< June 6	June 8 >

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 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category would only have a handful of articles. All of those current articles are adequately categorized into category:ferrous alloys. Wizard191 (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as its sole article is in Category:Ferrous alloys, as is Cast iron. Occuli (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the category contained at least 5 materials, and more can be created. The nominator had already deleted the category, then added it back. Mfields1 (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator Wizard191 already deleted this category without discussion or nomination for deletion on May 30. The category at that time contained 7 cast irons which I had added to it:

All are distinct cast irons. Unfortunately, the article Cast Iron should not be named as such. The article attempts to cover the entire family of cast irons. The opening statement "Cast iron usually refers to grey cast iron..." is itself a bit unencyclopedic. The article needs work. For example, the third paragraph states "Cast iron tends to be brittle, except for malleable cast irons" which is patently false. The family of ductile irons is by definition of its name ductile and not brittle. The article promotes a stereotype of cast iron that people often associate with the oldest type, gray iron (or greay iron).

Perhaps the title of this category, "Cast iron and its alloys" is not a perfect description but the category should not be deleted as it may be one way for persons refering to Wikipedia to understand the interelationships for this group of alloys or metals.

In addition there are other cast iron types that would be added to this category to complete the category, for articles yet to be written for Wikipedia.

To add the category back, as Wizard191 has done, and put only one article in it potrays the category as originally created incorrectly. Mfields1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You are correct that the articles listed above were in the category, however I didn't "delete" the category. Rather, I removed the category from the pages. Wizard191 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what the CFD instructions ask you not to do, because the rest of us need to see them to judge the issue. Please do not do this again. The correct procedure is to nominate for CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The alloys of cast iron are all by definition ferrous alloys, and can easily be housed in there. Note - if the decision is to keep, the category will need renaming, as iron is not a proper noun and should have a lower case "i". Grutness...wha? 02:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steels are also ferrous alloys, yet the category Category:Steels exists in Wikipedia. Steels are not cast irons, and cast irons are not steels yet both are ferrous alloys. Mfields1 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No harm done with keeping the category as far as I can see, and its presence makes it obvious that the term "cast iron" covers several different materials. "Ferrous alloys" is certainly a very broad category--too broad in my estimation. Paul D. Anderson (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough different types of cast iron to clutter up the category structure with a separate cat, see this . Anyway, cast iron is an alloy, so Cast Iron and its alloys is not a good name for anything. If we must have a category then I suggest Cast irons as analogous to Category:Steels. Rationalisation of the category structure in this area would seem to be a good idea (as with most areas). Globbet (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'cast iron' is generic iron alloys which are cast (excluding steel). Often the term is used in place of grey iron (or gray iron). The iron alloys I refer to are ones which contain 2.5 to 4.0% Carbon and silicon contents from perhaps 1.0 to 3.0% (though some are higher silicon content). Their behavior is that to carbon level is much higher than can stay in solution and either during the casting process or a subsequent heat treat the carbon will coalesce into groupings of graphite. Besides the ones listed above there are Ni-resist (trademark name of Inco) cast irons, Ni-hard irons and others. The intention is that all these iron alloys (which are cast) be grouped into a category. They are distinct from other cast alloys but a subset of the ferrous alloys category. Mfields1 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or better Upmerge to ferrous alloys. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Legal professions. Kbdank71 13:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Legal occupations to Category:unknown

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This name is rather misleading when a few categories above you find Category:Illegal occupations in Category:Occupations. That paring creates some ambiguity. The question is, is there a better name for this category having to do with law related occupations? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something, per nom. How about: Law-related occupations, Occupations in law, Law and law enforcement occupations (since they are in there too)? Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REname possibly to Legal Professions or Lawyers. I accept that the present title is ambiguous as implying either law-related professions or lawful occupations. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawyers will not work in the name since not all of the occupations are lawyers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Category:Legal professions per Peterkingiron . It's the best solution offered in a week. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems to me to be overcategorization because it's categorizing places in the United States by their "contamination" status. Could perhaps make an article, but not a viable category. If kept, would need to be renamed to something like Category:Places in the United States with tritium contamination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1/3 I looked at mentioned tritium - better as an article. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can redo as article, but should the topic be broader, then (radiation contamination in the United States), perhaps? Watchpup (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award. There is no article about the Conrad Schlumberger Award of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (nor even for the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers), so I'm not even sure if it's "notable". Typically we convert award categories to lists, but right now there is only one article in this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable award, non-defining for its members. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge per revised nomination. Kbdank71 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Australian pimps and madams to Category:Pimps and madams ~~and Category:Australian sex workers~~

Category:Chinese pimps and madams to Category:Pimps and madams ~~and Category:Chinese sex workers~~

Category:French pimps and madams to Category:Pimps and madams ~~and Category:French sex workers~~

Category:South African pimps and madams to Category:Pimps and madams ~~and Category:South African sex workers~~

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge a series of one and two article categories. Given the small number of these in total, we probably could upmerge the British one as well. The American one has 28 articles and one subcategory, so maybe that one should remain. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to "pimps and madams", but oppose "sex worker", which is usually a euphemism for a prostitute, not a person living off the immoral earnings of others. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one occupation included in sex worker. So, based on that article, that upmerge us very reasonable. However if not including that means the rename happens so be it. I think that sex worker need a lot of work, especially sources to back up the scope of jobs it covers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) After reviewing sex worker and doing a little cleanup, it is clear that these are not sex workers. So I've modified the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note, I also removed the sex worker categorization from the current categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It looks like this category is so specific that I don't think it will ever have more than the title article in it ! thisisace (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree If ever we will have more articles we can always recreate this category, but I don't foresee that happening anywhere soon. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deductive theories to Category:Theories of deduction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is not for deductive theories as described in the article theory (mathematical logic). These are theories about deduction in general, not theories whose theorems can be derived deductively from other theorems in the theory. This proposal is part of a larger effort to organize theories and concepts in general. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- I see there has been no discussion at this point. As further explanation I should point out I created the category originally, and I am now proposing a rename. This is because all scientific theories are "deductive theories" as described in theory (mathematical logic). That is not what this category is for. These are the various "-isms" within the field of logic and mathematics (the deductive sciences). They are two totally different things, so I recommended this rename for clarification. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Coastal settlements in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Kbdank71 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coastal settlements of the East Riding of Yorkshire to Category:Coastal settlements in East Riding of Yorkshire

Nominator's rationale: The following was left on the talk page: "I propose that this category be renamed 'Coastal settlements in East Riding of Yorkshire' for naming consistency and future navigation. 82.38.63.64 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)"

This is merely a procedural nomination; I have no opinion on the matter. NW (Talk) 19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Coastal settlements in the East Riding of Yorkshire (with a 'the'); 'in' per its siblings in Category:Coastal settlements in England. Occuli (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename with "the" per Occuli. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:American brothel owners (without the "-", based on prevailing usage) and upmerge as nominated. No action on Category:Australian brothel-keepers and Category:British brothel-keepers as they were not nominated. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American brothel-keepers to Category:American brothel-owners

Propose Upmerging Category:Turkish brothel-keepers to Category:Brothel owners and Category:Turkish sex workers

Propose Upmerging Category:Mexican brothel-keepers to Category:Brothel owners and Category:Mexican sex workers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name in the parent category. I'm not nominating all of these for rename, since it appears that in some parts of the work, keeper is the more common use. Also since there are only a handful of these, the single entry ones should be upmerged to the appropriate parents. I'll consider adding Category:Australian brothel-keepers as an upmerge since it only has two members unless someone is aware of a reason to keep it. As to Category:British brothel-keepers, I'm leaving this alone since that may be the correct name. Of the 6 articles 3 are silent on the issue of owner vs, keeper. However the other 3 use keeper. I'll let someone else decide on keeping or not keeping the '-'. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to owners. Ownership and management are different concepts. Consider the cases when the madam is only the operator, but the "establishment" is actually owned and milked by, shall we say, "organization". Not to mention that legal ownership of an illegal joint is usually impossible - and is materialized through informal arrangements. NVO (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Owning brothels is legal in various parts of the world so there is not a problem. And while illegal in others, once a person is convicted of a crime for owning one they are clearly owners. In is rare in Nevada to have the owner and manger combined in a single person. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all These should be subcategories of Category:Brothel-keepers. If the category is small it is probably becasue it is a distasteful occupation, and most involved are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Brothel-keepers was renamed based on usage in other wiki articles and other points. Since brothel-keeper is not used in America, I don't understand your objection to that one, which I think includes the majority of the people in this occupation that have articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would have been helpful if you included a link to this earlier CFD for Category:Brothel-keepers. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to a name more consistent with the parent, and since all of the categories explain that keeper means owner. These introductions should be edited if the names are changed. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename the first as nominated. The nationality cats will be renamed to "Fooian railway mechanical engineers" per Andy's suggestion in the CfD immediately below. Note that this does not mean that the renamed categories could not be further broken down in categories for locomotive designers. Anyone can create these categories if they wish. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Locomotive designers/builders to Category:Locomotive builders and designers

Category:Austrian railway engineers to Category:Austrian locomotive designers

Category:British railway engineers to Category:British locomotive designers

Category:German railway engineers to Category:German locomotive designers

Category:Swiss railway engineers to Category:Swiss locomotive designers

Nominator's rationale: Rename for the sake of accuracy and clarity. In most English dialects, railway engineer denotes a person who drives and operates the train, not designs it. Also, I think the main category should be "Locomotive builders and designers", rather than having a slash in it. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say rename the category as Category:Locomotive designers (and seperated into Fooland locomotive designers, ie entries by nationality). Also incorporate Category:Locomotive superintendents, which seems to be an old British term for Chief Mechanical Engineer. And call it locomotive designers not locomotive builders and designers (the builder is either a railway workshop or a separate company, or going down to the shop floor is the machinist!).

Railway engineers (category) in practice seem to be mechanical engineers, which ignores the contributions of railway civil engineers in surveying and locating and laying track and bridges/tunnels. There does not even seem to be an article on A M Wellington the great railway location engineer!

Re Rail Transport categories, I have recently made various nationality categories for Category:People in rail transport; so that “German people in rail transport” can also link into “Rail transport in Germany” and “German people by occupation”. How about categorising all the entries in “People in rail transport” by nationality so that they link into these country categories also? Hugo999 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – in the UK the driver of a train is not called a 'railway engineer', so the article railway engineer does not apply to the UK. See eg List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway. Also a 'railway engineer' does not necessarily design locomotives, eg Carl Roman Abt designed railways. (The tree is undoubtedly a mess.) Occuli (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see OED "Engineer" 5 b: in England only those in charge of engines of war and ship engines, in the US train drivers. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As below: Keep but reallocate the articles between railway engineers (civil engineers), involved in track landscaping and construction, and mechanical engineer Locomotive designers/builders. At the moment both groups are in these categories - eg George Furness, Carl Ritter von Ghega etc. Category:Rail transport designers could indeed be used as a super category, with the articles also re-allocated. Some of course were both, but relatively few. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split, the issue is to what. I'd suggest:
Category:Locomotive designers

Category:Locomotive builders

Category:Railway designers

and carry this down to the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two might be ok, but 2engineers" is clearer and more usual than "designers" for civil engineers. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to being a little confused by the initial comments that "In most English dialects, railway engineer denotes a person who drives and operates the train, not designs it." That may be true in the US with railroad engineers, but in my experience the terms locomotive driver or locomotive operator are far more widely used for, erm, locomotive drivers in UK English-speaking countries (including places like Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand), whereas railway engineer tends to be used for the actual engineers. Sir Nigel Gresley was a railway engineer, but that doesn't mean he drove the trains. Given that we tend to use UK English for non-English speaking countries in Europe on Wikipedia, the above categories are correctly named. I suspect some work is needed both on the title of this category and on an article on railway engineers (which should at least be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect). But even if it was a redirect, this category would still be confusingly named, so the split Vegaswikian suggests is probably a good one. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Railway engineer is now a dab page. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Railroad engineer is the one who operates trains. Confusion is from the similar names and the different usage of the term engineer. 71.55.122.199 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it's true that in the US and Canada, a railroad engineer is an engine driver, as far as I know the term railway engineer is never used there - and that term has a different meaning in the places where it is used. I agree that the category should be renamed and split per Vegaswikian's suggestion, I'm just pointing out that you're arguing under a misapprehension if you think that the term "railway engineer" is widely used for a locomotive operator "in most English dialects" - as far as I know, it's rarely used in any dialects that way. It's not used that way in the US or Canada (where the word "railroad" is used), and it's not used that way in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or just about anywhere else which uses UK English. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category:Rail transport designers will have as subcategories “Fooland locomotive designers” ie by nationality and as well as Austrian, British German & Swiss there should be American, Canadian, French and Italian locomotive designers; I suppose there would be someone from each of those countries. Are there engineers to justify a separate category by country for civil/construction/surveying and location engineers? The categories for Railway entrepreneurs and perhaps Railway pioneers have only Austrian, German & Swiss subcategories at present; if they are useful categories there should be subcategories for the other countries as well. Hugo999 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the basic premise but oppose the choice of replacement categories. Why limit railroad engineering to locomotives? What about track planners, bridge engineers etc. ? NVO (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is very much connected with the discussion below. Please consider both and try to arrive at consensus before changing a load of stuff. It would be daft to have widely differing mess of categorisations as a result of differences between American and Commonwealth terminology, and it should be possible to accommodate most language sensitivities.

I don't like mixing designers/builders because, to my mind, designers are people (albeit heads of teams) and builders are companies. To me Locomotive builders is synonymous with the existing and non-controversial Category:Locomotive manufacturers. Globbet (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st item (but it would be better being split). Keep the rest. These are potentially precise categories. American usage should not be imposed on the rest of the anglophone world. Indeed, it is liable to lead to miscategorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Administrative close: category deleted as empty. However, I think there is consensus to implement Andy Dingley's proposal. I'm not sure what was in the category, but anyone familiar with the articles can implement the suggestion at this point. (See also nomination immediately above.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, redundant with Category:Locomotive designers/builders; see also above nomination. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – we have Category:Railway engineers, Category:Railway engineers by nationality and then 4 subcats (listed above). These 6 should be treated together. There seem to be no US ones ... what are such people called in the US, and elsewhere? What is George Pullman for instance? (He designed carriages, not locomotives.) There is already Category:Rail transport designers, which could be used as a super-category. Occuli (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reallocate the articles between railway engineers (civil engineers), involved in track landscaping and construction, and mechanical engineer Locomotive designers/builders. At the moment both groups are in these categories - eg George Furness, Carl Ritter von Ghega etc. Category:Rail transport designers could indeed be used as a super category, with the articles also re-allocated. Some of course were both, but relatively few. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. I reparented the by nationality category to Category:Rail transport designers. This category has major problems, it is just so wrong to have an introduction that points to a lead article while the rest of the introduction says that the lead article does not apply here but here is the inclusion criteria being used. Removing that one subcategory ad rewording the introduction allows for inclusion of individuals who qualify since they did the job defined under the main article. It remains to be seen if this makes the category too small. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Railroad engineers to match the parent of Railroad engineer. This is a category for people who drive trains, not those who design railroads. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When populating Category:Railroad engineers it was interesting to note that railroad engineers was used in several cases when railway engineer was probably the intended use. Care is needed in cleaning up these differences. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't! We have that category, which should be renamed to Category:Train drivers, as only about 2/16 of the articles are about Americans, and some seem to me to have been other kinds of engineers - the similar titles, using a US-only usage, are clearly leading to confusion. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Train drivers is not a good choice since these people do much more then drive a train. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they? What? It is unambiguous at least. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are responsible to operate all of the locomotives that are a part of the train. They also need to manage the dynamics of the train so that when they climb hills or descend hills the they don't snap couplings or run cars into each other and cause derailments. Much more then a driver and the license to operate one of these is more difficult to obtain. So, does a pilot drive a plane? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like driving at train to me. Globbet (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! A pilot, of course, flies a plane, which no one drives. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/split per discussion in the next section up. Alansohn, these are a completely different thing to railroad engineers, who are engine drivers - these are the actual railway engineers, i.e., the civil engineers and designers who make the railways. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Railway engineers" are not necessarily "locomotive designers". For example, in Category:German railway engineers Johann Culemeyer designed heavy trailers, Rudolf Diesel designed engines, Paul Camille von Denis built railway lines and others like Friedrich Wilhelm Eckhardt designed parts of locomotives. There aren't enough entries to split it up in this case (and that may well apply to other countries). HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that from the above discussion, consensus is:

railway engineers are different from railroad engineers so that a merge is not proper
Category:Railway engineers can either remain or be split into the groupings in the nomination just above this.

Is my summary reasonable? If it is, I think the discussion needs to focus on the above nomination and this will kind of follow along. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split Category:Railway engineers is (since Brunel) split into at least Category:Railway civil engineers and Category:Railway mechanical engineers, with little cross-over between them. Category:Railway mechanical engineers could split further to locomotive engineers and the others. Even people like Fairbairn did both civil engineering and engine component engineering, but were hardly Category:Railway mechanical engineers in the way that Gresley would be regarded. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Andy's suggestion -- Category:Railway civil engineers and Category:Railway mechanical engineers should neatly encompass all the people likely to have articles; and for the few (such as Brunel) who did both, they can be in both cats! It also avoids the UK/US terminology issue, since "railroad engineer" is clearly different from "railway mechanical engineer". Splitting these further, by country, is unlikely to be necessary until there are sufficient articles to make it worthwhile (although UK/US sub-cats are likely needed from day one). -- EdJogg (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Andy's suggestion -- Category:Railway civil engineers and Category:Railway mechanical engineers. This makes eminent sense to me. We might need something like Category:Railway signals and telegraph engineers too. Globbet (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep signals distinct from telegraphs in this context. I can think of railway signal engineers and telegraph engineers, but there's not much cross-over between those, whilst railway telegraph engineers would have huge crossover with telegraph engineers in general (Wheatstone?) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Andy Dingley "Railway" is the universal term except in US and a few other places. "American Railroad Civil Engineers" (or such like) would thus be appropriate as a subcategory of Category:Railway civil engineers. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andy's suggestion - an elegant solution. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This was my suggestion all those weeks ago (above), so I'm naturally fine with it. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andy Dingley. Neat solution. Peterkingiron's suggestion for US and other countries that use "railroad" also makes sense. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andy's solution -- this is actually much more accurate. (oops, forgot to sign) --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Surnames pending development of a new scheme. This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed. This close is essentially an appended close to the centralized discussion here, so please consult the other close for further information and details. (And for some reason, the Venn diagram is making me hungry.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Missed in yesterday's nomination as it's missing from the regular part of the tree. Because of the diaspora, almost all are derived from non-Hebrew language countries, and not categorized under Category:Hebrew names below.

Please note: even though surnames such as Harris, Lewis, Green, Black, Miller, Brooks, Gordon, and others are common Jewish surnames in some Western countries, they are also quite common amongst non-Jews as well. Also many names that are common in the Jewish community are really just ordinary German or Slavic surnames. Just as Smith, Thompson, Jones, Evans, Jackson, and Washington are common names in the African American community, one would not just assume they are exclusive to that culture. Most people named Schwartz, Klein, Roth, Hoffman, Schneider, Meyer, etc., are non-Jews despite common use of the names in the Jewish community.

Therefore, not notable, not verifiable, nor useful for navigation. Moreover, existing policy states:

Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense. As soon as one Fooian person is given or adopts a name it becomes a "Fooian name". Otto4711 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone who has ever seen a Venn diagram (pictured on right) will recognize that two groups or categories can overlap (sometimes it can even be three, as shown, or more), and the complaint that a name must be bounded so that it (or any other article) can fit into one and only one category is so utterly ludicrous as to be barely worth rebutting. The fact that my Jewish surname is also a common Korean surname in no way diminishes the fact that the name is Jewish in origin; It's not Jewish or Korean, it's both. We don't delete Category:LGBT-related television episodes simply because these TV episodes fit into other categories that have no connection whatsoever to anything LGBT-related. I had no trouble finding Jewish individuals with almost every one of the surnames listed and this is clearly part of rather well-defined Category:Surnames by culture that deserves retention. I also enjoy the nominator's baseless original research under which he has decided that the non-Hebrew derivation of some Jewish names invalidates any Jewish connection. Alansohn (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been the happiest day of your life when I made that LGBT TV episodes category. I would tend to agree that the notion that "a name must be bounded so that it...can fit into one and only one category" is a pretty silly argument, so it's a darn good thing that no one here has made it. My argument is not that names must be bounded to a single category. My argument is that names cannot be bounded by such characteristics as nationality or religion or ethnicity or descent. My surname (which happens to be of Hebrew derivation) is borne by people of dozens if not hundreds of different races, religions, nationalities, ethnicities, ad infinitum. There is nothing preventing any surname from ending up in every single "Fooian surnames" category based on there being a handful of Fooian people or even a single Fooian person that's named it. What does this categorization scheme tell us about a name, when the same name can potentially be categorized in all of them? Nothing. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The day I was married and the birth of my children rank a bit higher, but I do mark both LGBT-related CfD days on my calendar though I don't celebrate the day the category as created, yet. It still surprises me that Hallmark does not make cards to mark the occasion. The clear and compelling community decisions at CfD regarding Category:LGBT-related television episodes demonstrate several different precedents that I strongly agree with and that should be applied in all cases, not just for one narrow category that you support, and it provides a wonderful example that I will always think of in the unlikely event that we are not on the same side of an argument as we were with the Category:LGBT-related television episodes. A television episode can possibly belong to hundreds of different categories, and the fact that a single episode could be LGBT-related and also fit into to dozens of other categories provides no basis for eliminating the Category:LGBT-related television episodes on that basis. There are thousands of awards and honors that we categorize and it is possible that one individual can win dozens or hundreds of them, a possibility that also does not bother me and that would be a poor justification for elimination of all award categories. Names are used in different societies and cultures, and showing that through categories is exactly what we want to do. I don't believe that every surname should be categorized based on a single individual with the name in any one society, religion, culture or nation. As always, the standard is reliable and verifiable sources showing that a surname is connected with a given society, religion, culture or nation. My surname is used in both Jewish and Korean cultures, but I would be far better able to show the name as Korean and would categorize it there, and would be unable to show reliable and verifiable sources documenting the surname as Jewish and would not categorize it there, as is the case already. One person (or even two) does not make it worth a category, but reliable sources do. That's how Wikipedia works. Alansohn (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that an episode of a television series could reasonably belong to hundreds of valid categories; I would be surprised if we even had hundreds of episode categories (other than by series). The awards analogy is not valid, because an award does not become another award on the basis of another person winning it. A name associated with one nationality/culture/whatever does become a name of another nationality/culture/whatever on the basis of another person having it. "Connected to" is a very vague inclusion standard. Otto4711 (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"'Connected to' is a very vague inclusion standard." And "-related" is more definitive in a category that includes "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantially cover such issues"? Has anyone ever defined the "substantially cover such issues" standard? Let's tighten the criteria for inclusion and make it based on reliable sources rather than delete a far-better-defined category. I don't now how likely any of these overlaps are, but I am not bothered by them at all. Alansohn (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how a "connection" between a name and a culture can be established by documenting with reliable sources people within that culture who have the name, yes, "connected to" is an incredibly vague standard for inclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As I said in the discussion over there, the surname might be in use in various countries, but if it has a Jewish origin then list it as Category:Surnames of Jewish origin. Debresser (talk) (1 person seconds that Idea) 22:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reasons to delete seem to be given in the nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, it would be helpful for you to read what I've written, and actually note that the category itself says the same thing, in a longer form. Copied here for the lazy. And a reminder of a few of the relevant policy and guidelines, although many more are applicable.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "Heritage categories" is completely out of place, since we are not tagging people but names. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in order to oppose User:WASimpson's rampant censorship of Jewish related categories (along with many others, especially those related to race and ethnicity). WASimpson's blatant censorship is totally ravaging and wreaking havoc upon the categorical backbone/structure of many sections within Wikipedia. To nominate this category for deletion is moronic and was likely done only to incite. First off, the topic of onomastics is of course very old, extensive, notable, and encyclopedic. Secondly, the study of Jewish onomastics is likely even more extensive and better researched than that of other groups, nations, or peoples. The following list of primary sources on the topic of Jewish onomastics clearly indicates that this subject is indeed very encyclopedic and thus to delete this category (along with any other surname categories) would be utterly absurd and would only further decimate Wikipedia's categorical backbone:
JEWISH SURNAMES: A few sources [partial list]
A. Beider, A Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names: Their Origins, Structure, Pronunciations, and Migrations. Avotaynu, 2001. ISBN 1886223122.
A. Beider, A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Kingdom of Poland. Avotaynu, 1996. ISBN 0962637394.
A. Beider, A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from Galicia. Avotaynu, 2004. ISBN 188622319X.
A. Beider, A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire. Avotaynu, 1993. ISBN 0962637335.
G. Faiguenboim, et al., Dictionary Of Sephardic Surnames. Fraiha, 2005. ISBN 8585989203.
H. W. Guggenheimer, et al., Jewish Family Names and Their Origins: An Etymological Dictionary. Ktav Pub., 1992. ISBN 0881252972.
T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. P. M. Verlag, 2002. ISBN 3161476468.
B. C. Kaganoff, A Dictionary of Jewish Names and Their History. Aronson, 1996. ISBN 1568219539.
L. Menk, Dictionary Of German-Jewish Surnames. Avotaynu, 2005. ISBN 1886223203.
R. Singerman, et al., Jewish Given Names and Family Names: A New Bibliography. Brill Academic Pub., 2001. ISBN 9004121897.
N. Weiss, The Origin Of Jewish Family Names: Morphology And History. P. L. Pub., 2002. ISBN 3906768198.

--Wassermann (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good starting point to include sourced information in the various articles about the various names. Notability is not the standard for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that the claim of censorship is unfounded, the problem of deciding that nearly a dozen reliable and verifiable published sources that cover the subject are not enough is evidence of a far bigger problem. There is simply no way to provide evidence that will incontrovertibly meet a standard that justifies retention of any category when the counter-argument that is offered amounts to "is not". It can hardly be any clearer that the category is defining, and the argument that sources only prove that it's notable is a standard argument used to wave off strong evidence of definingness. All we are left with is a game of do you like the category or not as sources mean little, if anything, in the world of CfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- These surnames are characteristically Jewish, as much as O'Connor and Murphy are Irish and Campbell is ultimately Scots. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "characteristically Jewish" mean? What does "ultimately Scots" mean? BTW, Campbell (surname) is ultimately Gaelic, not Scots. And see, the thing is, since there are any number of people in any number of countries, cultures, religions, tribes, societies, whatever who have these various names, so if the names are restricted arbitrarily then we're providing inaccurate information. If we categorize the names by every country, culture, etc. then the huge numbers of categories make the categories themselves meaningless. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about names that are shown by reliable and verifiable sources to be historically associated with Jews and those of Jewish ancestry? What other standard could we possibly use? The fact that some will overlap is a rather poor argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which, again, since names cannot be bounded by ethnicity, religion or ancestry, means that any time a name can be reliably sourced to a person of any such characteristic it gains another largely useless category. That's actually quite a good argument for deletion because of the vast numbers of useless categories. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. categories are used to find similar articles, it is pointless having a category for 1 article. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of an established tree and the convention with cat pages as it has been is not to delete because a page is, for the time being, populated with just one article Mayumashu (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- How many more of these do we expect to add? We frequently delete categories that have no likelihood of expansion. The single article was ((BLP unsourced)). There were no references indicating Vietnamese descent, and the article actually claims he was born in Thailand. The "official" website is down. In short, specious heritage.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate. Part of an established tree. Someone born in Thailand can easily be Vietnamese, especially if born in a Vietnamese refugee camp there. (John McEnroe and many other Americans were born in Germany.) Occuli (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is born as a refugee, and is now an expatriate (visiting) or immigrant (citizen), they are categorized under Category:Expatriates or Category:Immigrants. You apparently found a non-reputable 4th party rumor of refugee status for the lone occupant of this category, that doesn't indicate citizenship. Still wrong category.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This will take an overhaul of Finnish immigration/citizenship policies, up to constitutional level. They are, traditionally, less liberal to immigrants than Western European nations, so we're talking about a very small pool of people. NVO (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informative, I didn't know that! That explains the lack of references verifying the only member of this category as a Finnish citizen. Definitely wrong category, which would empty the category!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the overall structure of Finnish and Vietnamese origins, within the overall national origin structure. Even the biggest and strongest tree will have a branch that's a small twig. The approach of trying to "improve" Wikipedia by trimming every twig creates a useless stump. These categories exist so that they can be populated and expanded. Alansohn (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of categories of this type. Some will inevitably be porrly populated (as yet). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Non-collaborative category. Linked to a userboxes stating "This user knows shiny is a color" and "This user likes the color shiny". Does not improve Wikipedia in any way to group such users. VegaDark (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree with the nominator that Wikipedia is not myspace, users are generally permitted to keep material of purely social, or purely humorous, value in their userspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as a category in the userspace. There are no userspace categories, only category space categories, so that isn't accurate at all when it comes to categories. Now, they can have a redlinked category in their userspace if it isn't disruptive, but that's a different issue. This category violates the Wikipedia:User categories guideline - "considering the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a social networking site[3] or personal webhost,[4] the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" (emphasis mine, which this clearly does not do) and additionally a keep result flies in the face of virtually every past discussion we have had with similar categories (see here). VegaDark (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's reasonable to expect a userbox will be used in the userspace. Not sure the precedent argument applies either, which seems like WP:OCE to me. But let's see who else chimes in, maybe consensus is against me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The userbox isn't up for deletion, only the category linked to the userbox is. VegaDark (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-defining characteristic. In no way, shape or form is it helpful to categorize users who think that shiny is a color and who like the "color" shiny. — Σ xplicit 06:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Maintaining such a categorization scheme would be a shockingly bad idea. Do we want one one of these "by access" categories for every single book? As this category is titled, it is for an individual book (hell, individual edition of a book, in fact). Keeping sets precedent to do so. It's great this user is willing to help via use of this source, but we definitely shouldn't have this sort of system for individual books, else we set the stage for tens of thousands of sparsely populated categories. VegaDark (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meh, it seemed like it was bound to fail. If this is deleted, be sure to delete its parent category and sisters as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend doing something like what WP:ANIME does at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Hebrew-language names. Consensus seems to be in favor of some form to retain the category. Based on the later discussions, this is probably the option that is most likely to retain consensus in the long run. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination. This category was in the group nomination for names from various cultures that resulted in deletion of all of them in a previous discussion. However, this category wasn't tagged for deletion, probably because the nominator proposed keeping it in the original nomination. (I'm not sure why it was listed if the nominator wanted it kept.) No one else in the discussion singled this one out for any special comment. Anyway, I'm reopening the discussion on this particular category to find out what we should do with this one—delete it like the others or keep? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Good Olfactory for doing this. I think that unlike the purpose of that CfD, this cat is not POV and hopelessly tangled. That CfD focussed on national ties by name. This is a cat of language origin, and has no POV or OR issues. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dweller Debresser (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- Most of my siblings and nieces names are in this part of the tree. This could easily be called "Christian names", as they are Biblically derived. Gosh and golly gee, that's what "given names" are traditionally called in the Western world: Christian names. Hopelessly tangled.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bible was written in Hebrew. Old Testament biblical names are mostly Hebrew in origin, which is the topic matter of bucketsful of scholarship and RS. You're tangling two things, religion and linguistic origin. These names are Hebrew in origin, regardless of who 'wears' them today. And the term "Christian names" is another red herring - these are Christian names that are Hebrew in origin, as you mean "Christian" to equal "first". Finally, please note this is not about Jewish first names, but Hebrew ones. The CfD for Jewish first names is up there ↑ --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When names are not written in Hebrew, and are taken from the translation (often transliteration) of a source, they are no longer "Hebrew". This category is not "Names derived from ancient Hebrew literature". These names could (and should) be listed under every country, language, and many religions and religious sects of the world. This category is useless for navigation. (And I'm familiar with the nomination above, please don't be so condescending.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was trying to understand your opinion for delete, which is bemusing. If I am called Jean-Pierre and live in China, regardless of which alphabet my name is written in, and no matter how badly the locals might mangle my name, it's still a French name. If you have difficulty with the name of the Cat, that's not a reason for deletion, it's a reason to propose a name change. I struggle to understand on what grounds you're proposing deletion, as it's clear that a defined group of names can be said, using RS, to originate in a specific language, that being Hebrew. Incidentally, many Hebrew names do not derive from the bible, or even any other form of Hebrew literature. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - names are not and cannot be bounded by religion, ethnicity or language in any meaningful sense. As soon as one Fooian person is given or adopts a name it becomes a "Fooian name". Otto4711 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dweller. This is quite different from the other cfd; this consists of names derived from Hebrew, and will not lead to any category clutter. (There is the similar Category:Germanic names.) Occuli (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dweller. This is about etymology, not ethnicity.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-defined category within the structure of Category:Names by culture. The only thing I don't understand is why there is an overlap with Category:Hebrew given names. Alansohn (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire names by culture structure is up for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, names by country was deleted. This is something like names by language, although it doesn't seem to be (it's under "words and phrases" instead).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the names by country structure was deleted. I said that the names by culture structure is nominated for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. The "names by country" were deleted. The "surnames by country" are nominated for deletion; some few of them seem to have been cross-categorized with "surnames by culture", but that's not the part of the tree up for deletion.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stay with my keep, but would like to reply to a few commetns above. Since "D'Alembert" is a name in French, it is a "French" name (where the word "French" is refering to the language, not the country, just as "Hebrew" is a language). Denying this is illogical. Likewise, there is no reason to call these name "Christian" instead of "Hebrew", because these two things are not mutually exclusive. They are Hebrew names. Whatever may happen or may have happened later, they will always stay such. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I bother replying, but according to at least one biographical source, "D'Alembert" is a self-name made up by a famous Frenchman, previously known as "Jean-Baptiste Daremberg" (a Dutch name?), prior to that known as "Jean Le Rond" (given at the orphanage). It is similar to a variety of Spanish-derived names, so perhaps he read it in a book. Does that make it French? Originally Spanish? What about the Floridian Creole variant of the same era? Obviously, a bad example that is inapposite your intended argument.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem here, that it's in the "Names by culture" tree. Hebrew is not a culture. This Cat should be moved - I presume you can do that - or recreated in the Category:Given names tree, which seems sadly lacking a suitable subcat, this not being European, regardless of what FIFA and the Eurovision Song Contest organisers might think. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. I realise I closed the previous discussion, and it's not my intent here to case a "vote" in favor of anything here, but if this category is kept would it be helpful to have it renamed Category:Hebrew-language names to help clarify the meaning of the category and that this is not a "cultural" category? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew-language names might be interesting, but only with a strong definition and strict conformance. And what about the separate Category:Hebrew given names and Category:Hebrew feminine given names?
1. Yael is a good example, but in the wrong category.
2. Michael is a bad example: a King James Version (English) spelling. In Hebrew, it should only be Mikha'el, and never a surname. But there are non-Hebrew sound-alike variants of Michael in many languages, not related to Hebrew in any way: Greek, Russian, other slavic languages, and even Arabic.

It will be difficult and time-consuming to police this category for junk.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe rename. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the suggested rename (not sure about the hyphen grammatically, but that's just a detail, and like I say, I'm not sure anyway!). And the two other cats could usefully be merged into this one. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyphen would be grammatically appropriate for adjectival phrase. See, e.g., Category:French-language media and others. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dweller. --Wassermann (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why single out one nation (language/culture/heritage etc.) while deleting the other? Leave all or kill all. NVO (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is names by culture, but Hebrew is not a culture. Other language-based cats continue to exist, like Category:Germanic names. The original CfD was about culture-related cats and this mistakenly included. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic names, Category:Lithuanian names etc. are also tagged for deletion, so they are both in the same basket. As long as the whole language/culture/nation/... remain bundled together, I'd rather lean to consistency. BTW, you said "Hebrew is not a culture" yet the category in question is part of Category:Names by culture and Category:Israeli culture. I'm not questioning either POV but it really should be a policy decision. NVO (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Hebrew-language names -- as suggested above -- and restrict to those actually in the Hebrew language. Other derivations could certainly be redirects to these pages.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Australian songs by artist to Category:Songs by artist

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Suggest upmerging the only two categories that take the songs by artist to the name of country level. However, that is already taken care of when the artist's songs subcategory (e.g. Category:<artist> songs) is already being categorized as Fooian songs or a genre subcategory such as Fooian folk songs. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in the nomination – Category:Songs by Canadian artists
Upmerge both per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. If it was part of a larger effort to subdivide Songs by artist, then perhaps. But I like that category unsubdivided anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. the wub "?!" 10:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City to Category:University of Missouri-Kansas City

also:

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia to Category:University of Missouri-Columbia

Category:University of Missouri–St. Louis to Category:University of Missouri-St. Louis

Nominator's rationale: Rename because a regular typographical dash found on the keyboard is easier to find than an em-dash or en-dash, and thus makes this category easier to use with tools such as HotCat. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HotCat is not a good example as putting in 'University of Missour' gives all the above en-dash choices (and more) and also Category:University of Missouri-Columbia alumni (with a dash; this turns out to be a category redirect). Attempts to change dashes to en-dashes in category names (per the name of the corresponding article) have generally failed but this is perhaps the first cfd to attempt the reverse rename. (University of Missouri–Kansas City has an en-dash.) Occuli (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Just to emphasize my point, the category you cited above is a category redirect. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but you have inadvertently provided me with a very good illustration of the problem which I am seeking to resolve in this CfR. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if you inadvertently place an alumnus in Category:University of Missouri-Columbia alumni (which I said was a redirect), a friendly bot comes along and carefully transfers him to the correct category. So the problem (using HotCat) is not obvious to me. What about the fact that the article names and the category names will no longer match, in a way that might well mystify those who, while unable to produce an en-dash via a keyboard combination or a one-click wiki-edit, can manage cut-and-paste with complete aplomb, and use it happily and effortlessly with such categories as Category:Gençlerbirliği S.K.? And what about all the others in Special:PrefixIndex/Category:University_of_Missouri–? Occuli (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response - If you think using category redirects is a better solution to this issue, then by all means, turn the red links above into category redirects. At this point, I'm not really sure which is the "better" approach. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Punctuation to substitute for words is illiterate. Possibly in some university names it's a copout to obviate having to choose "at" or "in" or just nothing (my preference, as in "University College London" or "Auburn University Montgomery"). But Wikipedia should call them whatever they want to be called, even if the name lacks the intellectual quality and knowledge of writing which some gurus think should be prerequisite for admission. Rammer (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would remove all long dashes from categories and replace them by a normal dash (or remove them, sometimes). This should be a speedy admissable criteria. Debresser (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - non-standard characters are a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the category name should match the article name (so that cut-and-paste works) rather than differ in a way which is invisible in the edit window. Occuli (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we can come up with a broad consensus on what to do with these types of situations in categories. Until then we should just keep whatever was created first and have a redirect for the other one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per long standing broad consensus to avoid using characters that are not readily available on a keyboard. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I despise these non-keyboard characters and I wish that every article and title only included what I have available on my English-language keyboard. While I have supported the renaming of such categories to use a keyboard-available character in the past, the priority should be matching the article title. If the article folks decide with far broader consensus that the title needs an en-dash, we should respect that. Whether using HotCat or the Wikipedia insert template on every edit page or cutting and pasting from a mention of the article title in the article in question, we should have the technology and willingness to deal with this "problem". There are innumerable thousands of articles with en-dashes and other special characters and we should start consistently conforming to article titles unless there is a truly exceptional situation that I cannot imagine. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The priority should be ease of usage and navigation. Expecting people to hold down multiple keys to generate a specialty character is a barrier to ease of usage and navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far too often, the flea at the end the tail of CfD starts trying to wag the Wikipedia dog. I would love to see the English-language Wikipedia restrict all articles to including only those characters that I can type with a single keystroke on my keyboard. I hate these special characters, especially in article titles. Unless we want to grant ourselves a special exemption from how the rest of Wikipedia works, which includes the use of special characters, such as en-dashes, we should make a rather simple standard of using the article title in categories. The priority should be ease of usage and navigation, but the decisions on article titles are not made here at CfD and there is absolutely no reason for why we should be different here. Expecting people to hold down multiple keys to generate a specialty character appears to be absolutely no barrier to ease of usage and navigation in article space, and there is no evidence that readers are unable to find the article for these schools due to their inability to type an en-dash on their keyboard, yet we expect those reading and creating articles to use these untypable characters. I have even been forced to hold down multiple keys to generate CAPITAL LETTERS, yet every category has at least one in their name, despite the need to hold down multiple keys in order to generate the character. Let's start to learn how to live by the rules set for Wikipedia, without overriding them here. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are, of course, free to develop consensus about category names since that is one of the functions of CFD. I for one would argue as strongly against the use of specialty characters in article names as I do against their usage in category names. The capital letter argument is entirely specious because the search box is not reliant on capitalization. Otto4711 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are free to make decisions here about categories, many of which have been in direct conflict with broader consensus set with far broader participation in the article world. While we here at CfD often firmly believe that the world revolves around categories, alas it does not. We can reduce the needless disruption caused by conflicting "consensus" set at CfD that blatantly disregards the genuine consensus set in article space or we can start learning to cooperate by following the simple standard of using the same titles for categories that are used for the corresponding articles, even when the overwhelming burden of cutting and pasting special characters appears too overwhelming. As with the example cited above regarding Category:Gençlerbirliği S.K., we could demand that we use keyboard characters and name it Category:Genclerbirligi S.K., but all we would accomplish is pointless disruption to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a difference between using characters that are part of the institution's name and the artificial and arbitrary dashes that are dictated by WP:DASH (which is a guideline and as such is subject to reasonable exception). Not really clear why you're so intent to go to war about this... Otto4711 (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "artificial and arbitrary dashes that are dictated by WP:DASH" are the result of consensus reached and accepted by a far broader consensus than the usual suspects here at CfD and we ought to start biting the bullet and learning to respect that. It's the artificial and arbitrary standards that are set at CfD that are far less worthy of consideration. I still have no interest in warring, but if you can follow this back to the beginning you will notice that I voted and you felt the need to tell me why I'm wrong. Again. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently tell other editors when I believe their rationale in a discussion is incorrect, so there's nothing special about you other than perhaps the number of times that you express opinions with which I disagree. Consensus has developed at CFD that using non-standard characters in category names is a barrier to navigation and your denigration of that consensus by demeaning those who helped develop it is disheartening. Your participation in CFD has certainly pegged you as one of the "usual suspects" so your continued belittling of those who participate here is bewildering. Otto4711 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate these endashes, both in articles and especially in titles, and I fail to see any benefit from having dashes of different lengths. It's a pointless waste of time and conceit that adds nothing to the encyclopedia. But it is the consensus reached in the real world of Wikipedia, the one where we write articles. I disagree with this policy, and would vote to overturn when it comes up again. But until then, I use endashes where policy prescribes their use to the best of my ability, such as between dates and in article titles between "University of Missouri" and "Kansas City". Maintaining that the CfD flea at the end of the Wikipedia dog should be waving overall policy only serves to disrupt rather to improve Wikipedia, and "consensus" reached at CfD has no value whatsoever if it is in direct conflict with broader Wikipedia policy. Your belief that you can ignore what you call "artificial and arbitrary dashes that are dictated by WP:DASH" is just part of the pattern of blatant disregard of many other broader policies here and just more evidence of the thorough cleaning and disinfection needed at CfD. Rather than simply insist that I'm wrong, why not try to explain why Wikipedia consensus at WP:DASH should be ignored, despite the clear disruption of conflicting policies. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DASH is not policy. It is a guideline. It is subject to exceptions. One of the exceptions to that guideline that has developed through numerous discussions here is that the use of non-standard characters in category names is a barrier to navigation. You usually harp to no end about navigational utility so your insistence on enforcing a "rule" that impedes navigation is just flat-out bizarre. Otto4711 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline or policy, the "bizarre" insistence that dashes of various size is a barrier to navigation in categories is conclusively disproved by the fact that there is no such obstacle in the real world of articles. I've seen real people (i.e. non-editors) use categories, and they always do so by clicking on the category to see the other entries, jumping from category to category one click at a time, never by typing in a name. No real world reader of Wikipedia will ever have to type the name of a category, let alone have to worry about which size dash to use. The only people who type category names in full are folks who are editing articles, and we know full well that some article titles have those funny dashes in them, in addition to all those other funny characters I can't type on my keyboard and despise as much as you do. The same way that any editor would use the endash in an article to link to someone who attended the University of Missouri–Kansas City, they would use the exact same title when they add Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City alumni to the bottom of the article, using endashes in both places, a task made even more trivial if using HotCat. The navigational ability I "harp to no end" about is most often expressed as having category titles match those of their parent articles, and that is exactly what we should be doing here on a consistent basis. There is absolutely no barrier to navigation here; All we have are inconsistent standards, where some folks at CfD will not comply with clear consensus set at a broader basis at WP:DASH and elsewhere. Where these two standards conflict, the one established in the real world of article space should be used. Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two pages in this category, and I don't see it growing much soon. Information already exists at Template:Barack Obama, which is on both articles. Both are also in Category:Books about Barack Obama. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of Category:Books by author. Occuli (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where does it say that we can have a category "books by..." even if that category has only a few members and no perspective of future growth (I mean, apart from his memoirs he isn't likely to start a SF series e.g.)? Debresser (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the author a 'defining characteristic' of a book? Can one describe a book adequately in a few words and not mention the author? Also WP:OC#SMALL deals with this - 'part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme'. Occuli (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY. I see this scheme as a library. There are thousands and thousands of articles on WP about books and authors. There should not be a category for every single author that has a book. Many, many of those author cats have only one member even. Sure, author is integral into about a book, but that doesn't mean there has to be a category for it, especially when there's already templates and links. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent related cfd was perhaps this cfd in March 09. Occuli (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of Category:Books by author. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two possible articles to include. Plus the two keep voters just say it's part of a category, giving no rationale to keep this whatsoever. Wizardman 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of usual "wider scheme" per WP:OCAT & many many precedents. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a well-defined larger structure with a strong likelihood of future expansion. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Novels based on a film to Category:Novels based on films

Nominator's rationale: Rename - matches the naming format of its sibling categories. Not sure if this qualifies for speedy. Otto4711 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not quite speedy not really enough of a precedent (3 other cats). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Discussion closed on previous day. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country —

The daily log page rolled over during tagging.
--William Allen Simpson (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.

June 7

Category:Cast Iron and its alloys

Category:Legal occupations

Category:Tritium contamination in the US

Category:Recipients of the Conrad Schlumberger Award of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers

Pimps and madams

Category:Tiwana clans

Category:Deductive theories

Category:Coastal settlements of the East Riding of Yorkshire

Category:Brothel-keepers

Locomotive designer and railway engineer categories

Category:Railway engineers

Category:Jewish surnames

Category:Finnish people of Vietnamese descent

Category:Wikipedians who like Shiny

Category:Wikipedians with access to Who's Who in the Theatre (17th ed)

Category:Hebrew names

<Country> songs by artist

Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City

Category:Books by Barack Obama

Category:Novels based on a film

Category:Surnames by country