP:OC performers-by-performance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ADV Films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ADV Films to Category:ADV Films films
Nominator's rationale: According to the intro, this category is not about the studio itself, but the releases from that studio. Cf. with Category:Films by studio. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these are not all films so the category ought to be removed from Category:Films by studio (which contains several 'Films films' constructs). Occuli (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As ADV is also not a studio, I have done this, as well as remove the inappropriate stuff added since it was created. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Productions to films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename:
Perhaps these somewhat infelicitous names expose a fundamental aesthetic flaw in the current convention for Category:Films_by_studio Per User:Peterkingiron, it might be worthwhile to revisit it, but either way the current convention is the convention and there is no real reason to make these an exception. --Xdamrtalk 00:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:London Films productions to Category:London Films films
Propose renaming Category:CBS Films productions to Category:CBS Films films
Nominator's rationale: Per 100 or so categories in Category:Films_by_studio. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Adding the same word twice is appallingly ugly, and un-needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Repeating "films" is irritating and isn't very proper grammar-wise. That's the whole reason why I changed the CBS Films category in the first place (it was once called "CBS Films films" until I renamed it almost four months ago). Say, while we're at it, why not do something with Category:Dimension Films films also; I strongly rejected that change as well.--Freshh (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Why should these be different? There seems to be a fair number of ones that are "FOO Films films". If it's thought to be ugly, then let's change the lot of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are really ugly, and while I agree that if this is rejected then others need changing for consistency's sake, but let's not uglify more of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on, that's a completely subjective reason. I can say there is a certain beauty to the "Films films" designation, what with the alternating capitalization and lower case in the word. That's just subjective, but so is saying it is ugly. Let's have a nomination to change them all if we don't like it—but for now, this qualifies as a speedy rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:films by London Films. If this is accepted, no doubt we can have a mass rename for the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

MGM[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MGM animated shorts to Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer animated shorts
Propose renaming Category:MGM shorts to Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer short films
Propose renaming Category:MGM films to Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films
Nominator's rationale: Per main article (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) and category (Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer). Note that Category:Short films applies to the second item as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. MGM is one of the best-known studios, and the acronym is not ambiguous in this context (see MGM (disambiguation)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No reason to change this, it will only make it more difficult for many editors to remember. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above 2. If anything, the parent article should be moved to MGM (which the studio has been known as almost exclusively for several decades). TJ Spyke 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 75% of the studios' production logos and title cards have always read "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer". --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above and agree with TJ Spyke about the main article being renamed. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. Despite being colloquially referred to as MGM, "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" is the official name of the studio and always has been. We have The Walt Disney Company instead of just Disney, Warner Bros. instead of WB, and General Electric instead of GE. Even if the category renaming doesn't pass, I do not support the idea of moving the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer article to MGM. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Noting that any renaming of the Metro article is properly left to that article for discussion, and is not at hand here. "MGM" is fairly universally <g> known as the acronym for the company, and is commonly used by that company and its various incarnations. The category for Disney films is not "Category:The Walt Disney Company films" it is Category:Disney which belies the examples above. "WB" is not as well-known an acronym, now primarily for use for a cable network and, by golly, we have Category:WB network shows which further supports the use of "MGM" in these categories. As for what the studio company name is see [1] -- it is "MGM" and not Metro etc. Collect (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Navajo tribe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Navajo tribe to Category:Navajo Nation. --Xdamrtalk 18:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Navajo tribe to Category:Navajo Nation
Nominator's rationale: Official name was changed decades ago. Main article's title is also Navajo Nation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navajo Nation
    • Navajo language
    • Navajo mythology
    • Navajo people
      • Fictional Navajo
      • Utah Navajos
      • Not to get hung up on "people." I agree we should drop "tribe" but would not want to make polities the automatic parent for ethnic/linguistic/cultural groups, which has the potential to generate any number of political/POV conflicts. The Kurdistan of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or the Kurdistan of the Kurdish Democratic Party? On the flip side, there are many transational groups like the Tutsis who have no single polity. Another alternative is to rename the category to Category:Navajo à la Category:Iroquois or Category:Sioux (or for that matter, Category:Roma, Category:Hmong, or Category:Arab).
        This is actually an area where some standardization is in order, but it will be a rather substantial undertaking because there are so many different forms that umbrella categories take:
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Black and white[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black and white television programs to Category:Black-and-white television programs
Propose renaming Category:Black and white films to Category:Black-and-white films
Propose renaming Category:Black and white documentaries to Category:Black-and-white documentaries
Nominator's rationale: Grammar and main article/category (Black-and-white, Category:Black-and-white media.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, but recreate existing names as {{category redirect}}s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all per nom; I also agree that category redirects here would be ideal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep the old categories as redirects, as stated above. Would someone be kind enough to drop me a note on my talk page once this closes and before the bot gets to work, as my watch-list could creek a little...! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Martial artists by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete and merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
Martial arts has a long history, and this nomination is made without prejudice to the creation of by-century categories of martial artists for the 19th-century and earlier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Priories in Monmouthshire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. As Peterkingiron (talk · contribs) pointed out, the single page in the former category is already in the latter. — ξxplicit 08:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Priories in Monmouthshire to Category:Christian monasteries in Wales
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC#SMALL: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" ... and there are no other categories of monasteries-by-county-in-Wales, let alone priories-by-county-in-Wales.
The category contains only one article, Goldcliff Priory, which is already adequately categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - let alone Category:Priories. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It might be necessary to split monasteries in England (being a bigger country), but the distinction between "abbey" and "priory" is probably too narrow to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is delete sicne the one article is already in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Zack Turner[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete uncontested. Killiondude (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Zack Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent (see Songs written by Bob Regan, below), "Songs written by X" categories should not exist unless X has an article. Author of these categories agrees with this precedent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs about travel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about travel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Nebulous definition. Is "On the Road Again" about travel? "Hit the Road Jack"? Any song that involves getting in a car? (And never before have I seen references in a category.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I thought we had got rid of song by subject matter categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator) – while inclusion in the category is somewhat debatable, the notability and use of the category is demonstrated in the references, and the included songs have a strong travel theme (Homeward Bound, Leaving on a Jet Plane, “I have been a rover / I have walked alone / hiked a hundred highways / never found a home”). Indeed, one could imagine a subcategory of “Songs about homesickness”, for instance, though I don’t know how populated it would be.
    • How is having references a bad thing? I’ll grant that it’s unusual, but strikes me as both useful and something that should be encouraged – it certainly makes category population and discussion easier and more reliable. Indeed, categories seem the best place to reference discussions of inclusion in a category or other lists.
    • Peterkingiron, to your point: Category:Songs by theme contains a number of subcategories; one can be categorically opposed to songs by subject matter category, and certain categories (e.g., Category:Love songs) have been rejected as overly broad, but current practice and consensus is to have subject matter categories, some quite broad (Category:Anti-war songs), some quite narrow (Category:Songs about child abuse).
    • I’ll grant that opinions can differ, but this category is referenced, is in accord with existing community practice and consensus, and current members have a strong case both for inclusion and for the existence of a category relating them, so I’d argue to Keep.
    • —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Songs about topic" is a thoroughly-flawed basis for a category, because songs (like poetry) use imagery and metaphor to convey a complex range of ideas and emotions; plenty of songs are not about what they are about. For example Me and Bobby McGee, is set as a travel story; but the undelying themes are lost love, and youth. Same goes for squillions of other songs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Peterkingiron and BrownHairedGirl (BHG, thanks for your comments) – your objections sound more categorically against “songs by theme” rather than travel per se (TenPoundHammer, I see you as objecting to travel per se because the particular theme is vague, rather than being opposed to themes in general); as such, I think these concerns be better discussed at an RFD for Category:Songs by theme, and that this RFD specifically discuss travel as a theme.
    —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nils, you're right that I do have a wider objection to songs by theme, but I don't think that's any reason to delay deleting this category: it's flawed, and should go. I just took another look at the songs in the category, and see for example that it contains I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles). I know that song well, but it doesn't take much familiarity with it to see that it is not a song about travel. Read the lyrics at any of many lyrics sites, and you'll see that the travel motif is in the chorus; the core of the song is an "I'll do anything for you" theme, with travel as the repeated example of that. That's why I think that the nominator was right to call this category "nebulous": inclusion in it is highly WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, and like other subjective categories this leads to the conflict-making situation where good faith inclusion in the category is disputed by another good faith editor, with no way of determining who is right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good point BrownHairedGirl – as per Shawn in Montreal’s suggestion below, there’s a significant difference between being about travel versus using travel as a significant metaphor, and it’s very debatable whether a song is really “about” anything, as meaning is very subjective.
Shawn’s suggestion that “with travel themes” seems both objective and not over-broad – and I’m agnostic about a List page vs. category (do others have strong feelings on this?); as the references indicate, there’s a pretty small set of popular songs that people identify with travel themes, regardless of what they are actually “about”.
I wouldn’t be opposed to deleting this category and having a more appropriate page or category one (as Shawn suggests), and would be happy to do the cleanup required.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shawn, this is a good way of putting it, and thanks for suggesting other possibilities – maybe a list is more suitable (I can imagine having categories for all themes yielding rather large category footers on songs, which isn’t an issue shared with lists).
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gloriana members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Gloriana members to Category:Gloriana (band) members. --Xdamrtalk 00:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gloriana members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Musicians-by-band categories do exist, but is there really any point when there's only one member in it and no chance of expansion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lancashire County Library and Information Service[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lancashire County Library and Information Service to Category:Libraries in Lancashire
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Convention of Category:Libraries is to categorise them by place rather than by the local government authority which runs them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge the first category has not even got a main article. Clear duplicates. With the arrival of the Internet, a lot of libraries have rebranded themselves as "information services" and even "learning centres" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but the plain "libraries" is much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles of World War II involving New Zealand[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Battles of World War II involving New Zealand to Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving New Zealand. --Xdamrtalk 00:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Battles of World War II involving New Zealand to Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: Root category is "Battles and operations etc not just Battles so would include more pages (only 3 at present) Hugo999 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completing incomplete nomination placed by editor on the category page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles and operations of World War II was an existing category, and with the New Zealand subcat being Category:Battles of World War II involving New Zealand with only 3 pages in it, although a number of WW II battles were in the category Category:Battles involving New Zealand. I could have made it a subcat like larger nations but elected to put the 3 into the main category. Military operations does not seem to me to be a portmanteau or omnibus category, but to cover Military operations only but not battles; Battles and operations is the portmanteau category. Hence there already is Category:World War II operations and battles of Europe etc (somehow battles and operations has got reversed!). I could recreate the subcat Category:Battles of World War II involving New Zealand for New Zealand, and create similar cats for other nations; eg Brazil which has only 2 pages in Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving Brazil. PS: Battles by country has a subcat Naval battles by country where appropriate. Hugo999 (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about including Sieges with Battles (by country) but Operations and Campaigns in the next level up ie Battles and Operations? Should Offensives be there too or with Battles? Hugo999 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sluggy Freelance[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sluggy Freelance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Three members, unlikely ever to grow beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Athletes by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete and merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Although track and field athletics has existed as a competitive sport since at least 776 BC (see track and field athletics#History), most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, and a long series of recent CfDs has shown a consistent consensus against by-century categories for 20th- and 21st-century sportspeople (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople). The CfD for racehorse owners & breeders did not support the principle of retaining 20th and 21st-century categories even for those involved in much older sports.
Since track and field athletics is usually segregated by gender, I have proposed that both the male and female aspects of the categories be upmerged rather than deleted, and have created the necessary parent categories to allow this. However WP:CATGRS specifies that a female category does not necessarily need to be balanced against a male one, and if any editors feel that the male athlete categories are inappropriate, please leave a note on my talk page, and I will nominate them for upmerger once this CfD is closed.
Note that Category:Athletes by century includes only 20th- and 21st-century sub-categories; Category:19th-century sportspeople includes no athletics categories. I am aware that some editors who disapprove of 20th- and 21st-century categories for sportspeople approve of 19th-century (and earlier) categories, so this nomination is not intended to prejudice the creation of 19th-century and earlier categories of sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't see what's wrong with the X by century categories, but I presume that people who have given it more thought than I know legitimate reasons against them (?). I will say that athletes most definitely should be put into respective "male" and female" categories where ever possible.
  • On another note, there are still some unresolved issues here – given that "athlete" is ambiguous but "track and field" does not provide an entirely correct disambiguation (some race walkers and marathon runners, for example, may never compete on either a track or field). I'm still racking my brains on this one but Category:Athletes by event seems to reach a good middle ground. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. 19th century categories should be allowed, and possibly 1900-1940 or 1900-1950 catgories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:21st-century skateboarders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:21st-century skateboarders to Category:Skateboarders
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by-century category of skateboarders, and per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22).
Skateboarding seems to me to be a particularly inappropriate use of this form of categorisation, because the sport only became popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Dividing 40 years of a sport into 100-year blocks does not make sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:21st-century archers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:21st-century archers to Category:Archers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by-century category of archers, and per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. 19th century categories should be allowed, and possibly 1900-1940 or 1900-1950 catgories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century squash players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:20th-century squash players to Category:Squash players
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by-century category of squash players, and per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century ski jumpers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:20th-century ski jumpers to Category:Ski jumpers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by-century category of ski-jumpers, and per the consensus of many recent discussions, by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople are a form of over-categorisation --- see a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... as well as a dozen or more current nominations over the last few days at CfD Feb 24, CfD Feb 23 and CfD Feb 22). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chile articles with comments[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete - WP:CSD#C1 - Empty. --Xdamrtalk 18:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest deleting Category:Chile articles with comments
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. All Chile-related articles with talk pages Comments subpages to their talk pages go here, but why bother? Cat is manually automatically populated, created in '07 and unchanged ever since. Ruodyssey (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I shall inform WikiProject Chile, but suggest that they agree to removal of this category, for which there is no reason. BTW, this category is added automatically by Template:WPChile. The way to remove it is to add a parameter |COMMENTS_CAT=none. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, because the nomination completely misunderstands the purpose and usage of the category. This is a maintenance category applied to talk pages by a WikiProject as part of its maintenance, and not part of the mainspace categories. The nominator is completely wrong that "all Chile-related articles with talk pages would go here", because as with 365 similarly-named WikiProject categories, it exists to identify those articles where a comment has been added in relation to the WikiProject assessment. This is a valuable and unobtrusive way of identifying articles whose assessment has raised issues; it is not a category of "articles with a comment on their talk pages". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the nominator would have misunderstood the purpose of this category, which I doubt, I didn't, and I also see no reason to have categories for those articles which belong to projects and have talk pages as opposed to those who don't have talk pages. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be blunt Debresser, but you are also misunderstanding the purpose of these categories: it is not categorisation-by-the-existence-of-talk-pages (which I agree would be trivial and inappropriate). These categories group articles where a comment has been added in relation to the WikiProject assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name is determined by the template, and all templates related to WikiProjects that allow for similar categories have the same structure, without "WikiProject". I think we should have neither of them and none of them. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG. There are 100s of similar categories. The nom has obviously misunderstood the purpose of the category as it only contains a handful of articles (added by the wikiproject Chile template if and only if its comments section is non-empty). The nom has also misunderstood cfd as the category is not tagged. And how does the nom know what the category contained in 2007? (One of the great unsolved problems of Wikipedia is knowing what a category contained before google's cached page.) I would support a rename to include 'WikiProject' somewhere (cf Category:WikiProject Cities articles with comments); I would also support a parent cat Category:WikiProject articles with comments. Occuli (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the category is no longer populated. Comments pages have been deprecated and there is an ongoing process to move these comments off of their subpages and onto talk pages. The categories should be deleted upon completion of that process, so this nomination is premature. Deletion of this category prior to the completion of that process will make it more difficult to complete. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 12:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did. Each of those talk pages has a /Comments subpage that is transcluded into the Comments section of a WP banner. See Talk:Curicó/Comments and Talk:Degu/Comments as examples. This is not a manual category as was suggested in the nom. As Debresser said above, it is automatically populated by the WikiProject banner due to the existance of the subpages. This functionality is part of WPBannerMeta. Per the discussion I linked above, these comments are supposed to reviewed by the WikiProjects and either moved to the talk page, or deleted outright if they are not useful. Once the useful comments have been preserved, and the subpages deleted, all of these categories should be deleted. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you did - indeed it was my own glance that was superficial. One can but apologise and shuffle away in embarrassment. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:WikiProject Chile articles with comments or Category:WikiProject Chile Comment Pages or soemthing similar. If empty, it can be deleted them. This is presumably a maintenance category for the project. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/Question (nom) - Okay, I guess I didn't really understand the Comments subpage issue, nor did I know of the decision to deprecate them -- a good decision IMHO. (This abandoned practice isn't clearly documented on many project banner templates' pages, and the pages themselves appear rarely used or noticed.) I agree the cat may be badly named, but that's the template's fault, I suppose. I also agree that a parent cat, Category:WikiProject articles with comments, is badly needed, since a search yields many such cats. With respect to the nom'ed cat, if I migrate this handful of subpages to the talk pages, can we just delete it? Ruodyssey (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the cat is now ripe for deletion. I've moved the comments to the talk pages, the subpages have all be deleted, and the cat is now empty. (And I added the CFD notice, which I had forgotten.) Thanks! Ruodyssey (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Toho templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Toho templates to Category:Film templates. --Xdamrtalk 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Toho templates to Category:Film templates
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, not likely to be many more. Can be upmerged into its two parents. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely against such small categories but the sheer breadth of links in the current Godzilla template means there is little need for further population of this category. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Winnetka, Illinois[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Winnetka, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One issue with it is that the scope of the category is inappropriate: if it remains a category of "People from Winnetka, Illinois", the scope is too large; one could list every single citizen from the area. If the name of the category were changed to "Notable People from Winnetka, Illinois", the category's scope would be too small, and the notability of every person listed would have to be reevaluated (and, from what it looks like, most of the people listed would fail a notability test [some of them are even written like self-advertisements, but we'll not get into that]). Moreover, many of the pages of the people in the category don't even mention that the person is actually from Winnetka, Illinois. 192.83.228.119 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Part of a larger scope of "People from [city]" categories. You can't list a person here unless they have an article; and if they don't deserve an article it can be deleted rather swiftly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - take non-notables to afd, and remove any whose articles do not mention Winnetka (or use one of the many templates asking for a source). Occuli (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No valid grounds offered for deletion. The category is well-populated, so it doesn't meet the deletion criteria of WP:OC#SMALL. Per Occuli, take non-notables to afd, and remove any whose articles do not mention Winnetka (or use one of the many templates asking for a source). If (big IF) after that is done, the category is small and has no reasonable prospect of expansion, feel free to open a new CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 25 February 2010 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Bob Regan[edit]

Category:Songs written by Bob Regan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Same reasoning as Category:Songs written by Tony Mullins on yesterday's log. Per precedent, "Songs written by X" categories shouldn't exist unless X has an article, and in this case, X does not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on guys, I'll try and put the article together. Bob Regan has been Grammy-nominated, picked up 3 Ascap awards in one year, has 3 top 5 songs in the WP song articles (I know there are more), he petitions Capitol Hill on behalf of songwriters, former president of NSAI (probably not that notable, but worth noting), just because you think he is not publicly notable doesn't make him non-notable, or does it? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamrtalk 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel to Category:Palestinian rabbis
Nominator's rationale: This is the original name for the category, IZAK appears to have moved them simply to push his POV about the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's worth reading his comments at Talk:Jewish_Encyclopedia#Category:Palestinian rabbis to see the extent of his refusal to allow the term "Palestinian" to be connected in any way with Jewish scholars. The term "land of Israel" is very loaded, and exists to push a very specific point of view. By contrast, the original category name is the standard name used in textbooks for century upon century. Basically, IZAK's move was a blatent contravention of WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Newman Luke (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nominator is mistaken when he says "Land of Israel" is a loaded term. In fact, Palestine is the politically loaded term, and the definition of a Palestinian Jew is unclear at best. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke for background about this nominator. -- Avi (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because quite obviously since 1948 the term "Palestinian" is now regarded as archaic as applying to Jews and has also become associated solely with non-Jewish Arab Palestinians, while the term the Land of Israel refers only to the Jewish notion of the land. Similarly once upon a time the Talmud Yerushalmi was christened as the "Palestinian Talmud" and was called that for centuries, that has changed and no credible Jewish sources refer to it as "the Palestinian Talmud" because that name has been dropped by now so that it is only called the Jerusalem Talmud = Talmud Yesrushalmi. Newman Luke presents almost every topic under the sun relating to Judaism according to only non-Jewish sources and eyes while classical Judaism (that he castigates as "POV") gets less of a chance to present how Jewish subjects and topics are named and categorized. P.S. Newman Luke should have informed me on my talk page about his proposed changes at this CfD. Also, Newman Luke's gratuitous swipe at me is pathetic because this category has been named like this since 2006 [2] and there is no "disruption" whatsoever! IZAK (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this category is for people prominent before 1948. Newman Luke (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but we and the world are now living in the post-1948 era and nomenclature, especially in the English language, changes, while in Judaism and the Torah world of the Rabbis, most things stay the same, and as all classical and Torah scholars know there is the classical ancient divide between the chachmei Eretz Yisrael and the chachmei Bavel' (The "sages of Eretz Israel" and "sages of Babylonia") which is the way that classical Judaism has always referred to these sages. All groups of Jewish scholars from all denominations know this and refer to the sages who lived and are living within the borders of The Land of Israel as the sages or rabbis of Eretz Yisrael ("Land of Israel') there is no other way to say it and it is the most accurate of all. While the English term "Palestinian" was never part of Hebrew and Judaic scholarship but an artificial term used in ancient times by the Romans, Turks and that ended with the end of British rule in Palestine when the label "Palestinian" was used to refer to the Arabs to whom it applied. So it is best to keep the lines clear and not mix up names and categories. IZAK (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. Both Land of Israel and Palestinian are blatantly POV-pushing terms in this hotly-contested context. The adjective Palestinian refers to Palestinian people, which as the head article notes refers primarily to Palestinian Arabs. OTOH, Land of Israel (in Hebrew, Eretz Yisrael), is a heavily-loaded religious-zionist term referring to hotly disputed concepts of the extent of Jewish territory in the region; by some definitions it includes most of contemporary Syria and Lebanon, as well as large chunks of modern Iraq (see the maps at Land of Israel#Historical_kingdoms). I take no view either way on whether the religious zionists are right or wrong in the use of this terminology to describe their beliefs, but I object very strongly to the use of such blatantly partisan terminology within the category system. A further problem is that since the extent of the Land of Israel is hotly disputed even between zionist scholars, it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE.
    The only neutral way of handling this is categorise these biographical articles according to the regimes under which they actually lived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely agree with BrownHairedGirl here. Categories should not be based on ideas which have a ill-defined/debatable meaning. I think I understand what this category is trying to do, but the political and historical issues mean it is ambiguous. Categorise by regime makes things clear cut. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 12:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are both missing the point here. Firstly this is about Jewish Torah scholarship, not about any political issues. Secondly, these are classical and ancient ways within classical Judaism and by classical Judaism used until the very present time. Thirdly you are not proposing any solutions. Fourthly this is an important key sub-category belonging to the parent category of Category:Rabbis and it is impossible to delete this vast group of scholars. Fifthly, there is no need to politicize this issue that is an internal one relating to Judaic scholarship that is not involved with modern-day political struggles. Finally, this term and categorization method is used universally by all rabbis and scholars including the most anti-Zionist and Haredi ones, so your frame of reference here is just way off and mistaken. IZAK (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • IZAK, Wikipedia is not just a Jewish project; it needs to be neutral not just within a Judaic context (whether Zionist or Haredi or otherwise), but in a global context. The terminology may be common within Jewish Torah scholarship, but I think you know enough of the politics of religious zionism to know that the concept of "The Land of Israel" is a highly-political one which fuels the contemporary Greater Israel debates. I do not believe that it is impossible to categorise these scholars without using the terminology which has been so politicised by current Jewish scholars, activists Jewish and Jewish politicians ... but the terminology is so heavily politicised and value-laden that I would prefer to delete the category than to retain such partisan terminology. Finally, there is no question of "deleting this vast group of scholars"; the question here is how to categorise the articles, not whether to delete them. If you prefer, I would support an upmerge to Category:Rabbis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be unscholarly, foolish and retrograde to upmerge the category simply to avoid unconnected political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the naming of this category that relates to rabbis who lived from 2000 to 1500 years ago! In Talmudic, meaning the classical Rabbinic, times that is how rabbis were divided, between those in the Land of Israel and those in Babylonia and no one is saying that in order to meet modern day political requirements e.g. Category:Rabbis of Babylonia should be renamed as Category:Rabbis of Ancient Iraq it was neither just "Palestine" nor just "Israel" then, it was Judea (but it does not mean we should call them Category:Rabbis of Judea which would be a Neologism). Of course we all know that Wikipedia is "not a Jewish encyclopedia" but it is also not an encyclopedia that discriminates against Jewish knowledge from its classical perspectives. People do not come to read what Wikipedia teaches in violation of WP:ONEDAY but they want to learn what happened in reality for the last 2000 years. Wikipedia does not hide what Judaism teaches and it does not censor the accepted names of Judaic topics according to classical Judaism because of some unrelated outside political concerns. Otherwise you are going to become guilty of WP:NOR and WP:CENSOR and create total WP:NONSENSE instead of a factual and truthful encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • IZAK, the unscholarly act here would be simply to import into a neutral encyclopedia the terminology used by scholars approaching this issue from one perspective, whether that's a Judaic one (as you advocate, and define as "according to classical Judaism"), or a Palestinian-nationalist one (as others advocate). Categories appear unreferenced at the foot of an article, without qualification, and as such appear to be making an editorial statement of fact; that's why they should not use partisan terminology.
              Emotive victim-card techniques such as your talk of "discriminates against Jewish knowledge" are irrelevant as well as unnecessary, because per WP:NPOV there is no dispute about using and explaining this language within the text of the article, where it can be attributed and explained ... but naming a category in this way is a different ball-game.
              Yor attempt to dismiss NPOV concerns as "unconnected political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the naming of this category" is simply untrue: is Jewish scholars and Jewish politicians who have politicised the term ‎Eretz Yisrael by explicitly using it to refer to a desire to expand Israel's boundaries beyond their internationally-recognised limits. I have several shelves full of Israeli literature on the topic, which I could dig out and start citing if you really want to argue the point; but I assume that you are knowledgeable enough on the topic to make citation-throwing unnecessary when dealing with such a well-discussed topic as this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category tracks rabbinic scholars who lived in the existing country on a historic basis, a rather rational basis for a defining category. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and in addition, if you look at the cat page, there is a sub-cat for Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. Yossiea (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-- but I would consider a third option, e.g. "Rabbis of the Holy Land," "Rabbis of the Levant," "Rabbis of Canaan," "Rabbis of Land of Israel and Palestine," etc. Carlaude:Talk 04:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Noting Yoissea, and finding any comments about the nom to be unneeded here. Collect (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per BHG. Orderinchaos 07:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Land of Israel is not only a tzioni term, it is the classically correct way to refer to this region per IZAK --Glumboot (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the current category is conventionally used and widely understood as referring to the rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods in distinction to their contemporaries who lived in Babylon. The proposed change would be more obscure and possibly misleading. Chefallen (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Malik.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamrtalk 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel to Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine
Nominator's rationale: This is the original name for the category, IZAK appears to have moved them simply to push his POV about the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's worth reading his comments at Talk:Jewish_Encyclopedia#Category:Palestinian rabbis to see the extent of his refusal to allow the term "Palestinian" to be connected in any way with Jewish scholars. The term "land of Israel" is very loaded, and exists to push a very specific point of view. By contrast, the original category name is the standard name used in textbooks for century upon century. Basically, IZAK's move was a blatent contravention of WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Newman Luke (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke for background about this nominator. -- Avi (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose because quite obviously since 1948 the term "Palestinian" is now regarded as archaic as applying to Jews and has also become associated solely with non-Jewish Arab Palestinians, while the term the "Land of Israel" refers only to the Jewish notion of the land. There is nothing worrisome about that and it violates nothing. Similarly once upon a time the Talmud Yerushalmi was christened as the "Palestinian Talmud" and was called that for centuries, that has changed and no credible Jewish sources refer to it as "the Palestinian Talmud" because that name has been dropped by now so that it is only called the Jerusalem Talmud = Talmud Yesrushalmi. Newman Luke presents almost every topic under the sun relating to Judaism according to only non-Jewish sources and eyes while classical Judaism (that he castigates as "POV") gets less of a chance to present how Jewish subjects and topics are named and categorized. P.S. Newman Luke should have informed me on my talk page about his proposed changes at this CfD. Also, Newman Luke's gratuitous swipe at me is pathetic because this category has been named like this since 2006 [3] and there is no "disruption" whatsoever! IZAK (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this category is for people prominent before 1948. Newman Luke (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but we and the world are now living in the post-1948 era and nomenclature, especially in the English language, changes, while in Judaism and the Torah world of the Rabbis, most things stay the same, and as all classical and Torah and Talmud scholars know there is the classical ancient divide between the chachmei Eretz Yisrael and the chachmei Bavel' (The "sages of Eretz Israel" and "sages of Babylonia") which is the way that classical Judaism has always referred to these sages. All groups of Jewish scholars from all denominations know this and refer to the sages who lived and are living within the borders of The Land of Israel as the sages or rabbis of Eretz Yisrael ("Land of Israel') there is no other way to say it and it is the most accurate of all. While the English term "Palestinian" was never part of Hebrew and Judaic scholarship but an artificial term used in ancient times by the Romans, Turks and that ended with the end of British rule in Palestine when the label "Palestinian" was used to refer to the Arabs to whom it applied. So it is best to keep the lines clear and not mix up names and categories. IZAK (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • IZAK, if you want to "keep the lines clear", then you really ought to stay a million miles away from basing your argument notoriously fuzzy and highly-politicised concepts such as "within the borders of The Land of Israel". Take a look at the maps in Land of Israel, such as File:Davids-kingdom with captions specifiying vassal kingdoms-derivative-work.jpg, which has the caption "Different interpretations of what the Bible says about the extent of king David's empire." Exactly which of those interpretations of the extent of the extent of king David's empire are you using as the basis of your "clear" concept of "within the borders of The Land of Israel"?
          And your description of the term "Palestine" as "artificial" is hilarious: as you note, it was applied by the Romans and other since then, so it's over 2000 years old. If that term is to be deprecated as "artificial", why are you not jumping up and down with fury at the use of such "artificial" terms as "France", let alone the blatant neologism "America" (first recorded use in 1507, so it's not even a quarter of the age of "Palestine"). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. Both Land of Israel and Palestinian are blatantly POV-pushing terms in this hotly-contested context. The adjective Palestinian refers to Palestinian people, which as the head article notes refers primarily to Palestinian Arabs. OTOH, Land of Israel (in Hebrew, Eretz Yisrael), is a heavily-loaded religious-zionist term referring to hotly disputed concepts of the extent of Jewish territory in the region; by some definitions it includes most of contemporary Syria and Lebanon, as well as large chunks of modern Iraq (see the maps at Land of Israel#Historical_kingdoms). I take no view either way on whether the religious zionists are right or wrong in the use of this terminology to describe their beliefs, but I object very strongly to the use of such blatantly partisan terminology within the category system. A further problem is that since the extent of the Land of Israel is hotly disputed even between zionist scholars, it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE.
    The only neutral way of handling this is to categorise these biographical articles according to the regimes under which they actually lived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing the point here. Firstly this is about Jewish Torah scholarship, not about any political issues. Secondly, these are classical and ancient ways within classical Judaism and by classical Judaism used until the very present time. Thirdly you are not proposing any solutions. Fourthly this is an important key sub-category belonging to the parent categories of Category:Talmud rabbis and the main Category:Rabbis and it is impossible to delete this vast group of scholars. Fifthly, there is no need to politicize this issue that is an internal one relating to Judaic scholarship that is not involved with modern-day political struggles. Finally, this term and categorization method is used universally by all rabbis and scholars including the most anti-Zionist and Haredi ones, so your frame of reference here is just way off and mistaken. IZAK (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • IZAK, my frame of reference is broader than yours, which is where your confusion arises. Wikipedia is not just a Jewish project; it needs to be neutral not just within a Judaic context (whether Zionist or Haredi or otherwise), but in a global context. The terminology may be common within Jewish Torah scholarship, but I think you know enough of the politics of religious zionism to know that the concept of "The Land of Israel" is a highly-political one which fuels the contemporary Greater Israel debates. I do not believe that it is impossible to categorise these scholars without using the terminology which has been so politicised by current Jewish scholars, activists Jewish and Jewish politicians ... but the terminology is so heavily politicised and value-laden that I would prefer to delete the category than to retain such partisan terminology. Finally, there is no question of "deleting this vast group of scholars"; the question here is how to categorise the articles, not whether to delete them. If you prefer, I would support an upmerge to Category:Rabbis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kindly refrain from referring to my or your "frames of reference" because you have no idea about what my total educational credentials are! I will overlook that remark. It would be unscholarly, foolish and retrograde to upmerge the category simply to avoid unconnected political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the naming of this category that relates to rabbis who lived from 2000 to 1500 years ago! In Talmudic, meaning the classical Rabbinic, times that is how rabbis were divided, between those in the Land of Israel and those in Babylonia and no one is saying that in order to meet modern day political requirements Category:Talmud rabbis of Babylonia should be renamed as Category:Talmud rabbis of Ancient Iraq it was neither just "Palestine" nor just "Israel" then, it was Judea (but it does not mean we should call them Category:Talmud rabbis of Judea which would be a Neologism). Of course we all know that Wikipedia is "not a Jewish encyclopedia" but it is also not an encyclopedia that discriminates against Jewish knowledge from its classical perspectives. People do not come to read what Wikipedia teaches in violation of WP:ONEDAY but they want to learn what happened in reality for the last 2000 years. Wikipedia does not hide what Judaism teaches and it does not censor the accepted names of Judaic topics according to classical Judaism because of some unrelated outside political concerns. Otherwise you are going to become guilty of WP:NOR and WP:CENSOR and create total WP:NONSENSE instead of a factual and truthful encyclopedia. Thank you and a happy Purim. IZAK (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • IZAK, I continue to assume as ever that you are a highly-educated person with a wide range of knowledge; my comment above was questioning neither your educational credentials nor he scope of your learning. The point I was making above when referring to a "broader perspective" is that you have repeatedly stressed that you are approaching this issue solely from the perspective of Jewish scholarship. Do you really want to try arguing that in an area of such highly-contested history (where even archaeology is a politicised discipline), that the scholarship of one religious tradition is an NPOV perspective?
              And please, spare us the emotive victim-card techniques such as your talk of "discriminates against Jewish knowledge". That sort of thing is irrelevant as well as being and inflammatory, because per WP:NPOV there is no dispute about using and explaining this language within the text of the article, where it can be attributed and explained ... but naming a category in this way is a different ball-game. Your talk of censorship is also mistaken: using neutral terminology for categories is a wholly different matter to removing content from articles. Per WP:ASF, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves", and using POV terminology in a category name is asserting that opinion. That's why WP:NPOV#Article_titles says "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue." That applies here: categories should not appear to be be taking a stand either for or against the use of controversial political terminology such as Eretz Israel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This entire discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of categories, and a contempt for our readers. The purpose of a category is not to provide information or to make a political statement, but to help readers find information they are looking for. Therefore, the overriding consideration in creating and naming a category is one: what name is the reader most likely to use? For this reason, "Rabbis of the Land of Israel" is better than "Palestinian Rabbis", because no normal reader is going to look for categories of rabbis under "P" for "Palestine". However, "Rabbis of Palestine" would be just as good as "Rabbis of the land of Israel", since the reader, looking for "Rabbis", would find either one. On the other hand, I think many readers would be confused by the name "Rabbis of Palestine".
This entire discussion is the result of an editor-centric culture in Wikipedia. We need to develop a reader-centric approach. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_25&oldid=1144513186"