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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an X of Y thing. I created the target category without realizing that a structures cat already existed, or I would have taken to speedy renaming. We do use "buildings," as you can see by the parent categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2013 (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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. These species not defined by the fact that a few specimens have been kept as pets. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I don't think being a pet defines these species. No problem to listify.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. If there exist multiple reliable sources devoted largely to the keeping of particular animals as pets, then there is no reason why those particular animals cannot be defined and categorized as such. If only "a few specimens" of a particular animal have been kept as pets, then the solution is to remove those animals from the category, not to delete the entire category. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there exist multiple reliable sources devoted largely to the keeping of particular animals (e.g. ants) as pets, then create a "Ants as pets" article (possibly by WP:SPLITting off a section of the general article, if there is one) and then put that article in the pets category. Ant#Relationship_with_humans contains several hundred facts about interactions between ants and humans - should each of those be a characteristic used for categorization? DexDor (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - potentially any non-extinct animal species can be kept as a pet and the existence of one or more members of a species as pets is not a defining characteristic of the species. An individual pet that achieves its own separate notability should be categorized in the Category:Individual animals structure. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they don't store pet articles, they store species articles, there are no pets evident in the categories, no pet breeds/strains, no individual pets. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2013 (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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I would have proposed a rename, but there is already a Category:Črnomelj geography stubs. Both the main article and the permanent category use the Črnomelj spelling. Propose deleting the Crnomelj stub category. Make template {{Crnomelj-geo-stub}} a redirect to {{Črnomelj-geo-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2013 (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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Films released posthumously" is too vague; one should be able to know that the "posthumously" refers to the director on first glance. I'm aware my chosen target is not fantastic; other suggestions are welcome. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have checked a few of the articles in the category, and I can't figure out what it is supposed to be for. The Fly was released a few days after the director's death, but the director of Once Upon a Time in Springfield is still alive, as are the 3 directors of The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency. One of the actors in Foolish Wives died during filming, but the director lived for many years after its release. So maybe it is intended as a category of "films where one of the cast or crew died before the film was released"? If so, that seems to be a long way from a WP:DEFINING characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have thought "Il Postino" and "The Crow" would count because the star died prior to release, but apparently not, so this is too ambiguous. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually it appears it does not even have to be cast or crew. King King appears to have been put in this category since on of the people behind the story (not the screenplay, but the story), died before it was released. Another film in there, All Dogs Go to Heaven, seems to have been so placed because it one of the voice actors was murdered before it was released. A lot more films would go here if we consistently applied these rules. Especially films like Superman: The Movie that were in some form of production for 8 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is also at some level conflating unlike things. Natalie Wood's death had an influence on a film because it was still in production at that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2013 (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 who found out later in life that they are of Jewish descent[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. I'll upmerge the members into a relevant subcat of Category:People of Jewish descent if they aren't already there. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why, just why? How is this useful at all? KTC (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a very contrived category of no obvious import or value. Significant numbers of people are of Jewish descent in some way or other, so it should be of no surprise. The scope of this category is at the same time very large and also extremely subjective. And at a glance appears suspiciously like it is being used as some sort of attack/pejorative. --Errant(chat!) 14:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People often discover things about themselves later in life, but the fact of later discovery is rarely defining. I do know someone who would fit this category, and while it was personally very significant for him, it is not a factor in his public profile, and hence is not defining. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Struck part of my comment because it was being misunderstood as a rationale rather than as an anecdote.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Please realize that you have offered no policy-based justification for deletion. You've referred to some unidentified person, made the unverifiable statement that the person's discovery of his/her/its Jewish ancestry was not defining and then made the blanket assertion that it's therefore not defining for anyone. Are you willing to offer any hints as to the identity of this imaginary person ? Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy-based reason is a lack of WP:DEFININGness. No, I am not going to discuss the identity of my friend. It may have been superfluous to mention an unidentified person, but anonymous!=imaginary. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:So you know a person who isn't notable and for whom you've provided no details of their background, but you based your entire vote to delete by applying your personal knowledge of your unknown friend's experience to Wikipedia and the real world? Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: Your attempt to misrepresent me is tedious. Read the first sentence of my rationale, and read WP:DEFINING. The unidentified person to whom I referred would easily meet WP:BIO, but since he doesn't have an en:wp article I won't mention his name. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, there are lots of things that impact someone's life, but upon which we should not categorize. For example, getting married or having children is a rather dramatic life change, but we don't categorize based on these events. Losing a parent when you are young is also a major life event; but again, no such category. I could go on and on. This category as listed is inherently subjective - what are the criteria for inclusion? Is it just the fact that you learned that great grandma was a jew? Or do you have to write a tell-all book about it and tell everyone what a big impact it had? what is "later in life"? What if you found out at age 20? age 18? Age 12? And what is so special about finding out you have jewish blood? If such a category remains, in order to be NPOV, we'd have to create "People who found out they had Catholic ancestors" and "People who found out their forefathers were Buddhists" and "White people who discovered they had black ancestors" and so on... it's really endless. No one is disputing that in some cases such discoveries may have a big impact on peoples lives, but we shouldn't create categories just based on that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, I think that what you have to show is not specific instances of these revelations, but a general interest in these revelations - perhaps a source that talks about how finding out you have Jewish ancestry is a defining experience and explains how and why people are interested in this specific factoid about individuals! Otherwise it is not really definable from all the other important moments in peoples lives. --Errant(chat!) 09:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wanken and Rant, I have an eight-character user name; May I request that you please use it in full going forward. There are an infinite number of potential characteristics that an individual could have and an infinite number of these are potential discoveries that occurred in one's adult life. The question "what is so special about finding out you have jewish blood?" is extremely disturbing on many levels, not the least of which is coming off with a strong and offensive whiff of racism; I'd suggest that you try using the term "Jewish ancestry" in the future. The simplest answer to the question is that it doesn't matter what other categories do or do not exist. There is no NPOV requirement that every Jewish-related category be balanced by an equal and opposite category for every other religion, denomination or sect. If you can find corresponding sources regarding discoveries of hitherto-unknown Catholic or Buddhist ancestry (let alone for "rich, distant bachelor uncles"), I'd be more than happy to give due consideration to each and every one of those categories. What does matter here is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Book-level coverage is our gold standard, and this is not just a "factoid", but a strong defining characteristic of their lives. In the article I linked above, former Secretary of State Albright described that she hadn't known "that her family had Jewish roots; in fact, more than twenty of her relatives died in the Holocaust. 'At age 59 I thought I knew who I was; but it turned out I didn't.'" In a review of her bookPrague Winter: A Personal Story of Remembrance and War, 1937-1948, we are told that "The revelation that she is Jewish 'is central,' Albright writes, 'because it provided the impetus' for this book, a compelling personal exploration of her family’s Jewish roots as well as an excellent history of Czechoslovakia from 1937 to 1948." Neither Albright nor the reviewer deemed her discovery of her Jewish roots as an irrelevant factoid, but rather as a "central" defining characteristic. I look forward to sources about corresponding discoveries about individuals learning of their hidden Catholic, Buddhist and rich-bachelor-uncle ancestry. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, there are whole TV shows devoted to exposing the genetic history of celebrities, and then videoing their (often dramatic) reactions. There has been a lot of news coverage recently about the genetic origins of African-Americans - [3] here we find that several celebrities learned that they didn't have any native american ancestry (in spite of family lore that said otherwise) - shall we create "People who discovered late in life that they weren't Jewish" or "People who discovered late in life that their actual grandparents weren't of Native American extraction?". You can see similar emotions when African Americans learn that they have a lot of blood from particular west African tribes, in that this links them with a particular people. Go easy on the accusations of racism, please, as well - there's nothing wrong with the colloquial use of blood, bloodlines, etc. in these discussions (this book, about ancient hebrews and and genetic links, has a quote from a Rabbi saying "Over a number of years, Jewish blood has mixed with non-Jewish blood in our community." And yes, one of the things we do value in category structures in consistency, so if such a scheme starts, NPOV obliges us to extend this scheme to other ethnicities, and the result would be a mess. If your claim is that discovery of Jewish ancestry is the only thing that has an impact on peoples lives, you need to do more reading; such reading will demonstrate that genealogical research reveals lots of things, and many times those things can have quite an impact on peoples lives. No-one made the claim that Albright's discovery was trivial, and I don't think you'd want to make the claim that someone losing their mother at a young age is trivial either, but again, I doubt you'd argue for Category:People who lost their mother at a young age as a category on that basis. This category not saying "X is of Jewish descent", it is saying "X discovered they had Jewish descent late in life", whatever "late" means. It's inherently subjective, and because such discoveries are legion and not confined to discoveries of Jewish ancestry, but rather expand to all sorts of discoveries one makes about ones ancestors at various stages of life, it is not a good idea for a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a crap about what doesn't exist. If you want to create categories for those who lost their mothers, provide the sources -- as I have -- and make your case. Compiling laundry lists of idiotic potential categories has no relevance to a category backed solidly by reliable and verifiable sources, about and by the subjects, describing the discovery of Jewish ancestry as a defining characteristic. This is what you need to rebut and so far you've made no progress towards addressing this catgeory. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly was (re)defining for Csanád Szegedi,--who was just recently turned away from Canada, from a planned speaking engagement in my hometown, in fact. But I wonder if this could not simply be a list rather than a category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem like a useful way of classifying people, especially given the broad wording of the category. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People should be categorised by what they are notable for, not for who their ancestors were (and even less for when they discovered their ancestry). See WP:DNWAUC (essay). DexDor (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#NARROW; WP:OC#ASSOCIATED; WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; WP:OC#EGRS; WP:OC#OPINION. But on the other hand, if someone is willing to write up an article on this phenomenon, describing and explaining it thoroughly and what its significance is, it would then help to explain why a list or category may be worth it as well. But right now, an arbitrary list or category alone on such nebulous grounds has no solid legs to stand on. In all the cases, it made no difference that they discovered their "Jewish" roots, because they still went on to live and be the same gentile non-Jewish and un-Jewish lives as prior to the "discovery" and in effect were basically not connected to or self-identified with anything Jewish or with identifiable Jews. At some point the "color" (i.e. Jewish identity) gets washed out of the "laundry" (i.e. Jews and Judaism) when too much "detergent" (assimilation, intermarriage, apostasy) is applied over a long period of time and it becomes wishful thinking and a lie to try to paint as "Jewish" those who have long abandoned and do not wish to go by those colors anymore. IZAK (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alanson, who demonstrated that this is a defining characteristic. Open to better name car though. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer / Question@BrownHairedGirl: How about the part where I show books and newspaper articles about individuals who deem the discovery of their Jewish ancestry to be defining. Can you demonstrate how your story about an unnamed individual proves that this category is not defining and must be deleted? Alansohn (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: I was asking Brewcrewer, not you. You have made your case, and I wanted to hear a different voice. The examples you cite above are based on coverage of how some individuals dealt with their new-found knowledge, and unsurprisingly coverage of works about that aspect of her life focuses on that point. However, I see no evidence that the general coverage of Clark, Albright or Kerry treats Jewish ancestry as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Please read the tests set out in WP:DEFINING and explain how they apply to those 3 people. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: In a review of her bookPrague Winter: A Personal Story of Remembrance and War, 1937-1948, we are told that "The revelation that she is Jewish 'is central,' Albright writes, 'because it provided the impetus' for this book, a compelling personal exploration of her family’s Jewish roots as well as an excellent history of Czechoslovakia from 1937 to 1948." In addition to coverage of the topic in general in other books, a former Secretary of State writes a book about the discovery of her Jewish ancestry. It seems that would be the textbook definition of WP:DEFINING. And Albright's explicit statement is a lagniappe that goes above and beyond the requirements to establish a defining characteristic. The other sources about Clark, Albright and Kerry are all written specifically about their discovery of their Jewish roots. The coverage of the individuals and their specific experience of discovering their Jewish ancestry in reliable, secondary sources is the very definition of a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: This discussion is about categorising people. It is not about categorising books. You make a good case that this is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that book. That does not make it a defining characteristic of the author. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:In a review in The Washington Post, we are told that the "The revelation that she is Jewish 'is central,' Albright writes, 'because it provided the impetus” for this book, a compelling personal exploration of her family’s Jewish roots as well as an excellent history of Czechoslovakia from 1937 to 1948.'" This is a quote straight from the subject about the definingness of her discovery of her Jewish ancestry. What you've offered in contrast is a bald assertion of "is not" accompanied with an anecdote about an anonymous non-notable friend. I know that using sources as evidence isn't the norm in CfD world, so it's easier to ignore them here, but they are the gold standard in the rest of Wikipedia. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources about Albright and about Clark and about Kerry are all discussing the discovery of their previously unknown Jewish ancestry as a specific and relevant defining characteristic about them as individuals. Which part of this is causing confusion? Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read before replying, and please stop trying to misrepresent me. You have posted that ref several times, repeating the same text contrary to WP:TPYES#Good_practices ... yet you still appear unable to engage with the simple point: the reviewer's comment is about the author's motivation is writing that book. Central to the book ≠ Central to its author's life as a whole. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:I did read before replying, though I'm not sure you've read either the multiple sources provided or what defining means. I've offered multiple reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating the centrality of the characteristic for several of the members of the category, and I can provide hundreds more. You've offered an ambiguous anecdote about someone who you insist is notable (but has no article) who discovered his Jewish ancestry later in life (but is unaffected by it). I can't rebut a mystery character, but what relevance does your anonymous friend have? I have a friend who writes novels, but he isn't defined by being a novelist, therefore being a novelist is not a defining characteristic. To use your terminology, one person isn't defined by being a novelist ≠ being a novelist is not defining, which simply does not compute for novelists, nor is it in any way meaningful as an argument to delete this category or any other category. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: The evidence you have cited so far is that the fact of late discovery has been reported for several individuals, and I do not dispute that it has been reported. However, the test set by WP:DEFINING is tighter. Try some of the tests: 1. a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. 2. if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, and Wesley Clark all fail the second test. Where is the evidence that they meet the first one? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I constantly re-read WP:DEFINING and all three of these people pass both tests. In terms of the second test, mentioning the circumstances of the discovery of their Jewish ancestry would certainly be appropriate in the lead section of any of these articles and describing the impact that the revelation had on their lives and political careers would readily flow from the available sources. I've provided multiple reliable and verifiable sources discussing , Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark and John Kerry and their discovery of their Jewish ancestry in later life, satisfying the first test. As these sources are not sufficient for you, would three sources per person be enough? Maybe 5, or 10 or 20? How about 100? I can't possibly rebut your non-definingness claim, because it is based entirely on a single anonymous individual, and there seems to be nothing beyond that. I'd be happy to provide the evidence you need to support my position, as long as there is some possibility that you would change your position based on the additional evidence above and beyond what's already been provided. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: It's not a matter of the number of sources. The test is whether "reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". Cherry picking a few mentions is going about the task back-to-front. What you need to do is to analyse coverage of these people and see what proportion of RSs describe them in this way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of sources, and the test you offer is based on those sources. I see them and read them and see people like Albright being described and defined by the discovery of heir Jewish ancestry and you offer "is not" as an argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All sources are not going to treat the discovery of Jewish roots as being of vital importance. But if some do, then the Category has validity and therefore should be considered as being potentially useful to some readers, and I'm failing to see the drawbacks to this Categorization. The crux of the matter here is the degree of significance that good quality sources attribute to the discovery. I think in the examples above it is abundantly clear that good quality sources regard the discovery of Jewish roots as being of considerable importance. The Washington Post writes: "When did Bill Clinton find out that Madeleine Albright is Jewish?" The source is clearly taking note of this in a way that establishes for us its importance. Bus stop (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Bus stop: The test in WP:DEFINING is "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". One review of a book by the subject does not help to satisfy that test ... and since you agree with that, the category fails WP:DEFINING. There are two drawbacks with categories like this:
Non-defining categories clutter up the category list on articles, making it harder to find the important categories.
BrownHairedGirl—it is not the reaction of the subject of the biography to the discovery that he/she has Jewish roots that matters most here. We are concerned with the note taken of the revelation by reliable sources. Do good quality sources consider the revelation significant? If so, then Categorization by this characteristic seems to be justified to me. The subject of the biography may even downplay this revelation. Of greater importance than the subject's response is the commentary on this found in good quality reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary in RSs is the grounds for including something in an article, but this is a category. The test here is different: do sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having this characteristic? None of the keep !voters has offered any evidence of that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:BrownHairedGirl: You've repeated the definition of WP:DEFINING multiple time, violating your own rule, and it seems that multiple editors believe that it is satisfied based on the preponderant sources. I've offered references from books and newspaper articles and you've made your case. It seems that further badgering isn't helping your case. Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources is what establishes definingness and Bus Stop isn't the only participant here who believes that. Either make a much better argument than what you've already done or move on. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, please do read WP:DEFINING: "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". I have added emphasis to the words "commonly and consistently define", because you persistently overlook them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that I have not only offered, but read, the sources I have provided and the secondary sources do commonly and consistently define the individuals based on the discovery of their Jewish ancestry. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is kept it will just be more of our unjustified treatment of Jewishness as somehow a unique phenomenon like no other. That might work if this was the 1910 Brittanica, but in a truly pluralistic, post-WWII world where there is a Jewish state, significant Muslim minorities in every major Western European country, complex claims and counterclaims about Native American ancestry in the US, and related phenomenon, treating Jews as a special and unique class just does not work. I have a friend who grew up thinking one of his ancestral lines was German and Protestant, but learned that a grandfather had been originally Roman Catholic and Polish, for him these revelations were just as major, so do we create Category:People who learned later in life they were of Roman Catholic descent and Category:People who learned later in life they were of Polish descent. What about someone who is raised by their white step father and their half-Thai half-white mother, and is not told until they are 18 that their biological father was Chaldean? Do they count as Category:People who learned later in life that they had Chaldean ancestry?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to discuss the sources provided above or is your argument limited to your experience with your friend and the slippery slope logical fallacy?--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 17:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Learning of one's Jewish ancestors is probably important to some who discover it and probably equally as unimportant to others. It's not a defining characteristic and as formulated the category is subjective since there can be no objective definition of what constitutes "later in life". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that sources do all the "defining" for us. You say "Learning of one's Jewish ancestors is probably important to some who discover it and probably equally as unimportant to others." Sure, and sources are going to tell us when it is important, as in the examples given above. As to your question as to what constitutes "later in life", sources tell us when this is the case. The above examples are of instances when sources take note of people discovering that they are Jewish after childhoods in which they were not aware they were Jewish. Would you disagree that these factors apply to Madeleine Albright? Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're defining "later in life" as "after childhood". Great, that's a perfect illustration of why this category is subjective and flawed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not defining anything about the Category. Sources define the Category. This source for instance tells us that Madeleine Albright discovered that she was Jewish later in life. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no she doesn't. She tells us when Albright discovered her heritage. That this is "later in life" is subjective, or your interpretation. Please don't do that as it is original research. :) Do you have sources discussing the different points in someones life where they might discover either their Jewish roots or some other element of their heritage. --Errant(chat!) 17:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Errant—this source is entirely about someone who discovered at some later point in life that she was Jewish. We don't have to define every term. I think that a WP:Consensus of reasonable readers of that source would come away from it understanding it to be about someone who "found out later in life that they are of Jewish descent". She writes for instance: "I thought by then that I knew all there was to know about my past, who ‘my people’ were, and the history of my native land. I was sure enough that I did not feel a need to ask questions. Others might be insecure about their identities; I was not and never had been. I knew. Only I didn’t." I think she is very obviously talking about an attribute of her identity that she had no awareness on in earlier stages of her life. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. A wheel, for our purposes can be defined as something that is reasonably round. I don't know, for our purposes, what point in life counts as "later in life". But I have yet to see a source being unclear about this. If a source is writing about the late discovery of Jewishness in personal identity, they are probably going to address the time that elapsed between birth and that discovery, and their language used is likely to shed light on whether this is truly "later in life" or merely slightly later than usual. As concerns Madeleine Albright the source goes on at length on this point: "Albright was raised as a Roman Catholic and converted to Episcopalianism at the time of her marriage in 1958. She tells us she did not learn until a month before she became the country’s first female secretary of state that 'my family heritage was Jewish or that more than twenty of my relatives had died in the Holocaust.' This source is not being at all unclear on the point that Albright learned about this "later in life". Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's the title of the category, and one of it's key distinguishing features, I think it's pretty important to be able to define it. With a source. To put this into context; ignore specific cases (which are of limited use in discussing categories - a system by it's nature designed to deal with generalities) and think about the broader question; what is the cut off point for "later in life". What defines that context. If you go back the specific instance what exact part of the source identifies this revelation as "later in life", and how does it do so? --Errant(chat!) 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say "what is the cut off point for 'later in life'"? There is no need to define a cut off point. Good quality sources either make the point that the discovery of Jewish ancestry was noteworthy or they do not make that point. The Washington Post quotes Madeleine Albright saying "'a hardworking Washington Post reporter, Michael Dobbs, uncovered news that stunned us all: according to his research, three of my grandparents and numerous other family members had died in the Holocaust.'"[4] There can be little doubt that the Washington Post, a good quality source, considers this noteworthy. This is not dependent on age of life. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The category's title includes the phrase "later in life". It is bizarre that an editor who has been vociferously defending the category now argues that age is irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bus, whether the Washington Post considers something noteworthy is not the end of the story here. There are many things the Washington Post has said about President Obama, but the vast majority we would never categorize on. Categories are a much tougher bar to pass. The inherent subjectivity of "later in life" makes this a bad category, as well as the fact that there is nothing special about jewish ancestry that differs from other types of ancestry (as JPL points out below), so NPOV would oblige us to do the same for other ancestral discoveries, and that way lies madness.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obiwankenobi—you are hinting at some hypothetical case in which we don't know if this truly occurred at a "later" point in life. As concerns cases I've looked at, the sources do not seem ambiguous. Here is another individual that I think should be in this Category: Kati Marton: "Raised Catholic by my mother and father, I didn’t learn until adulthood that my maternal grandparents were in one of Adolf Eichmann’s early transports from the Hungarian countryside to Auschwitz. My parents, converted Jews, tried to shield me from the murderous hate they had experienced in Budapest; they had told me my grandparents had perished under the Allies’ bombs. The past suddenly barged into my well-ordered American life and seemed more urgent than the present."[5] You say "The inherent subjectivity of 'later in life' makes this a bad category"[6] but I am not finding this "subjectivity" in actual sources. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read policies carefully before using them (in this case incorrectly) :) --Errant(chat!) 17:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly? ... WP:SNOW is all about proposing something that will just result in long discussion with no chance in million years resulting in a consensus. IMHO there is 99% chance that this ends in almost equal number of votes. Monni (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything that should be a "snow" action, it should be a snow delete. This borders on the "hiliariously horrible category name." If we have this should we have the corollary Category:People who found out later in life that they are not of Jewish descent, for people like me whose mother's mother admitted to us when we were older than age X that she was not born Jewish, but it was her later step-father and not her known at birth father who was Jewish. Also, no one has yet argued why we need to treat Jewishness as a special case. What about [[:Category:People who found out latter in life that they are of African-American, such as what we find in this article [7]. Then we get this article from the Daily Mail [8] Someone ever wrote a book about discovering you are not African-American. See this reference [ http://www.amazon.com/Hypodescent-Discovering-You-Black-Memoir/dp/1453772588 ]. There is nothing special about Jewishness to treat it this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert—on what do you base your assumption that "There is nothing special about Jewishness to treat it this way."[9]Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one makes the case that we should keep categories for Jews because being Jewish is special, as both above have with the offensive argument that "Jewishness shouldn't be a special case" which has both of you coming off as the crassest kind of bigots. Wikipedia makes determinations of definingness based on reliable and verifiable sources, and the fact that these sources are making reports about Jews and Jewish ancestry is what's relevant. Livonian, Native American or Roman Catholic ancestry is relevant is it's in the sources and isn't if it's not. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a bigot. I have nothing against Judaism as a religion. What comes to categorization, it is matter of number of distinct reliable sources classifying group of people (or other things) similarly. I could have voted "delete" if I would have thought that would end this endless discussion, but I didn't think it would solve anything. Monni (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be absolutely right that there is nothing special about Jewishness, but that's an irrelevant argument for deletion. The standard we use in Wikipedia is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources characterizing and defining people by a characteristic. We have Category:Jewish astronauts, Category:Jewish-American mobsters and Category:People who found out later in life that they are of Jewish descent, not because being Jewish is special but because there are groups of people identified in this way. There's nothing special about being Roman Catholic, or Livonian or Native American either, but the standard is not specialness. The reason we don't have the corresponding Category:Roman Catholic astronauts, Category:Livonian-American mobsters and Category:People who found out later in life that they are of Native American descent is the lack of identifiable reliable and verifiable sources categorizing people in this manner. No appeal is needed to specialness and the lack of equal and opposite categories for astronauts, mobsters and descent discoverers of other races, religions, national origins, ethnicities, creeds, sexual preference and any other identifying characteristic has no bearing in this matter. The saddest part is that the knowledgeable editors offering these tragically bad arguments know full well that these arguments are as offensive as they are worthless. Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the actual standard we use in Wikipedia is the ability to bamboozle enough people with threats of claiming "anti-Semite" whenever a Jewish category is questioned that people go on to other matters where they will not be personally insulted. I have seen it done way to many times. Any attack on any Jewish category or classification makes the person somehow an anti-Semite. It is an ugly thing that is the key to special categories and treatment, and really needs to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making arguments based on Judaism being or not being anything... I'm making argument that this discussion will last for ever if not cut short. Monni (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain, Monni95, how, or why, "this discussion will last for ever if not cut short"[10]? Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking away all the recent commenting, there was almost equal amount of "delete" and "keep" votes... Every time someone actually posts new vote, someone else almost instantly posts counter-vote... Most of the commenting is restating what has been already said because people misinterpret what others are trying to say. Monni (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's strength of (policy-based) argument that counts, not the number of !votes. DexDor (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You already stated your case for deletion based on the slippery slope logical fallacy. No reason to repeat it. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another truly horrible argument for deletion, but bad hypothetical cases are never an argument for deletion and, your arguments have already been addressed in your previous vote. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "bad hypothetical cases", they are true realities, that there are lots of people who found out "later in life" that they have Native American ancestry. No one has shown any reason to treat such differently, and I have shown that we have actual African-American cases, where the people are notable for that, and not just notable people who discover this. The African-American case is more notable. This is just a horrible way to name a category, a name that invokes the undefined "later-in life". Does this mean if they did not know by 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35? What age do they have to be over to qualify. Categories need clear inclusion rules, and this one has none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert—please look at the actual examples discussed in this thread or already included in the Category. Among them can you point to any instances in which the person found out too early in life to qualify for inclusion in this Category? You are raising a hypothetical problem. Does it ever manifest itself in reality? Please point to such an instance. Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have Jewish ancestors so the unjustified attempt to call me a bigot is just more evidence that there is no logic based leg to stand on here. This is an amorphous category with no clear definition, so the defenders have resorted to personal attacks to defend what cannot be defended, a category that lacks a clear definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that you're a bigot but I feel obliged to point out the delicious irony of you calling the accusation "illogical" because you have Jewish ancestors. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 04:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: The line that "there is nothing special about Jewishness" either crosses the line or comes damn close to it, regardless of the circumstances; It's offensive in the real world as an argument and it has no place in Wikipedia. But let's take your Native American argument at face value. I can conceive of Native Americans shooting hoops or traveling in space or operating crime syndicates, just as easily as you can conceive of people who discover their Native American ancestry. Despite my ability to readily imagine any of these possibilities, with tremendous ease I might add, we have nothing existing for Category:Native American basketball players, Category:Native American astronauts or Category:Native American mobsters, while we do have categories for Category:Jewish basketball players, Category:Jewish astronauts and Category:Jewish-American mobsters. There is nothing special about Jewishness, but the reason that there is broad consensus for these Jewish-related categories is because there is evidence from reliable and verifiable sources showing that there are well-defined groups of people who play basketball, fly in space and participate in crime syndicates who are defined by their Jewishness. Anyone making the argument that categories should be kept because Jewishness is special would look like as much of an ignoramus as someone who argues for deletion based on that same claim. Are you ready to add all Jewish categories without a corresponding Native American category to this discussion, or is this one the only one that is obligated to have an equal and opposite Category:People who found out later in life that they are of Native American descent? Maybe when a Jewish-related category is being created or up for discussion, we should all ask the age-old question, "but what will the Native Americans think?" Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title is horribly arbitrary. Some ask me who did not find out "later in life". I tell you John Kerry. He knew long before he was ever secretary of state. He had not done enough important things for it to really be "later in life" when he learned this designation. I challenge anyone to prove that my application of "later in life" goes against a consensus on the meaning of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering all things, actually whether I have Jewish ancestry is even more complex, and leads to why this is truly an unworkable category. Does someone who found out at age 35 that their ethnically African-American grandfather had converted to Judaism count? My Jewish ancestry is from my grandmother and great-grandmother who converted to Judaism at the time my great-grandmother married her second husband when my grandmother was about 10. At some level I almost qualify for the opposite, since due to the fact that my great-grandmother was not married when my grandmother was born, I was not initially told that I did not have long-standing Jewish ancestry. Depending on how we understand judaims and later-in-life I might actually qualify for the counter Category:People who found out later in life that they did not have Jewish ancestry. How old someone was when they learned a genealogical detail is not a defining trait of that person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert—the category system provides navigational links. Can you tell me how else a reader could find a group of names of people who found out later in life that they were of Jewish ancestry? This Category merely helps a reader to narrow down a search. The reader can reject those that for any reason do not suit their purposes. But those names that seem promising can be looked into further by a reader. Thus the Category can be useful to a reader. Bus stop (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a way, but a typical WP article contains hundreds of pieces of information - for most of which the categorization system does not (currently) provide a list. We could (for example) categorize John Kerry as the son of an Army Air Corps veteran, an avid cyclist, having a Portuguese-born second wife, owning a yacht etc ... and hence have a list of categories longer than the article itself. Instead, we try to categorize just by WP:DEFINING characteristics - mainly why the person is notable. DexDor (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DexDor—You mention John Kerry, but I hardly think we Categorize John Kerry by "why the person is notable." Is John Kerry notable as an American person of of Austrian descent? He is Categorized that way. Is he notable as an American person of English descent? An American Roman Catholic? An American person of Scottish descent? He is Categorized these ways. He is Categorized these ways and many more ways that do not have much bearing on notability. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do categorize John Kerry by what he's notable for - e.g. his article is in Category:Democratic Party United States Senators. He's also in the "standard biographical" categories (e.g. year of birth) which tend to be too large to be useful for navigation, but are useful for bots etc. IMO, some of the other categories (e.g. the "descent" categories) should be deleted, but that'll be a separate CFD. DexDor (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor analogy. Those categories are nothing like this category pbp 21:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and those 2 categories might not survive CFDs. DexDor (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this category is an exception though. Unlike other religions, there are millions of Jews around the world who don't know of their Jewish heritage (see Anusim). I think this category does meet Wikipedia's guidelines, and could also be expanded. -Yambaram (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to explain why you think "this category does meet Wikipedia's guidelines". Pointing out that there are categories that you think are even less defining is not a good argument for keeping this one. DexDor (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "unlike other religions" claim does not work. I probably can find more people who discovered their Roman Catholic ancestry later in life than discovered their Jewish ancestry later in life. The only reason this category might survive is if Jewishness is an ethnicity, but the issue of it being an ethnicity is complex. On the issue of John Kerry, his having Jewish ancestry, however he discovered it, has not made him a more acceptable negotiator to the Israelis. Having Jewish "ancestry", and being Jewish, even in an ethnic sense, are not the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: You're either of Jewish descent or you ain't. When you find out is just minutia and not deserving of a category pbp 21:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89—do you think that reliable sources are simply misguided for paying attention to the factor that this Category tries to capture? We have a book titled "Suddenly Jewish: Jews Raised as Gentiles Discover Their Jewish Roots"[11], though I haven't read it. The individuals already in the Category are reliably sourced, or do you feel that is not the case? Can you cite specific instances concerning these individuals for which you feel reliable sourcing is missing or weak? Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about RS. This is about WP:DEFINING. The only question is, do RS regularly refer to Albright as "Former secretary of state Albright, who found out late in life that she was Jewish, today gave a talk about foreign policy at Georgetown university." No, they don't. Does the lede of our article about Albright mention her late-in-life discovery? No, it doesn't. Yes, it's true, books exist, but books exist about all sorts of things that we would never categorize on. There are whole books written about orphans, and what a difficult time they've had - but, we don't have Category:Orphans. There are books and lists and articles about late-in-life career changers... but again, no such category. There is nothing wrong with attempting to put forward a list on this subject and listing some notable people within with sourcing, but as a category it simply doesn't work. When a category is up for deletion, it's not because someone disputes some of the contents - it's because the whole category is a bad idea. All the RS in the world won't help you here, unless the NY Times starts introducing Kerry as John Kerry, former senator, presidential candidate, and late-discoverer of his jewish heritage, today said XXX. Not gonna happen.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said, but aside from WP:DEFINING, the cat name is long and ridiculous (in fact, I thought it was a joke at first). BTW, Alansohn, you seriously need to calm down. It is absolutely unnecessary to write a long paragraph denouncing every single delete !voter's rationale. ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, when you deal with people who use "cat name is long and ridiculous" as their best excuse for deletion, there's little to be done other than respond. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn. Where exactly did Erpert say that "cat name is long and ridiculous" was his/her best excuse for deletion ? S/He mentioned DEFINING before that. Please show other editors some respect by reading their comments carefully before replying to them. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – This lacks the precision necessary to be a helpful category. "Later in life" in entirely unquantifiable, and "of Jewish descent" is almost as problematic: traditional Hebrew geneology is matriarchal, so it's unclear whose definition we're using. Moreover, offering such a category makes it seem like there is something special, for better of worse, about finding out one's ancestors are Jewish. Will there be similar categories for all other ethnicities and religions? SteveStrummer (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the currently used definition of "of Jewish descent" is that if we can find any evidence that the person had Jewish descent, we put them in the category. Even if such was not discovered until after the person died. In some ways it is used as a border-line race category. The way it is currently applied really does not work. Does it really matter that one of Hugh Nibley's great-grandfathers, had been Jewish? If you read the biography of him by his son-in-law you will realize his mother saw Hugh and his siblings as in competition with Jews, and never saw them as in any way part of the Jewish people. Nibley himself always wrote as if he was of total Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Yet he made mention of the journal of this great-grandfather of his in his writtings, although in ways that did not make mention that he had at one point been Jewish. In the early 19th-century Jewishness was to most only a religion, so the idea you could be Jewish by ethnicity but not by religion escaped most. Plus, Nibley's last Jewish ancestor converted to Christianity (several years before converting to the Mormon sub-branch of Christianity), so he would have been disqualified from going to Israel under the law of return.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2014 (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.
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:NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 21:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the members of this category be part of Category:Government of Slovenia as per most of the other categories of governments of countries; this is effectively a duplicate category. Green Giant (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 13:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename. The two category names are similar enough to cause confusion, but the distinction is important. The Government of Slovenia is the cabinet that excersises executive authority, but this category has a broader scope, covering the other bodies with legal authority in the country. This distinction applies in other countries too, and we need some broader solution to distinguish the cabinet-and-executive structure usually called "Government of Foo" from the wider legal authorities. I see that we have a similar split wrt the US: Category:Government of the United States (the Federal Executive) is a subcat of Category:Government in the United States. The latter includes state govts, county govts, etc. Would "Governance of Foo" be workable for the broader category? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. I don't object to renaming. --Eleassarmy talk 03:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:BrownHairedGirl, I understand your argument about a broader category but I think the relevant Category:Politics by country subcategories could do that job. Before I nominated this category, I noted that in Category:Government by country there are just two categories that use in (Slovenia and the United States) as opposed to over two hundred categories that use of. I accept that the US category is necessary but I could not say the same for the Slovenian one. By searching I have found only two more country examples; two (Category:Government in Canada and Category:Government in Albania) but I don't think its enough to warrant lots of similar categories. (Also there two category redirects that use the same style (Category:Government in Singapore and Category:Government in Pakistan) and a whole bunch of US state category redirects.)
Something is going wrong if law is to be categorised as politics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well ideally it wouldn't be but these days law is generally created by politicains and/or political institutions. I would suggest the two are inextricably linked. Green Giant (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
inextricably linked ≠ same thing. Politicians have made law ever since parliaments were invented, but they are not law. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both -- We have had similar discussions before. The legislature of Idaho is government in USA, but not of USA. It happens that we currently have little on local government in Slovenia, but I expect there is some. The reasons for the difference are clearly explained in the headnote to the "in" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is an overcat. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2014 (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.
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:NO CONSENSUS, on what should be done; only that something should. Fortunately, these are the Hollande Days, so the time is right. -Splash - tk 19:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. An odd, contrived name when a large number of the articles begin "XXX Sauce is based on mayonnaise with...". Calling them "mayonnaise sauces" seems wrong but the implication that there is a "mayonnaise family" is strange; we dont say there is a "bechamel family", after all. Seyasirt (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose more research needed, to see if hollandaise and mayonnaise are regularly grouped. They probably are, but hollandaise doesn't have any mayonnaise in it, they are both based on egg yolk emulsions, so you can't call it mayonnaise-based. There are many sauces made from mayonnaise, but also many sauces that are derivatives of hollandaise like bernaise and all it's derivatives. Perhaps egg yolk emulsion-based sauces would work? Need to see what the literature calls this...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of grouping mayonnaise and hollandaise together is that Hollandaise has variations which don't even include egg yolk. Monni (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Maybe should be added as sub-category instead of renaming, if there is enough articles about sauces actually containing (and not containing) mayonnaise. Monni (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2013 (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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)}[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains articles about different types of fish sauces. In this context, sauce is a countable noun. Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename All the other "type of sauce" categories are in the plural, and it makes sense that this should be so too. Seyasirt (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Lenticel(talk) 15:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination... Plural makes more sense. Monni (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2013 (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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:26, 29 December 2013 (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.
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.
Delete per nominator....William 13:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if it will get populated -- I thought this was going to a typical award winners category. It is in fact an annual F2 motor race as part of a larger series. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (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.
