[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 18

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< February 17 February 19 >

February 18

edit

Category:American architects by ethnic or national origin

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American architects by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American architects of Armenian descent
Category:American architects of Asian descent
Category:American architects of English descent
Category:American architects of Finnish descent
Category:American architects of French descent
Category:American architects of German descent
Category:American architects of Hungarian descent
Category:American architects of Irish descent
Category:American architects of Italian descent
Category:American architects of Luxembourgian descent
Category:American architects of Polish descent
Category:American architects of Romanian descent
Category:American architects of Russian descent
Category:American architects of Turkish descent
Category:American architects of Ukrainian descent
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Upmerge. Another egregious WP:OCAT by ethnicity issue. There is no documentation linking heritage with architecture for any of these ethnicities, or more specifically, for any of these individuals. Bulldog123 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom except for Category:American architects of Asian descent, on which no opinion for now. The others seem overly specific and of little cultural consequence as intersections, but I know that in other arts at least, there is a recognized study of Asian Americans as a group, so I'd like to see some arguments for that category as it relates to architecture. postdlf (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to 'American people of xxx descent' parents or grandparent. No known articles to support this set of occupation categories. Hmains (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all. Pointless category intersection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, and do not try to do away with national origin / ethnicity articles in this way. The nominator has been on a tear trying to get rid of these categories throughout the encyclopedia, and widespread changes like this need to be handled in a better way than mass deletion nominations. CfD is simply not an adequate tool for considering a policy change like this. To consider any of this per OCAT as it currently exists we would need to separately consider each category and determine whether it is a notable subject. That some American architects are notable for their national or ethnic background is unquestionable - there are no doubt many books and articles on the subject. Others, perhaps not. Generalized comments that the subject itself is worthless are not helpful, and run against the spirit of encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects. I suggest that this process be aborted in favor of a wider discussion. - 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Just as a brief followup, although there is no possible way an editor can or should respond to so many simultaneous deletion nominations, as a case in point there isn't even a category at the moment for Cuban-American architects. But here is an article describing the importance of the subject.[1] It's not just happenstance of birth or heritage. The point is that people's culture influences their aesthetics and life story, and they take that to their careers. There is a distinct Cuban influence in American architects and architecture, just as there is Italian-Americans and Italianate/Mediterranean architecture (plus a streak of modernism), French, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wider-policy discussions" lead to stalemates and inaction, like, for example, when people tried to add "ethnicity" to WP:BLPCAT, specifically because they lack focus. Case-by-case XfDs are and always have been a perfectly legitimate way to judge whether material is encyclopedic. Your final sentences are just a lot of WP:OR and assumptions. If slim-to-no external coverage on these intersections, we don't create them per WP:SYNTH. Bulldog123 09:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldog, if these discussions go against you, will you conclude there is no point in this crusade? Its your assumption that there is no importance that is the OR. DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly trying to convince me that it's WP:OR for me to say that no external refs exist to support these intersections when.... no external refs actually exist and you can't even provide them? Really? No, I don't consider the same group of users hounding my cfds as being representative of "Wikipedia-wide" consensus. It's not coincidental that whenever these users miss the cfds, they end in a unanimous Upmerge/Delete consensus (See the actors and sportspeople categories). It's also not coincidence that we have a specific policy designed to make sure these categories don't get made. (WP:OCAT) I'm not saying there's no importance to ethnic classification... I'm saying there's no documentation of the importance for these ethnic/occupation classifications (for these individuals). Therefore, we don't report it as true. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Honestly, if it were anyone else nominating these cats, they'd end in upmerge/delete consensus without hesitation. FYI You're actually one of the few opposing users who doesn't hound my contributions (just has a very nichey opinion), so I'm not accusing you personally of anything. I actually respect your opinion even if it baffles me. Bulldog123 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above keep -- well said. Wholly agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest keeping all. I just had occasion to add two new entries to American architects of French descent. Even though the number added is small it makes the category look more complete. The number of entries has grown from 4 to 6 and I can easily see that number climbing quite a bit higher.

    Why not leave all of these categories alone. In time most of them will surely contain worthwhile infomation.Lukascb (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ethnic background a swell as nationality is important with respect to artists. I note almost none of the delete or upmerge opinions give an actual reason beyond ITISNOTIMPOTSNTTOME. Perhaps a wider discussion is needed, for the end results of cfd discussions like this tends to be essentially random results.
  • Upmerge all. Unless one can prove that people of Ukrainian, Turkish or another descent have a specific separate view of architecture in the United States, this is a trivial intersection.--TM 14:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most architects when identified as an American architect of ethnic descent are identified as such, not only because of their background, but because it informs their designs. Many American architects of Italian descent (Nicholas Saracino, etc.) enjoyed special praise for their Baroque, Renaissance, and Italianate stylings, Polish for the Polish Cathedral styling, Irish (Jeremiah O'Rourke, etc.) for Irish Gothic works, English for (F.C. Merry, Robert W. Gibson, Richard Upjohn, etc.) for English-influenced Gothic Revival works, German (J. William Schickel, Arthur Bohn, Bernard Vonnegut, Sr., etc) for German Renaissance and Baroque, French (Pierre Charles L'Enfant) for the relevant French classical contemporary styles, Ukrainian (Apollinaire Osadca) for modern Ukrainian Orthodox stylings, and certainly architects of African-American heritage are relevant. In one of the earliest posts (by postdlf), I find the latter category's exclusion from deletion, along with that of Category:American architects of Asian descent, to be particularly distasteful in judging those more relevant than any other group. Pointless intersection (as Necrothesp suggests)? No. These are not scuba divers or tennis players by ethnic origin, these are artists with highly relevant backgrounds that inform their art.---James R (talk)
I think what you're asking to keep is something like :Category:Architects of the Irish Gothic style... which is not at all equivalent to Category:Architects of Irish descent. these are artists with highly relevant backgrounds that inform their art. Source for each person listed here? Wikipedia is about verifiability, not what you believe to be true. We don't lump together people whose ethnic background is irrelevant just because some wikipedia editors believe the statement "architect's background informs their design" should apply to everyone. Where's, for example, the evidence that we have to now classify Alexander John Majeski as an "architect of Polish descent?" I'm not seeing his Polish descent being mentioned anywhere regarding his architecture. Bulldog123 11:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American theatre directors of Asian descent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. However, since this is a subcategory of Category:American people of Asian descent, any non-Americans should be pruned from the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American theatre directors of Asian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rename to Category:Directors of Asian American theatre and prune the WP:OCAT by ethnicity entries. Asian American theatre directing is not a potential article. Also there is not an Asian-American-way of directing theatre, or anything to distinguish being Asian American and directing theatre from merely directing theatre. Any claims that there might be is WP:OR. Bulldog123 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that you can read, I'm not going to waste my time schooling you on the diverse experiences of ethnic minorities in particular occupations. Suffice to say, sometimes it's a question of how people got there and what they had to do to get there that made their experience distinct, not necessarily the output of their work once they got there. As your rhetorical questions indicate (the equivalent of repeating "I don't get it"), this is clearly a subject area that you have problems with, so maybe you shouldn't be knocking your head against it over and over again. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a rhetorical question. And if you want to be catty, I'll leave you with this: Freshen up on WP:OR. You still don't seem to have a good grasp of it, given those assumptions you just threw out there (and that you've thrown out in the past regarding ethnic categorizations). I also get the feeling that the reason you're not "schooling" me on what other way an Asian-American can make his theatre play Asian-Americanish besides directing/creating/producing it differently... is because you yourself don't know. There's a reason all academia on the subject of Asian American theatre only includes plays about Asians or the Asian-American experience. Whatever other way you wish to concoct doesn't have external references to back it up... Bulldog123 10:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think I've violated WP:OR by observing, in this deletion discussion, that you're ignoring one of the ways this category could be analyzed? That's an interesting claim. This is the same tactic you've used in XFD after XFD regarding ethnicity-based lists or categories: insisting that the only way an ethnic group's participation in an occupation could be culturally or historically significant (i.e., notable) is if their output in that occupation is somehow different from that of other ethnic groups. Which, as I said, ignores that in many cases the relevant question may be how that ethnic group got to that occupation or other activity and what they had to do to get there. African Americans do not vote differently in Congress; African Americans do not play baseball differently; Irish-Americans did not fight differently in the Civil War; and Puerto Ricans did not arrive in New York by unique methods of transportation. But in all of those cases, those groups may have faced different barriers that they had to overcome, or were subject to different motivating factors that compelled them towards certain activities as a group, which is at least part of why they are studied as distinct groups within those areas. Why is that observation WP:OR, but not your assumption that an ethnic/occupation intersection is only meaningful if the ethnic group performs that occupation differently?

    I already said I didn't know what the situation was for this category, when I said "I am not prepared to defend [this category] here (no do I know it can be)." So kudos for calling me out on not being able to do something I had already expressly said I could not do. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • And what I'm saying is... it doesn't matter what possible way (we might think) it affects them If there is no external documentation explicitly citing "this person's ethnicity influenced his becoming a ____ in [enter way here]." We don't lump people into a category/list just because some of them might have had their ethnicity influence their profession. That's the WP:OR issue that keeps evading you (as it evaded you during the list of Jewish actors DRV - which, by the way, remains the same indiscriminate owned article it's always been - no changes whatsoever despite all those "it can be fixed" claims). Categories and lists don't exist to house everyone that fits the two independent criterias... they exist to only house the relevant examples (per WP:BLPCAT, WP:EGRS, WP:OCAT, WP:OR, WP:NOT... it goes on and on). My nomination rationales are just based on the most common way to link ethnicity and occupation - that being that the person creates or exudes something distinct. If there are other ways, okay then, but that's certainly not relevant to this particular nomination or the architects or sportspeople nominations I made before. I asked a legitimate, non-rhetorical question specifically about this category and you jumped all over it in a passive-aggressive way. Also, there's only one instance of an ethnicity in any of those straw-man examples you just gave (some of them being WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); that example was Irish-Americans in the American Civil War and it happens to be a rather poorly written article, not an indiscriminate, criteria-less list/category. Thereby, I don't understand how it's comparable to any nomination I've listed recently. Irish-Americans and the civil war is a distinct cultural topic apparently. However if we were to make a list form, not everyone who happens to be of Irish descent should be included. That's the ultimate point. Bulldog123 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with that... but, in that case, it should be Keep and Prune, not just Keep. I'd also prefer if Asian American theatre had more sources to back it up. It's looking very WP:SYNTHy at the moment. You'd also need explicit citations that say these theatre directors participate in Asian American theatre, as it is defined. Bulldog123 10:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do that then the category clearly needs renaming, as it is not just for American theatre directors of Asian descent but for American theatre directors of Asian descent who direct Asian American theatre! Otherwise you're implying that American theatre directors of Asian descent only direct Asian American theatre! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Directors of Asian American theatre for those who actually direct in that genre. Upmerge those directors who are simply of Asian descent but direct general theatre to Category:American theatre directors and Category:American people of Asian descent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the presence of a clear parent article in Asian American theater and the presence of multiple texts on the subject archived by Google Books and elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it hasn't got a clear parent article. Just because some Asian American directors specialise in a specifically Asian American form of theatre doesn't mean they all do. Presumably some/many/most operate in the wider sphere, which is not covered by the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And should I point out this is starting to look like WP:WIKIHOUNDING... as Alansohn makes the same copy-and-paste argument in nearly every one of these nominations I make, paying no attention to exactly what Necrotesp points out is the main problem they all share in common (relevant examples versus everyone). Bulldog123 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, and do not try to do away with national origin / ethnicity articles in this way. Please forgive the cut-and-paste argument, but the nominator has been on a tear with cookie-cutter nominations trying to get rid of these categories throughout the encyclopedia. That isn't wikihounding, it's a policy issue. Widespread changes like this need to be handled in a better way than mass deletion nominations. To consider any of this per OCAT as it currently exists we would need to consider each category in detail and determine whether it is a notable subject. Generalized comments that the subject of national or ethnic background is impertinent to people's life work are not helpful, and run against the spirit of encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects. I suggest that all of these nominations be aborted in favor of a wider policy discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is wikihounding. There is no "policy" that states I have to bring these CfDs to a RfC or a policy-discussion. However, this is a policy that states that random ethnicity intersections lacking in significant external documentation should not exist. In fact, "Wider-policy discussions" lead to stalemates precisely because they are too broad and lack focus. The most recent example is the attempt to include "ethnicity" in WP:BLPCAT. Case-by-case XfDs are and always have been a perfectly legitimate way to judge whether this type of material is encyclopedic. Now... do you actually have an argument for why we should pigeonhole people of Asian ethnicity using this category? Bulldog123 09:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Wikidemon -- well said. Wholly agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, and add a category for " Category:Directors of Asian American theatre " -- an excellent suggestion of Bulldog's. for it is a different topic. Perhaps an equally important topic, too. I would keep all cateogries of this sort in the arts, wherte background really matters. As for proof of importance, see the LATimes and Newsday. both discussing the direction by asian americans of classic western theater. Thereare many works on Bulldog's topic also. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Rivers of the Black Sea drainage basin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea to Category:Black Sea Drainage Basin rivers Category:Tributaries of the Black Sea
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As it exists, it is a tripple intersection which we generally try to avoid. Move these up to an appropriate level category at the drainage basin level. Open to the best naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to believe the parent categories, this probably should have been named Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea of Romania. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UK Raves

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Rave culture in the United Kingdom.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK Raves to Category:Raves in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. No general category Category:Raves yet exists but would seem to be appropriate.Tim! (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with choster's alternative suggestion for a rename. Tim! (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IAF's CH-53 Yas'ur helicopters disasters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: triple-upmerge to Category:Israel Defense Forces disasters, Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion, and Category:Israeli Air Force.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IAF's CH-53 Yas'ur helicopters disasters to Category:Israeli Air Force helicopter disasters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems a bit over-specific to combine IAF, helicopter disasters, and the kind of helicopter. I suggest broadening this to "IAF helicopter disasters" (whether Yas'ur or non-Yas'ur) and expanding "IAF" to read "Israeli Air Force". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IEEE Fellows

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Fellow Members of the IEEE, revisit if this is not satisfactory. This one is most inline with the other Member categories and per the IEEE correspondence below. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IEEE Fellows to Category:Fellows of the IEEE
Nominator's rationale: The category was recently speedy moved from Category:Fellows of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers justified by this debate at which, however, it was not specifically mentioned. The current title is inconsistent with Category:Members of the IEEE and Category:Senior Members of the IEEE. It is also inconsistent with numerous categories of the form Category: Fellows of the foo such as Category:Fellows of the American Physical Society. SpinningSpark 19:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proper term is IEEE Fellow. However, you can use either term. Fellow Member of IEEE, or IEEE Fellow Member.

which I guess makes me wrong. I will provide the correspondence in full if requested by e-mail. SpinningSpark 23:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Self-immolations in protest to Communism in Eastern Europe

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Self-immolations in protest to Communism in Eastern Europe to Category:Self-immolations in protest of the Eastern Bloc
Nominator's rationale: The individuals in the category self-immolated to protest the communist regimes of the Eastern Bloc countries and/or Soviet dominance and influence in Eastern Europe, and not merely the presence of communist ideology in Eastern Europe. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Google employees

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Google employees into Category:Google employees and a new sub-category, Category:Former Google employees
Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing a split of this category, moving all former Google employees into a new subcategory, Category:Former Google employees. As it stands, current and former employees are lumped together c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify to Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization by non-defining characteristic.TM 18:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Piezo Audible Components

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Piezo Audible Components (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category elements are largely electromagnetic in character, not piezoelectric. In only few instances are microphones, tweeters, loudspeakers and buzzers piezoelectric. The category should be deleted. If editors think that the concept of this category is sound (pun intended), then it should be named Category:Piezoelectric audio components instead. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. of the six current members of the category, four are not specifically piezoelectric and one is not specifically audio, leaving a category with a single member only. SpinningSpark 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most current members are only peripherally members of this category. There doesn't appear to be enough it the way of core articles to justify the category. --Kvng (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish paramilitary organizations

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Jewish paramilitary organizations to Category:Militant Zionist groups
Nominator's rationale: There's a lot of duplicative categorization around pre-IDF Zionism and it seems for instance that Category:Haganah and Category:Irgun are in every conceivable parent. In the case of the two categories here there are only three pages that aren't in one of the subcategories, and I don't see a compelling reason to distinguish one of them from the other two. If a reverse merge were suggested I would be agreeable to that instead. At any rate the three subcategories ought to fall into only one of these categories. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Avian surnames

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Avian surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a category of surnames that are also names of birds. Seems overcategorization to me, but at the very least the name perhaps should be adjusted as my first thought on seeing it was where in the world does "Avian" refer to. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Schools with Junior Civitan

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Schools with Junior Civitan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, nondefining. The category is meant to include any schools where a Junior Civitan International club has been formed. This is not actually part of the schools as institutions, but rather an extra-curricular club that students may start at their school under the sponsorship of the organization (kind of a franchise thing, I imagine). Based on a sampling it seems that many (most?) included articles don't even mention this fact. postdlf (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historiographers of Islam

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historiographers of Islam to Category:Historians of Islam
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only historians, no need for a category for historiographers. TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_18&oldid=1074807260"