Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1



Category:Lutherie

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Lutherie to Category:Luthiers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. I think these two are really an overlap. One interesting aspect of this is that not all stringed instruments are made of wood.  So if that is an issue, then maybe a rename to a form of disambiguation would be better. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – the former is a topic category concerning the making of wooden stringed instruments, and is a parent of the latter - a list category of people involved in lutherie. (Couture and couturiers would be a similar pair although we don't have it, apart from Category:Haute couture.) Occuli (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2009 (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:African American metal groups

 * 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. (Was already deleted as empty at close.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * african american metal groups


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization. See here thisisace (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as it is empty. Occuli (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary race/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (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:African American rock groups

 * 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. (Was already deleted as empty at close.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * african american rock groups


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization. See here thisisace (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as it is empty. Occuli (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree per first reason only. (It must have been populated once, so why was it depopulated, and by whom?) Debresser (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any obvious way of finding this out, except by seeing what edits the creator made when creating the category; which leads to this diff. There is Category:African American musical groups. Occuli (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecssary racial/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (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:Composers for guitar

 * 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 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Composers for guitar to Category:Composers for the classical guitar
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on the introduction, this is not for all composers, but rather a specific subset. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - categorizing composers by instrument is overcategorization. There is no theoretical limit to the instruments for which the same composer may compose. Imagine the category clutter that someone like Mozart would accumulate if he ended up categorized by every instrument in the orchestra. Otto4711 (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Category:Composers by instrument seems a perfectly valid concept. Bach is in 4 of these, and why not? Occuli (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because if this were fully implemented Bach would be placed in a category for every instrument for which he ever wrote a note. The mass of categories that would result from a single symphony would lead to a solid block of blue text where the useless categories like Category:Composers for glockenspiel and Category:Composers for classical tambourine would swamp the actual useful categories. Categories are not an indexing system. If a composer is noted for his or her compositions for a particular instrument then this should be noted in their articles and a list, either within the instrument's article or a list article, much like List of composers for the classical guitar, should be created. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks suspiciously like a Slippery Slope argument. Is there any evidence of any composers actually being placed in a plethora of such categories? (There would be more room for musical categories, eg the guitar one, for Michael Tippett if he were in fewer LGBT ones.) Occuli (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You yourself said that Bach was in four such categories, out of the thirteen that currently exist. Does four of 13 make a "plethora"? As for Tippett, he's in a grand total of three LGBT categories, Category:LGBT people from England, Category:Gay musicians and Category:LGBT composers. He's in the same number of alumni categories and he's in more award recipient categories. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename to better match description of category contents and to more effectively match the title of the corresponding List of composers for the classical guitar to allow the category and list to be developed synergistically and to allow readers to navigate more effectively based on title. There is no evidence that the much-dreaded slippery slope has any relevance here, nor that it should have any weight anywhere. Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As has already been noted, one composer is already in four such categories. There is no reason to believe that he will not be placed in other similar categories, those that already exist and those that will likely be created should this categorization scheme continue. The idea that we can't think ahead to determine the possible (and, given the manner in which categories proliferate, probable) consequence of keeping a category because it's a "slippery slope" is nonsensical. As for evidence, there's no evidence that my argument is a "slippery slope" at all. Otto4711 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom Bull dog123  06:07, 5 June 2009 (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:Classical guitar

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Classical guitar to Category:Classical guitars
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Plural as is the norm. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename (singular to plural) change of view in light of Occuli's explanation. BencherliteTalk 22:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – this is a topic category, article Classical guitar. Category:Classical guitars would be a list (sub)category for particular guitars and would certainly not include International classical guitar competitions or Category:Classical guitarists (who are not guitars). (Cf Category:Wine and Category:Wines and many others.) Occuli (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree these are 2 different things, as eloquently explained by Occuli. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (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:Ergo Proxy

 * 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 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ergo proxy


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category that contains only three articles and a navbox. The media article needs to be merged with the others, and the navbox is at TfD. ···「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk to Dinoguy1000 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — ···「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk to Dinoguy1000 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:02, 2 June 2009 (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:Platense managers

 * 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 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Platense managers to Category:Club Atlético Platense managers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Club Atlético Platense, and see related discussions. BencherliteTalk 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (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:Platense

 * 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 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Platense to Category:Club Atlético Platense
 * Nominator's rationale: to match main article, which is Club Atlético Platense; see related discussion below. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support King of the  North   East  21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree per nominator. Debresser (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:Club Atlético Platense players

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Club Atlético Platense footballers. Kbdank71 13:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Club Atlético Platense players to Category:Platense footballers
 * Nominator's rationale: At best the category pointlessly duplicates the pre-existing category, at worst it looks like some kind of hoax as the title claims that Club Atlético Platense are based in the Faroe Islands? King of the  North   East  21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge to match main article name Club Atlético Platense. BencherliteTalk 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is to be considered it should be moved to (not players) to match the naming convention for Argentine footballer categories.  King of the  North   East  21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Will tag Tagged . Merge both to Category:Club Atlético Platense footballers. Incidentally, I've changed the link to Faroe Islands to the clearly-intended "Argentina"; the category creator had earlier created Category:B36 Tórshavn players, which is a Faroe Islands club, so it seems to be a simple cut-n-paste error when creating another category (been there, done that...) BencherliteTalk 21:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reason to stick with "footballers" is the fact that various other sports are played at the club. King of the  North   East  21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. King of the  North   East  21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Category:Club Atlético Platense footballers per above rationale. Occuli (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2009 (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.

Film acting awards

 * 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 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Film awards for Best Actress to Category:Film awards for lead actress
 * Category:Film awards for Best Supporting Actor to Category:Film awards for supporting actor
 * Category:Film awards for Best Supporting Actress to Category:Film awards for supporting actress
 * Nominator's rationale:Rename per successful CfR of Category:Film awards for lead actor. There was a consensus that the use of the superlative "best" should be avoided -- since not all awards are for "best" in category -- as well as a need to respect WP:NCCAT guidelines for capitalization.
 * -- Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support consensus.
 * Support based on consensus for previous similar changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2009 (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:Quebec cinema

 * 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.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Quebec cinema to Category:Cinema of Quebec
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unlike the nomination below, this is a place, and it has cinemas (plural) in this location, so it should be named in the same manner as other places. Its main article is Cinema of Quebec.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Regardless of what happens below (which I'm staying out for now since I seem to be unable to maintain a consistent position in my CfR for Jewish film for more than two minutes) this one seems fairly cut and dried. (BTW, I copied and adapted your group CfR template below for mine above. Thanks!). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per both. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (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.

cinema to film

 * 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--Aervanath (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:African American cinema to Category:African American film
 * Category:Black Canadian cinema to Category:Black Canadian film
 * Category:Indigenous cinema to Category:Indigenous film
 * Category:Inuit cinema to Category:Inuit film
 * Category:Native American cinema to Category:Native American film
 * Category:Mexican American cinema to Category:Mexican American film
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent of "films" is "film".


 * Naming conventions (categories)




 * Looking up the history for "Cinema" versus "Film" discussions, here's the gist of the prevailing argument (back in 2005-2006):
 * "Cinema" is the umbrella for "Cinemas", and "Film" is the umbrella for "Films".
 * Thus, "Cinema of ..." encompasses the film companies, and the theaters where they are shown, and the various conglomerates that traditionally own(ed) them both.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the link to that discussion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments – the parent of 1 and 3 is in fact Category:Cinema of the United States, and that of 2 is Category:Cinema of Canada. See Category:Cinema by country. On the other hand Category:Cinema was merged into Category:Film in this cfd so there is a good case for renaming everything that begins 'Category:Cinema'. Occuli (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 31.


 * Oppose, I think. These categories—especially the African American one—cover more than just films, therefore "cinema" would seem to be more correct. PC78 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think - Like the Jewish one, the African american one covers the whole industry. The debate merging the head cats was pretty superficial, no?  The 135 country cats are not tackled here.  Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Like the Jewish one, the African American covers only "African American film actors", "Black Reel Awards", "African American film directors", "African American films", and "Race films" &mdash; all film(s). Counter-example Category:Cinema of the United States includes film(s), plus "Cinemas and movie theaters in the United States", "Hollywood history and culture", "Movie theatre chains in the United States" &mdash; all cinema. Seems a clear and easy to understand distinction.
 * William, scroll down past the sub-categories and look at the categorized articles. Johnbod is right. We have Spike Lee's production company, Magic Johnson's Black-owned cinema chain, etc. (I created the cat and had added them). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we probably need both name levels for proper categorization, to match other parts of the cinema and film trees.
 * Update, neither is actually notably African American. Ethnicity is not a transitive property. There's no citations, so I've removed them both. Problem fixed!
 * Last time I looked, neither actors nor awards were films. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it's a darn good thing these are "film" singular for topic, and not films plural for set, eh?


 * Oppose "cinema" sounds more encyclopedic than "film". Subjective argument, but nevertheless, such is my opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also very interested in this consensus that appears to be forming on what constitutes a "film" and a "cinema" category. William appears to be in agreement with PC78 that "more that just films" (or perhaps, more than just films and filmmakers) is a dividing line. If so, then I might be prepared to renominate my withdrawn AfD for Category:Jewish film, since it contains Category:Jewish film festivals -- which are, in a sense, venues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick look shows that Category:Film festivals is under Category:Film awards &mdash; thus, film, not cinema. But it's looking like there's variance about the other parents or parents of parents. For example:
 * Category:Cannes Film Festival is under both Category:Film awards and Category:Film festivals in France, which in turn is under Category:Cinema of France.
 * Others are under "bar fooian films" plural instead of singular (such as, Category:Asian American film festivals under both Category:Film festivals by type and Category:Asian American films), which is how I'd guess that Jewish film festivals (also by type) should match?
 * Festivals look like another outlier. Need some expert opinion from WikiProject Film!
 * For what's it's worth, for me the Category:Film festivals in France under Category:Cinema of France is the more compelling example. (while it's useful to have Category:Film awards as a mastercat for Category:Film festivals it's not always true that film festivals give awards). Anyway, thanks for your research as always. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These are not countries.
 * I know, but I thought you did agree above that ethnic film-related categories that include organizations may merit the higher "cinema" category, even though they're not countries. I'm worried we're going around in circles here. I'm afraid I'm going to have to Oppose the group nomination as currently composed, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question I don't think I can vote support or oppose on all the cats, since it's becoming clear that African American cinema does meet the "Cinema of ..." criteria William has cited above. Would you consider withdrawing that one? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, for a moment I was thinking: We lived without these categories for 8 years, they are new, and they are turning out to be hard to define; regular editors will have problems with them, we don't really need them, delete them. But then I remembered that only one person created both the categories and the African American outliers without researching the precedent. So, maybe it's fixable, and they can be defined in a clear and consistent manner. See my update above.
 * I guess I created a lot of this. If I made a mess, sorry Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Many of the oppose votes would make sense if the nomination was to "Foo films" (plural).  Yes, these contain more than just films, so "Foo films" is a bad rename.  But "Foo film" (singular) is just fine.  Film not only refers to the strip of material that is used for reproduction of images and sound, and to motion pictures, but the motion-picture industry as a whole.  And as the nomination clearly states, there is a difference between "Cat:Opera" and "Cat:Operas".  Same with "Cat:Film" and "Cat:Films".  And that is also why the cfr of Cat:Cinema to Cat:Film makes sense.  --Kbdank71 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. As the creator of many or all of these cats, I failed to fully understand the film/cinema usage in naming. And upon consideration, as William states here, adhering to some formula whereby an ethnic film cat moves up a notch to "cinema" if the category contains organizations, cinemas or the like is just going to cause confusion for editors. If we stick with cinema for geographic categories, then at least we have a clear policy, arbitrary as the split is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2009 (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:Khövsgöl
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.--Aervanath (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Khövsgöl to Category:Khövsgöl Province
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, and to eliminate ambiguity (all the names of Mongolian aimags also have other meanings). --Latebird (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose that the aimag names have other meanings in Mongolian does not mean they have other meanings in English. In any case, I don't think Category:Khövsgöl would be more problematic than Category:Brandenburg. Yaan (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Main article is at Khövsgöl Province, and Khövsgöl is a dab page.  --Kbdank71 13:48, 9 June 2009 (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:A380 ready Airports
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * a380 ready airports


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Silly category adds no value to airport article or to wikipedia. Involves a level of original research. No other aircraft type ready airport categories have been needed before. MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: It shows the worlds largest, most modern airports. Wispanow (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is a case for WP:OR and WP:POV issues. Just because an airport does not choose to support a particular aircraft does not mean that it is not among the largest or the most modern. At least one of the 20 busiest airports has made a decision to not support this aircraft.  At the same time the airport has added new terminal space, totally replaced a concrete runway and is adding a new terminal building.  So how can you say that the decision to not support one aircraft defines this airport as not among the largest or most modern? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its better than a list. And there is currently no list of the worlds largest airports. This could be a start.Wispanow (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are plenty of such lists: World's busiest airports by traffic movements, World's busiest airports by passenger traffic, World's busiest airports by cargo traffic, World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic. There is little, if any, correlation to whether they have proclaimed themselves "A380-ready". Jpatokal (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Being A380-ready isn't the only criterion for an airport being called modern. The A380 just happens to be the world's largest commercial airliner at the moment. Making a list like this suggests that it is also valid to make lists for airports that are ready for other aircraft sizes. The A380 just happens to be the biggest at the moment. Elektrik Blue (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The A380 is currently the biggest challenge for airports. Look what the listed airports have done, others (not listed, because currently not able) will invest huge amounts for being A380 capable.
 * Huge weight, Double decks, extremly large passenger-capacity: This is a current, very important criterion for international airports. Wispanow (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The A380 may be the biggest, physically, but there are way other factors that are a challenge to airports, not just size. Besides, you have to show that huge weight, double decks are indeed very important criteria for international airports, otherwise, that is just a subjective statement. Elektrik Blue (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fundamentally OR, as A380s can use any airport rated for 747s, and being "ready" beyond the bare minimum of runway length is entirely up to the airport to decide. Jpatokal (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats wrong: "as A380s can use any airport rated for 747s". See what the airports in the category have done, and look at Megaproject too. Wispanow (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per my replies above, and WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Elektrik Blue (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also note Articles for deletion/Airports serving the A380 and Articles for deletion/List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have just perused the article for my local airport (Auckland Airport) and find that the terminal was extended to allow for "double decker" aeroplanes to dock. The terminal needed to be expanded anyway and the docks on the new pier can be used for 747s just as easily. I cannot see that being A380 capable is a defining criterion for an airport. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify to the A380 article, only for airports that were A380 ready at the time of launch. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; listify if you must, but categorizing facilities by what things they can handle seems a stretch. Category:Americans With Disabilities Act-compliant buildings anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 June 2009
 * Delete - Per nom. Also, according to Wallop Bhukkanasut, chairman of Thai Airways International's executive board, the A380 can only "...currently operate through eight airports around the world..." (June 2009). Somebody is wrong here - and I'll bet it's not the THAI executive - as the 747 can operate at far more than eight airports. - BillCJ (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (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:Ecology of the British Isles
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ecology of the british isles


 * Nominator's rationale: Incorrect use of the word ecology. Depopulate by moving contents to Category:Natural history of the United Kingdom and Category:Environment of the United Kingdom. For more info see WikiProject Environment and subpages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as all his "ecology" related nominations. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to "Œcology of the British Isles", if you don't like the word as it stands ;-) — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:58, 1 June 2009 (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:Ecology of Africa
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep and repopulate. Kbdank71 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ecology of africa


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty, not likely to be populated and poor use of the word ecology. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – it was populated yesterday, and has been depopulated by Alan Liefting (I wish people wouldn't do this - it turns cfd into an investigation). I have no idea whether ecology is being misused but there is Category:Ecology and WP:ECOLOGY and it would be nice if someone from the latter other than AL could opine. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as all his "ecology" related nominations. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep impossible to evaluate as nominator deleted the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2009 (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:Ecology of the United States by state
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep and repopulate. Kbdank71 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ecology of the united states by state


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty cat and no chance of being populated. Ecology does not have political boundaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it was populated yesterday and has been depopulated by the nom, who is also making a nonsense of the category tree whilst cfds are proceeding. I would ask Alan Liefting to undo the related edits in the last few days so other editors can make informed comments on the matter. Occuli (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as all his "ecology" related nominations. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep impossible to evaluate as nominator deleted the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2009 (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:History of ideas
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep.--Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:History of ideas to Category:History of philosophy
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are synonymous. I am trying to generally organize and tighten up categories under philosophy. Philosophy is the academic study of the history of ideas. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep these are not synonyms. the history of ideas is not the history of philosophy, they are different stories and different audiences.  --Buridan (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Category:History of philosophy is currently but one sub-category of Category:History of ideas which seems correct. Philosophy should not be a trump card. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Philosophy is an academic discipline, so I would count that as a 'high card.' However, I am very open to clarifying the relationship between these two categories. Perhaps the history of philosophy category can focus on the philosophers and their story, and the ideas category can be a home for ideas which are considered obsolete or arcane --however that runs into clarification issues also. I am looking for good ways to organize ideas, concepts, theories, belief systems, etcetera in general.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * well in terms of categories, it seems pretty clear to me that the history of philosophy is a subset of the history of ideas, one set of narratives amongst many sets.  I don't think abstract objects are the same as abstract ideas, the latter are likely almost synonymous with concepts, the former are not.  In terms of overarching categories such as 'theories' that .... is just likely a category to delete, as it is completely impossible to maintain, i mean if you are a solopsist, this whole thing we call life might be a theory.... and given that most things have theoretical content... given the relationships between language and objects.... well.... i'd say we have to only really allows theories that operate in clear fields (not even disciplines) --Buridan (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After considering the objections I hope my proposal is reconsidered. I cite the following A) Philosophy is the history of ideas. B) If this category was "history of numbers" it would be placed under mathematics, the academic department responsible for such things. I think that the same relationship holds between philosophy and ideas. Philosophy s "responsible" for ideas in the same way. In any case it is, and will continue to cause inconvenience in article categorization.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (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:Criticisms
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.--Aervanath (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Criticisms to Category:Criticism
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Substantially the same concept. I am trying to generally tighten up and organize things under philosophy. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree completely with nominator. Interesting how this went undetected. Debresser (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd speculate that one was created due to unawareness of the other. I think a category redirect would be the best result here. — CharlotteWebb 14:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Criticisms does look like a bit of a mess and something should be done, but I'm not sure what? But Category:Criticism seems too rigorous a parent for many of the entries in the former, especially in its own parentage. To take examples, do Criticism of Windows Vista and Windows refund really belong alongside Literary criticism under parent category Category:Critical thinking? AllyD (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And similar for Dental amalgam controversy. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; better name needed, but this isn't it. "criticism" is all about criticism in the arts, whereas "criticisms" is all about politics, current affairs etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a historically grown coincidence to me. But even if this were on purpose, it does not seem a distinction that would justify keeping both categories. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously it does if they are completely different things. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh John how would one be expected to discern this from the title? If there is a functional difference (other than quantity!), these should be renamed to reflect it. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying: "criticism" is ok, "criticisms should be renamed. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the easier to refine is Category:Criticism, for example to Critical writings, Aesthetic criticism or Arts criticism? But I'm aware that these stray into the terminology where Greg has been striving for exactitudes - Greg, any suggestion for a refined terminology? AllyD (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Further category developments will occur naturally if we merge criticisms to criticism. If there are any to be had. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's the sticking things together that will create the impetus to pull them apart again? That seems like the long way round. Even temporarily, I cannot see Literary criticism and Dental amalgam controversy belonging together. As a typical Glaswegian, I have more than the average amalgam and will admit to reading Paul de Man in the dentist's waiting room, but that's as close as it gets and not enough to categorise these articles together. Better, in my opinion, to tidy the naming of the two categories. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that there is a natural evolution to the placement of articles in categories and the need to create new ones. If we have a chance to see an accumulation of a certain type of article in a category a new category will naturally and inevitably be formed. However, I am not forming any conclusion on that yet, as I would like to see what develops. If you have a vision beyond what I am choosing to focus on, then I would recommend you go ahead and make whatever category changes you see developing under such a new scheme. I however would merely like to get this step out of the way presently. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's mereging completely different trhings, and a big step backwards. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge now rather than do nothing Just because it is criticism in differing fields is irrelevant to the fact that they are criticisms. To say they are completely different things really is over the top here Criticisms=>Criticism. Its completely the same, not completely different. We have the ability to use subcategories to further deal with the issues you are jumping ahead to be concerned with. To whatever degree articles do not fit the new scheme is exactly the degree that they do not deserve to be in it. You guys deal with a lot of categories, you should know better about how things evolve.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; better to refine category names, as discussed above. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2009 (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:Jewish bankers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * jewish bankers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Jewish isn't a nationality. This is a subcategory of Category:Bankers by nationality.
 * For a truly notable heritage, this should be divided into Category:Jewish-American bankers, etc. But most don't seem to meet the requirements: ""
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nota Bene: this category has been deleted twice before &mdash; banned user content &mdash; but doesn't seem to suffer that problem at this time.
 * See my opinon at . Debresser (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Particularly, in this case, given the sad history of "Jewish banker" being used as an attack term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I meant in my comment at . I just wasn't sure that this existed in English also. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Valid sub-cat of "Jews by occupation" & in medieval times the "heritage" was indeed "essential to the occupation", & there is a mountain of literature on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a profession that many Jews were practically forced into due to restrictions on practice of other occupations, which is amply demonstrated as defining based on the Rothschild family, among other such individuals. I would remove Paul Wolfowitz, but the category is defining. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid sub-cat of "Jews by occupation" David
 * Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete "Valid sub-cat of "Jewish by occupation"" isn't an excuse. The entire reason for having that parent cat is to contain relevant subdivisions. This is not one of them as William Allen has shown. Bull dog123  06:05, 5 June 2009 (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:Jewish journalists
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * jewish journalists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Jewish isn't a nationality. This is a subcategory of Category:Journalists by nationality.
 * For a truly notable heritage, this should be divided into Category:Jewish-American journalists, etc. But most don't seem to meet the requirements: ""
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree in this case, since the Jewishness of a journalist often has a noticable influence on his (area of) work. Debresser (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I agree though that this category can not be a subcategory of Category:Journalists by nationality. I agree with the other three "Jewish" categories the nominator has nominated here today as per his rationale. Although Category:Jewish bankers is arguable since often they are singled out for their Jewishness. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rampant speculation. Please show examples.
 * The heritage of all of these that I've examined is not referenced, nor notable.
 * Such as Ted Koppel. The American viewing public has never known that he might be Jewish, based on his (unconfirmed) parental religion.
 * Not one of the current 9 references contains any permutation of the word "Jew".
 * There's no confirmation that he self-identifies as Jewish.
 * We have nothing notable that his unconfirmed Jewishness was essential to his occupation.
 * Therefore, that should be removed from his article immediately! ✅
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. If the category is not appropriate, add Category unsourced or Category relevant?, or indeed remove it if you want to be bold. This is not an argument in discussion about the whole category though. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please specify what you'd like to see examples for. And please remain civil. No need to accuse other editors of "rampant speculation", as you put it. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support While I would oppose a CfD for Jewish writers -- coming from the hometown of Mordecai Richler may have something to do with it -- because I do believe that in some arts fields a "Jewish" sensibility can be "essential to the occupation," I do agree with William that the claim that "Jewishness of a journalist often has a noticable influence on his (area of) work" is too speculative. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the definition supplied by the nominator is satisfied by the category. Issues with particular entries should be addressed within the specific article in question. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Carlos. I would also add that this category is not nearly as absurd as Category:Jewish fashion designers, Category:Jewish astronauts, and Category:Jewish inventors (which has been deleted and recreated and then deleted and recreated again). Should simply be deleted permanently. These categories are nothing more than play-things for people who use wikipedia as a vehicle by which to satisfy some type of inner fancy for promoting Judaism at a near cult-like status. According to these categorizations, Judaism combines religion, ethnicity, and values in ways that other identities (nationality, race, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist identity) apparently do not. If you're a Christian and an astronaut, nobody cares. You don't get categorized in Category:Christian astronauts. If your great grandmother was black and you're an astronaut, nobody cares either. You don't get categorized into Category:African-American astronauts. But if your grandmother was Jewish, you don't follow the religion yourself, and you're an astronaut, you're automatically categorized into Jewish astronauts. It's a ridiculous system that just makes the encyclopedia look bogged down by identity promoters instead of editors.  Bull dog123  05:56, 5 June 2009 (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:Jewish physicians
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * jewish physicians


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the only other religious subcategory of Category:Physicians than Category:Christian medical missionaries. Pretty sure these aren't missionaries.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Query – why is it not a valid subcat of Category:Jews by occupation? Occuli (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The occupation naming convention is by nationality. Combining with ethnicity (for example, Category:Jewish-American physicians) would require:"" Hard to imagine that there were physicians that could only work because they were Jews, or there is a particularly Jewish medicine. Otherwise, it's not notable.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is Category:African American physicians; and the quote that is cited from the convention is a self-quote. The talk page of Naming conventions (categories) consists mostly of unanswered assertions by WASimpson ... changing policy seems a little too easy. Occuli (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * african american physicians
 * recently recreated 2009-03-13 03:08:52 by Alansohn;
 * has been 3 times deleted in the past 2.5 years;
 * should be deleted again today.
 * Thank you for bringing it to everybody's attention!
 * Jewish American physicians was also deleted in the same discussion:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1.
 * The only policy change was reducing should to may, and took place over many discussions here. The language is based on the language used during discussion over a period of 2 years, and the discussion links (and companion guidelines) are documented on the Talk page.
 * Agreed that most recent (May) posts at the Talk page have been my notices of important relevant discussions, where there is plenty of participation.
 * That's how policy is maintained, and it's a long and arduous process ... updating policy seems a little too difficult! But I suppose that's as it should be, for the sake of stability.


 * See my opinon at . Debresser (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid sub-cat of Category:Jews by occupation. Although Jews don't go in "by nationality" cats, we should be especially sensitive about the dubious claim that they are not a nation. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see Jews categorized under Category:People by nationality, and I wonder how long they would remain there, if so categorized. My guess: not very long. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Carlos Bull dog123  05:50, 5 June 2009 (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:Jewish philologists
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * jewish philologists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Jewish isn't a language. There are Hebrew philologists.
 * Also, Jewish isn't a nationality, either. This is a subcategory of Category:Philologists by nationality.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See my opinon at . Debresser (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2009 (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:Orange foods
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * orange foods


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorization of food by colour doesn't strike me as a particular useful new structure (non-defining characteristic, perhaps) even if everyone can agree on what colour each food is. BencherliteTalk 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like the intent was to categorize foods high in beta-carotene. Even that category would need some sort of objective standard, which might be difficult to define.  Notice that List of orange foods redirects to this category but it was originally a list and then it redirected to Beta-carotene before the present incarnation. Drawn Some (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting timing on the change of the redirect and adding it to the category. I undid that change for now. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as OC trivial. Though it's good to know that orange popsicles are high in beta-carotene. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as non-defining. If you eat a road cone, does that make it an orange food? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and daftify. Done with the best of intentions, I'm sure, but faintly ridiculous as a categorisation scheme. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial category. —  Σ xplicit  02:05, 3 June 2009 (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.