Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 15



Category:International footballers of Armenian descent

 * 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.  When the only person who is clear about the category's use is the creator, there is a problem. Kbdank71 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * international footballers of armenian descent


 * Nominator's rationale: no precedent for this - overcategorization. (There perhaps should be Category:Ethnic Armenian footballers as an equivalent of Category:Jewish footballers, for footballers by 'full Fooian ethnicity', but not by whether they played 'A' internationals or not) Mayumashu (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Honestly, I don't know quite what to make of this category. I'm wondering if perhaps it belongs with the sub-cats of (seemingly misnamed) Category:Football (soccer) internationals with dual nationality, many of which follow the formula "Xyzian footballers who played for other national teams"?  Cgingold (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Comment - Could you explain, what is wrong with this category? The idea concerning 'Ethnic Armenian footballers' is just another category, which can be created too, but, I created this one, which contains exactly those persons who are of Armenian origin and who've played for NT other than Armenia. The reason I didn't name it 'Xyzian footballers who played for other national teams' is the cat name which is too long, besides many of them have been born and rised outside Armenia, and they may consider themselves not only Armenians but also e.g. French (Alain Boghossian), so it's kind of incorrect to categorize them as 'players of have played for _other_ national teams'. Avdav (talk)
 * Upmerge to Category:People of Armenian descent. Category:People of Fooian descent doesn't need any more complications. (This is a triple intersection too far.) Occuli (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am also not clear what this category is about. Is it "Footballers of Armenian descent" in other countries? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's about footballers of Armenian descent who've played for some national team other than Armenia, what's not clear here? Avdav (talk)
 * Very simple: what about their nationality? Are they of "Armenian descent" but NOT of "Armenian nationality"? Cgingold (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on what's written in their pasport, the point here is not the nationality, but being of Armenian descent, have Armenian roots etc. For example, Yuri Djorkaeff's father is Kalmyk, but his mother is Armenian, so he have Armenian roots too, and thus is of Armenian descent, but I'm 99% sure that 'French' written in the nationality field in his pasport. Avdav (talk)


 * 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:Country pop albums

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * country pop albums


 * Nominator's rationale: PoV genre. Almost everything that's country crosses over these days, so technically isn't all country "country pop"? Plus, these are already categorized by other genres anyway. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think your reason is equally point of view of everything being country-pop now-a-days as that isn't true! But since this cat never got used at all, I'm going to approve this Deletion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A genre article for country pop does exist and lists a considerable number of artists, so this is a potentially valid subcategory of Category:Albums by genre — but that said, in order to be useful it has to actually be used, and Ten Pound Hammer is correct in saying that these days, this category would probably end up containing I don't know about all, but certainly most, of the same artists as Category:Country albums anyway. It's been around for about six months now, so it would certainly be more populated than this if it were considered useful. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2008 (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:Music venues in New York City (closed)

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Music venues in New York City (closed) to Category:Former music venues in New York City
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the parent categories: Former buildings and structures of New York City, Former music venues. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per nom. Fix it ASAP so it matches. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename When I created the entry, I didn't realize there were other more logical naming conventions, sorry. -- Christopherbailey (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2008 (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.

Olympic flag bearers

 * 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, a comprehensive list exists. Kbdank71 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Olympic games national flag bearers to Category:Olympic Games national flag bearers — capitalisation. Punkmorten (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete as trivial. Olympic athletes are not defined by having been chosen to carry their country's flag. Otto4711 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify? It would be huge. Punkmorten (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then delete outright, or break it down into lists by nationality or by Olympics and rename this to Category:Lists of Olympic flag bearers. Otto4711 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case, take it to WP:CfD. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

- moved from speedy. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto. We have the beeautiful 2008 Summer Olympics national flag bearers already, with 90 odd refs. Only 1/4 I checked had this in the article & you can't ref a cat. These all seemed to be 2008 ones. I accept it may be defining for quite a few, but a list can no doubt be easily referenced, which a category can't, nor give further info.  If kept rename for 2008.  Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify This is too like the performer by performance categories, which we regularly listify. However 2008 Summer Olympics national flag bearers is probably already the requsite list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2008 (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.

Virgin Islands

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)




 * Rename all to avoid confusion and differentiate from the British Virgin Islands. - Darwinek (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but note that the country does compete at the Olympics as "Virgin Islands". Grutness...wha?  01:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, since these are uniquely Olympic categories I'd prefer if the official IOC denomination is used in categories as well. --Soman (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, unless we are going to subdivide Category:Olympic competitors for Taiwan into Category:Category:Olympic competitors for the Republic of China and Category:Category:Olympic competitors for Chinese Taipei to use the "official Olympic names". I don't see a universal preference for doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename - I agree that seeing the current name at the bottom of an athlete's bio page could cause confusion. Adding the US makes it clearer. Neier (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (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:Jews by religion

 * 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  to Category:People of Jewish descent by religion. Kbdank71 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose doing something with Category:Jews by religion
 * Nominator's rationale: I created this category a few months ago, and because it's been the subject of some recent discussion, I thought it would be good to open a formal discussion about it. As nominator, I don't really know what to propose to do with the category. When I created it, I defined it as "People of Jewish ethnicity who profess a religion other than Judaism", and used it as a parent category for Category:Jewish Christians, Category:Jewish Muslims (since deleted), Category:Converts from Judaism, Jewish Buddhist, Category:Jewish atheists, etc., in the same way the subcategories of Category:People by nationality and religion do. It was perhaps worded inelegantly, and maybe what I really was meaning was Category:Jewish people by religion, since "Jewish" seems to be used more than "Jews" in WP when Jewishness as an "ethnicity", as opposed to a religion, is being referred to. (Hence categories like Category:Jewish sportspeople (ethnicity/profession), whereas there is no Category:Muslim sportspeople (religion/profession).) In the discussion linked to above at the WikiProject Judaism discussion page, IZAK has suggested merging the category with Category:Converts from Judaism. (Some issues to consider: Is Jewishness an ethnicity? Or just a religion? Or is it an ethnicity that is determined by one's religion? Or is it an ethnicity that is determined by one's parents' religion?) We'll start with those two proposals, but feel free to add any you may think is more appropriate.
 * Option 1: Rename to Category:Jewish people by religion
 * Option 2: Merge to Category:Converts from Judaism —— Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI. This category also includes Category:Jewish agnostics. HG | Talk 11:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Option 2" - Category:Converts from Judaism doesn't encompass all of the sub-cats, since many of them include people who did not, in fact, "convert". That is especially true for atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists. Cgingold (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick comment - I would agree that the name could be improved. Here's another possibility -- may as well call it Option 3: Rename to . I'm just throwing this out for people to think about. Cgingold (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad idea because it would only contribute to a vicious cycle of how to define a person of "Jewish descent" or simply how would you define a "Jew" in the first place or when exactly does does "Jewish descent" start, continue and end? The consensus on Wikipedia over the years has been to delete such categories, see Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders with Jewish background where the nominator pointed out that it was a: "Highly arbitrary and unusual list. Jesus of Nazareth in the same list as Edith Stein? Should we split these lists into every possible ethnic division? What is "background"? A father? A mother? A convert? No discernable criteria or point." See the Who is a Jew? article for the complexity of all this. IZAK (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Cgingold's suggested renaming. Rename to Category:People of Jewish descent by religion  Non-practicing Jews are exactly this/that, 'people of Jewish descent' Mayumashu (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But first you will have to clearly tell us what you define as "Jewish descent" and then what a universally acceptable definition of "Jewish descent" is? A job that WP:CONSENSUS alone could never do, and you will see that there is in fact none, and that therefore this categeory must go. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, overcategorization. The exact definition of Jewish identity is a complicated issue, but categoris like these are not really useful. Being Jew is a multiple identity issue, but people who have another active religious practice should be categorized under those cats instead of as 'Jews'. The whole 'Jewish decent' issue is a bit to much blood-lineage and racial biology for me. I generally feel we should be extremly cautious not to be to detailed in categorizing people along ethnicity/race/decent. --Soman (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because this "category" will only add confusion and misrepresentation, it may also violate WP:NONSENSE. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" means BOTH a member of the Jewish RELIGION (Judaism) and being part of an ethnicity, therefore it is both ludicrous and dangerous to classify Jews as part of other religions. As far as Judaism is concerned, the moment a Jew joins another religion they become Apostates making this subject even more complicated. This topic is a violation of both WP:NEO (Jews cannot be artificially redefined by Wikipedia discussions as part of other religions. There are the Jew and Judaism articles, and more, that discuss those topics) and Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in your opinion, should Category:Jewish Christians, Category:Jewish atheists, etc. also be deleted? What about the numerous subcategories of Category:Jews by occupation when the occupation has nothing to do with being a member of the Jewish religion—Category:Jewish astronauts or Category:Jewish sportspeople, for instance? My point is not to criticise this position, I'm actually somewhat partial to it, but such a position seems to be at variance with a substantial amount of precedent which has determined that these categories are OK, or at least shouldn't be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's take it one step at a time and deal with the obvious disasters first. Even the creator of Category:Jews by religion admits to its weakness and would not be opposed to its deletion, he merely brought it here for "discussion" (which is clearly not the place for it since the Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM would be a better group and they too see no merit in it.) Anyhow, Category:Jews by religion is bad on many counts: logical, theological and factual. No-one in their right mind would dream of creating or allowing Category:Christians by religion or Category:Muslims by religion, but somehow Category:Jews by religion is "ok" -- why? No matter how you try to slice it, the word "Jew" will always indicate that that person is part of both the Jewish religion/Judaism and the Jewish people, and historically the two have always been conjoined. It is only by sleight of mouth that people think that by playing word games that reality can be changed if false words can be coined to alter perceptions. But that's propaganda and not scholarship and has nothing to do with reality, facts or truth. Now, a prime example is Jewish Christian when in fact there is no such thing. One is either a Jew or a Christian not both. But because there are so many groups today that wish to convert Jews to Christianity they have come up with word tricks and distortions of theology and facts such as creating notions that never existed in history because one was eithe a Jew or a Christian and not both (this isue has been debated and knocked around for a long time and I do not wish to go into all the details of it here.) Then there are the trivial categories that create the wrong impression. What exactly are Category:Jewish astronauts? or what does it really mean to have Category:Jewish sportspeople? I will tell you: It means nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch, because what's a definition of a "Jewish astronaut"? That he was circumcised and needs a special fitting of his space suit? That he eats kosher food in space? That he/she observes the Shabbat during training? In fact there is nothing "Jewish" about any of the so-called "Jewish-astronauts" and it would make better sense to have Category:Christian astronauts and Category:Atheist astronauts, since more of them are Christians and atheists, but hey guess what, some people have some brains it seems and noone wants to create those kind of stupid and ridiculous categories or even articles, say about Muslim astronauts, Jewish astrononauts or Shinto astronauts because that would be a total joke. But people seem to think that it's ok to do so when it comes to Jews, and make them into "astronauts" and "sportspeople" and even into "Christians" or "people of other religions" when the TOPIC, reality, facts and logic of and about Jews has nothing to do with those, often self-contradictory and illogical, other subjects! Likewise with so-called "Jewish sportspeople" what does sports have to do with being "Jewish"? Nothing! Zero. So why is Wikipedia getting involved in perpetuating this kind of unencyclopedic nonsense? Would it look good to have categories about Category:Hindu sportspeople or Category:Atheist sportspeople? or perhaps Category:Hebrew Christian astronauts? Clearly not. That is why I am solidly for removing these clear violations of WP:NONSENSE, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, even WP:POINT, and of course WP:OC ASAP. IZAK (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thus far, quite a few of these petty nuisance categories have been deleted:


 * 1) Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15
 * 2) Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15
 * 3) Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 31
 * 4) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 11
 * 5) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 4
 * 6) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16
 * 7) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 20
 * 8) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 8
 * 9) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3
 * 10) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 8
 * 11) Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 26
 * 12) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10
 * 13) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15
 * 14) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10.
 * 15) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10
 * 16) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 14.
 * 17) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 25
 * 18) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 25
 * 19) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 14
 * 20) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 9#Category:Jewish American journalists
 * 21) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 13
 * 22) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8
 * 23) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 29
 * 24) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 3
 * 25) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24
 * 26) Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 30
 * 27) Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 2
 * 28) Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 8


 * and this one should not be an exception. IZAK (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But as I said above, there are a number that have been kept—probably far more than have been deleted. I was really looking for a more nuanced discussion of how you think the past conflicting consensus decisions might be reconciled, but perhaps that was asking too much. I think your opinion is clear, however. As a side note, I disagree with your claim that this is not the proper place for a discussion about a category. Deciding whether or not to keep any category is not limited to the participants in any particular WikiProject discussion, even if the editors believe they have special insights or knowledge that make them especially good at deciding things; this is no less true for this category and its relationship to the "Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM". This is the most appropriate forum. It's cateogries for discussion, after all. To claim otherwise can only harm your credibility. It's certainly better than manually neutering the category by emptying it out based on a unilateral decision, as you did immediately prior to this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While not wishing to get into this type of discussion, it is worth noting that while every Tom, Dick and Harry feels they are qualified to make comments about, and pass judgment upon, matters of religion, they would never dream to say that anyone can pass judgment upon, and write about, medical, scientific and technical articles without proving and showing hard core editorial evidence that they know the facts and are fairly proficient in the subject. As for these tedious "Jewish" categories about people who are mostly not connected to their Jewishness and are not clearly defined as "Jewish" either, unlike what you claim, the record so far has proven that most editors feel that religion and ethnicity are totally not relevant to these kind of "Jews" or "Jewish by career" type of categories. Categories like this Category:Jews by religion are blatantly misinformed, illogical, unfactual and distortions of reality and truth, that no amount of word play can cover up because in essence they are less than petty and reek of more potential harm than any good that needs no further elaboration for anyone familiar with Jewish history. IZAK (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuance, baby! Nuance!! No, it's not to be. I could provide at least 25 other "Jewish" categories where the consensus has been to keep or there has been no consensus to delete, but since you've participated in many of those discussions I'm sure you aware of them and your list above therefore represents only a selective cherry-picking of the consensus that you have agreed with. Anyway, I don't think such an exercise would necessarily assist others in deciding the merits of this particular discussion. (If you want to start with just one recent one, see our old friend Jewish astronauts, which yours truly nominated some months ago.) As for your preference for self-appointed experts making the decisions, that sounds more like a problem you have with WP's structure of decision making than anything else that I could try to help you resolve at this point. There's always the blogosphere. (Besides, how do you, I, or anyone else really know what other editors' qualifications are? I certainly am not aware of yours, and you've demonstrated that you don't know mine, either.) .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Qualifications" in this case is not based on a formal degree as such but on one's track record in any given subject and by recognition by one's peer's that one is more than proficient in that subject which becomes obvious very quickly and definitely over time. Sure, anyone is free to give their two penny's worth wherever they want on Wikipedia but it would be ill-advised as expert editors are sure to swoop in and make sure that the subject on Wikipedia does not go haywire and quickly tumble into the abyss of the absurd. In any case, my point in this instance is simple, that "Jews by religion" is a total misnomer and having a category for it yet is pathetically wrong, it's just silly and illogical and not based on fact or reality because one cannot be both a Jew (by implication, as well as by Jewish law, be part of Judaism) and at the same time claim that one is also part of another religion. There is no such animal. Maybe in politics there are Dixiecrats or Reagan Democrats but that is politics and unfortunately too many people imagine that religion can work that way too when it clearly does not and cannot for anyone who has studied and knows theology, that once a Jew leaves Judaism or joins another religion, they are no loonger simply Jews, but quite often they become either knowing or unwitting Jewish apostates and renegade Jews, in essense traitors (according to classical Judaism) to their religion, as would be true for a Christian who would try to become and call himself a Christian Muslim. To prove the absurdity of defining what exactly is a "Jew by another religion", try writing an article on Jews by another religion and pray tell how would that differ from Apostasy in Judaism? Anyhow, I think that I have more than amply illustrated my point. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ""Jews by religion" is a total misnomer and having a category for it yet is pathetically wrong, it's just silly and illogical and not based on fact or reality". Sure, many editors probably agree with you on this; hence the proposed Option #3, which several have supported. I realise you've also opposed this, but others support this compromise. At this point, I too think it's the best option since this is not a discussion on whether or not Category:Jewish Christians, etc. will be deleted, so as long as they exist a rename to Option 3 is better than deletion and (as you've ably pointed out) better than the current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on overcategorization. Not sure yet how to !vote, but this category seems to have "arbitrary inclusion criteria" for at least 2 reasons. First, "atheists" and "agnostics" might NOT consider themselves as people with "religion." They may be non-religious or just marginally associated with Judaism. For this reason, Cgingold's idea doesn't work. Secondly, it doesn't include Judaism, i.e., Jewish Jews. It sounds like you want a category for People once identified as Jews but subsequently less identified with Judaism. Even this strikes me as unnecessary and rather unmanageable or arbitrary, due to criteria and selection difficulties. But I'll revisit here to see if a more elegant formulation is proposed. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've said "less identified" because, for instance, a Jewish Buddhist like Allen Ginsberg may still be associated with Judaism and hence buried in Jewish cemetery. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If including categories for atheists and agnostics in a "by religion" category has you troubled, then you should know that there is ample precedent for including atheists and agnostics of any particular nationality as subcategories of the appropriate "nationality by religion" categories. It seems to be a fairly common structuring system, even though atheists or agnostics may not view themselves as a subscribing to a "religion". The categories seem more directed towards holding people with certain religious beliefs or lack thereof or professed necessary ignorance thereof. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "by religion" parent cats are generally understood to include those sub-cats for religious skeptics. I suppose we could rename them all to something like "by religion or lack thereof", but that strikes me as verging on the absurd. Cgingold (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out the logical weakness of the category title because categories should be clearly and well-defined for all editors to utilize. If you think that the logical implications are absurd, that happens to bolster the argument against the category. (If you said absurd to belittle my ideas, well, that's not nice.) Thanks. HG | Talk 18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think we are just pointing out that your concern is one that could potentially apply to upwards of 200 categories, but past practice has to accept this hiccup in the logic of the name for the sake of more simple category names. WP doesn't always work by strict logic as a machine would; this is one of those cases where the consensus practice has been to accept the bump for the sake of naming and structural simplicity. It's a compromise, essentially, which is something we should all try to do when difficult issues arise. (I see most of these categories don't have this explained via a definition—you (or anyone else) could be of great service to the project to go through them and provide a definition that explains that the category can include subcategories for "religious skeptics" such as agnostics and atheists.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure this aspect deserves more discussion. Suffice it to say that I think, say, French agnostics are a less ambiguous category than Jewish agnostics. I've continued my second concern with the questions below. Thank you. HG | Talk 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment (nominator). So far, as nominator, I'm leaning towards a rename to Option 3, as proposed by Cgingold. Those not in favour of outright deletion seem to be favouring Option 3, and at this point based on the arguments presented I think that would be a superior choice than deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions. Would options 3 include Jews within Judaism? Would it differentiate Jews by Judaic denominations and movements? Would it include Karaites or Samaritans? If Judaism is included, would converts be excluded (no descent) from #3? If it excludes Jews or Karaites, how would this be reflected in the category title? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:People of Jewish descent by religion per Cgingold. Also, please note IZAK's obviously censorial attitude and agenda when it comes to categories dealing with Jews and Judaism as he seems to have forgotten about Wikipedia's cornerstone NPOV policy. --Wassermann (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Wasserman, you are violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Simply because I do not share your views does not mean that you have to attack me personally, and it's not the first time either since you seem to think that knocking me as you enter a discussion is the "right" intro to promote your agenda of creating or promoting endless and mind-numbing trivialized lists and categories of Jews. I do not have a "censorial attitude and agenda" and I am legitimately entitled to my position as much as you are to yours, but I do argue my case and it seems to have convinced many admins over the years to delete the trivial categories and lists of Jews in question. Now to get to your proposed category, could you please tell us how would you define "Jewish descent"? And you do realize that a claim of "Jewish descent" means that on one level they are still Jews and part of Judaism, certainly according to views in Judaism, so that therefore it is impossible to be part of two mutually exclusive and even contradictory religions at the same time. For example if one is Jewish, even by descent, then one may NOT be and cannot also be a Hindu or Buddhist since those religions worship multiple gods and deities fobidden to Jews by Judaism, and a Jew doing so is, and should be correctly categorized as, an Apostate Jew (and Wikipedia has tried hard not to have nasty categories like Category:Apostate Jews or Category:Jewish apostates.) While categories by profession and nationality are a lot easier to deal with at least, this one is best deleted because it can never stand the test of logic, fact, and theology, so why push a dead-ended category that is a Frankenstein-like caricature of a category contradiction in terms. IZAK (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2008 (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.