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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Feedback pages to Category:Wikipedia feedback pages

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." The current title has two possible alternate meanings—pages (project or mainspace) associated with the Category:Article Feedback Pilot, which was my first thought, and websites which collect or provide feedback about various topics, products or entities—and this could be a source of confusion for editors who are unaware of Template:Feedback page (most editors, in all likelihood). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Fair enough. Rd232 ^talk 04:21, 13 May 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.

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) 07:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BB&N Knights football coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete High school football coaches are not notable, and therefore Wikipedia should not have a category for a non-notable high school football program's coaches. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sole entry, John Pappas, is up for AfD. No prejudice to Category:High school football coaches if there prove to be individuals whose notability derives from their coaching of high school football, but to break it out by institution is highly premature at best.- choster (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:High school football coaches in the United States exists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. My mistake. I created the category when I thought that BB&N was a college and had not realised that it was a High School. So I had created the category and put it in the College category, which seemed to be the obvious thing to do.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:44, 12 May 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models of the Runway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a series that was cancelled after two series. This category is unlikely to ever get any larger and its entire contents are articles on people associated with the show which I understand is not done. The category should be deleted. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; clear performer-by-performance category.- choster (talk) 21:36, 12 May 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holocaust victims by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Actors who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Composers who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Historians who died in Nazi concentration camps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Musicians who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Opera singers who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Poets who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Scientists who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Songwriters who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Violinists who died in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merge. I have reviewed all of the articles in all of these categories and was unable to locate any that indicated that these people were killed because of their occupation. Most of the articles specify that it was because they were Jewish. As I said in a similar discussion from several days ago, I am not an expert on Nazis or the Holocaust but I have never heard anything that indicates that the Nazis went after opera singers or poets or actors because they were opera singers or poets or actors. I suggest deleting the lead category and merging all of the sub-categories to Category:People who died in the Holocaust to make sure they remain in that category structure. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as an explanatory note, the "Historians" category got tagged because it was in the "Holocaust victims by occupation" parent. There is a parallel structure for concentration camp victims by occupation and I similarly question that structure but haven't had a chance to review its much larger store of articles. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom. I agree fully with all the points made in the nom. These are intersections of unrelated characteristics. Occuli (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All because 1. the nominator's rationale is very faulty, such as when he states that he was "unable to locate any that indicated that these people were killed because of their occupation" when this is not the point at all. No one thinks that. These are people who were notable in their fields, not just because they were Jews, who were murdered by the Nazis. 2. See similar viable categories such Category:Victims with large sub-categories such as Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents (not because they knew nothing about aviation -- they were just victims), Category:Stabbing victims (not because they had any expertise of fighting with knives -- they were just victims) etc etc etc. 3. The nominator openly admits his own ignorance about this subject: "I am not an expert on Nazis or the Holocaust" and should read up on Wikipedia:Competence is required. 4. But to add insult to injury the nominator then makes matters worse and compounds his illogical and self-defeating position when he argues: "but I have never heard anything that indicates that the Nazis went after opera singers or poets or actors because they were opera singers or poets or actor" which is both false and untrue, because quite often famous people they hated they killed off pretty quickly (the Nazis only loved "singers, poets or actors etc etc etc" they approved of and who enhanced their crooked and wicked ideology.) Had the nominator known something about the Nazis he would never have made such blatantly absurd claims. 5. All the categories in question here more than meet all the WP requirements of serious and relevant categories, such as WP:NOTABLE; WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS among scholars and more. Therefore, 6. The nominator is requested to quickly withdraw his mass nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I expect the nom will note that there is nothing in the above to support the retention of any of these intersections of unrelated characteristics. There is no need to intersect Category:People who died in the Holocaust with Category:Scientists (say), per WP:OCTrivial. Occuli (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Occuli: How are they "unrelated"? Victims were "selected" for death based on both their talents/gifts/credentials as well as religion/ethnicity/ideology and it was not just reserved for Jews since these categories include not only Jews because Jews were not the only targets and victims of Nazism whose policies and actions were driven by irrational xenophobia and convictions about their own "master race" status that "entitled" them in their views to murder anyone, not just Jews, who opposed them. The Nazis followed their own crooked logic which cannot and should not be obscured by incorrect application of latter-day WP rules in defiance of WP:LAWYERING, while these categories do succeed in conveying that mentality and sad state of affairs. IZAK (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point out some reliable sources that demonstrate that the Nazis specifically targeted violinists for extermination? The comparison of these categories to categories for victims of aircraft crashes is invalid. The aviation category is not sub-divided by occupation (other than one for state leaders). Neither is the stabbing victims category nor is any other sub-category of the victims category. I am not suggesting that these people not be categorized as victims of the Holocaust, merely that their categorization not be divided into the irrelevant level of occupation. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Harley: Again you miss the point and assume that the way you are coming at this is "the" way when the reality is that the Nazis murdered millions of people and it would be impossible to squeeze all notable victims into one category. It therefore is logical and even required that there be smaller sub- and sub-sub- categories to classify and quantify the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. IZAK (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because I don't agree with your point it doesn't mean I don't understand your point. I never said that I wanted to put all of the Holocaust victims into a single category. I am fully in favor of sub-dividing them by any number of possible criteria, like nationality, religion, homosexuality of, what camp if any they died in and probably some others that aren't immediately occurring to me, because the two things have something to do with each other. There is plenty of scholarship out there that the Nazis exterminated people because of their religion or ethnicity or sexuality. Is there similar scholarship that supports the notion that the Nazis exterminated violinists or opera singers or actors just because they were violinists or opera singers or actors? If there is, please, as I've asked already, point them out. The number of Holocaust victims is a canard, because however many millions the Nazis killed only a relative few could possibly have sufficient notability for Wikipedia articles. Category:People who died in the Holocaust, the proposed merge target, has fewer than 100 articles in it discounting redirects. Merging these would swell that category all the way up to about 125. Hardly a staggering number for a single category, and should huge numbers of victim articles be generated in the future then they of course can be broken down in ways that are, according to sources, actually significant and not arbitrary. It may be logical or even required to break down Holocaust victims into sub-categories; that doesn't mean it's logical or required that they be broken down into these sub-categories. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it right there Harley: Please explain what you mean when you state "The number of Holocaust victims is a canard"! How so? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as "In the current debate, the use of the number of Holocaust victims to oppose deletion is a canard." Nahum (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all. The Nazis specifically went after practitioners of 'degenerate art' (in various genres) and 'Jewish science'. In Poland, they specifically tried to kill the cultural elite. These categories are not random intersections of unrelated facts, but essential representations of how the Holocaust was perpetrated. If you don't know much about a huge and important area of history, please don't try randomly deleting the categories we have organised it into here. That shouldn't really need saying - see WP:COMPETENCE. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your own statement indicates that the Nazis didn't target artists for extermination because they were artists but because they held beliefs or took actions that the Nazis opposed. In the absence of a stated Nazi policy calling for the extermination of opera singers because they sang opera, intersecting "opera singer" and "died in the Holocaust" is trivial and could also be considered original research since it advances the synthetic notion that simply being an opera singer under the Nazis got you killed. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Keep The nexus between antisemitism and the claimed disproportionate Jewish representation in advanced professional fields like science and entertainment is as old as antisemitism itself.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're suggesting that we should categorize people on the basis of the stereotypes advanced by hate groups? We should keep a category for scientists killed in the Holocaust because anti-semites think that there are too many Jewish scientists and entertainers? And this despite there being no stated policy that scientists were to be targeted simply for being scientists. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Keep for the reasons given by IZAK, Squiddy and Brewercrewer. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since it is a "non-defining intersection", similar to Category:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations. It is interesting, but not notable. If Nazis were out to get highly acclaimed people (due to their specific occupation), it was beacuse of their views, not their occupation per se. Even so, there is not need to list each and every occupation for this purpose! Chesdovi (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not a huge fan of the overspecialization represented by such categories, but they do connect articles together and are not harmful to the project. Even if the the two items are "non-intersecting", that doesn't change things; we have many such categories, including (randomly selected): Category:Actors from Kansas, Category:Scientists from Varanasi, and Category:Architects who worked in Oxford. No, this isn't WP:OSE - I'm just noting that categories by themselves don't necessarily have to be notable in the way that articles do.  Frank  |  talk  12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - there are 17 categories in Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation that probably ought to be considered as part of this discussion as well.  Frank  |  talk  12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, this is a can of worms that should never have been opened. Soon half the sub- and sub-sub- categories relating to Category:The Holocaust will be up for deletion because no one likes this and that name or sub-category. That's why the nominator should withdraw this hasty and misinformed nomination. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The categories listed by Frank should all be upmerged: we have upmerged dozens of ones similar to Category:Actors from Kansas; Category:Architects who worked in Oxford is just ridiculous. Unfortunately editors with time on their hands delight in forming these endless intersections. Occuli (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You know something IZAK? I would appreciate it if you would stick to arguing the merits of the category and quit tossing off little barbs at me. You've made your point. You think I'm ignorant, stupid and acting out of spite. Move on. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore, I would ask you to refrain from turning this discussion into a referendum on Nazi atrocities. The atrocities of Nazi Germany are well and permanently documented on Wikipedia and will remain so whether these categories stay or go. You are also pushing an agenda with some of your comments and that should stop as well. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure looks like WP:OSE to me. Could you please explain why you think it isn't? --Peter cohen (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although we are discussing deletion, we aren't talking about notability here, so the bar is (or should be) different. Since I'm not making any comment on the notability of any of the articles contained in these categories, OSE is less applicable. More to the point, though, the spirit of OSE is roughly translated for this discussion to: "well, this other [possibly silly, depending on your point of view] category exists, so these should also remain." In point of fact, I started by saying that I'm not a fan of these over-specialized categories. However, I am noting that the encyclopedia has developed - in a far broader sense than 3 randomly-chosen examples - into a medium that is increasingly cross-referenced as time passes. Sure, I'm not necessarily interested in any of the listed categories personally, but I see that there is enough momentum in the community to create and maintain them (and probably hundreds like them), and I don't see that they do any harm. Early in my wiki-career, I had a definite opinion in the "lists vs. categories" debate; I've long since abandoned it. There's no harm done by having both, and in that same vein, there's no harm being done by having these categories, even if I don't think I'll ever have any use for them.  Frank  |  talk  17:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I might come back on this.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all while acknowledging that some specific lists might be useful. This cfd follows on from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_27#Category:Opera_singers_who_died_in_Nazi_concentration_camps and the issues remain the same. In the case of category overlaps, there must be something specific to justify such categories existing. Jews, Romani, various Slavs, gays, people with certain disabilities and illnesses and various political activists were all targetted by the Nazis simply for belonging to the listed groups. Categories for those overlaps therefore are justified as a way of logically structuring the Holocaust category tree. The items listed in this cfd do not belong in this way. If a certain artistic genre or movement, kletzmer say, was particularly affected in the Holocaust, then it would justify a list of victims to go with a separate article or large section in the article on the impact of the Holocaust on the movement. Similarly, if there were a well-researched article on musical life in the camps, there would be justification for a list of those involved and at least an argument for a category. But this does not apply to these lists categories.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - Can I ask, have those voting against these categories actually looked at the articles categorized and checked the footnote/references/sources? Since most of these categories are related to the arts, and the impact on the arts in Europe of the Nazi genocide is notable in itself and well documented, and footnotes/refs/sources are given in those articles. For those users with a specific interest in a specific art/literature, to be able to cross reference one impact of the Holocaust - for example to be able to go from the two well-known victims of the Holocaust who were famous Wagner singers at the Bayreuth Festival (Ottilie Metzger-Lattermann and Henriette Gottlieb) and discover that 13 other opera singers also died in the Holocaust is a useful categorization. Likewise thanks partly to academic works, thanks partly to Decca's Entartete Musik series many Wikipedia music article users will know of 2 composers who died in the Holocaust, (Pavel Haas and Hans Krása), they may not without the categories be able to put that in context of all the others, musicians who likewise died, or survived.

*:::But why are categories rather than lists the way to document such information?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) replaced with longer explanation in more appropriate place below[reply]

Harley Hudson, Hi. On the face it it might seen reasonable, but with all respect, I politely suggest that your reasoning for nomination might be more relevant if you were nominating Category:People who died in the Holocaust ''because'' they were musicians for deletion, but since the category does not assume that the profession was in any way relevant to the Germans (aside from a few exceptional cases such as conductor Leo Blech who would not have been the only only Jewish survivor of Riga to have been permitted to leave for Sweden in 1941 by the personal intervention of Hermann Göring had he been a tailor or factory worker), the category merely a statement of fact that, among 6 million people some victims were notable in their own category. That is the nature of Wikipedia:Notability, which is why Wikipedia has Category:Native American artists, Category:Native American painters, but not Category:Native American dentists.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cohen, well yes, you note that "if there were a well-researched article on musical life in the camps, there would be justification for a list of those involved and at least an argument for a category. But this does not apply to these lists." And of course you are welcome to contribute an umbrella article Cultural life in Nazi concentration camps, but the first problem would be in which camps (as opposed to ad hoc ghettos) the Nazis allowed (for propaganda purposes) any semblance of musical life? If you look at the article on Theresienstadt you will see that musical life there is documented, footnoted/sourced, and has a branch article to Martin Roman's jazz band, the Ghetto Swingers. Should you wish to expand the articles on other camps, or write an overview article, then Fania Fénelon, The Musicians of Auschwitz (London: Sphere, 1979) might be a good place to start. But as it is, if you check the footnotes/refs of Entartete Musik, Theresienstadt, etc. sufficient notability has already been established in Wikipedia.

I should note also that a parallel argument "if there were a well-researched article on concentration camp survivors, there would be justification for a list of those involved and at least an argument for a category. But this does not apply to these lists." would apply to Category:Auschwitz concentration camp survivors, so there is more of a case to go to, for example, Primo Levi's article and delete that category from Primo Levi, than there is for deleting sub-categorization by field of the arts for notable composers/singers/painters/journalists/authors who happened to be murdered because of their race.

"Concentration camp survivors" is not an intersection of two independent categories. (Also note my correction of a slip in the original of what you are quoting from me.)

You seem to be treating categories as a substitute for lists. They aren't. Lists can include people, things etc. that don't yet have articles. Categories can't. You have mentioned that there are several hundred Jewish musicians who died in the Holocaust. We're unlikely to get articles on all of these in a hurry. A list of the notable casualties is much easier to create. Also lists are part of Wikipedia's content that is there to be read. Categories are not. This is why I am saying that listifying is the way to go.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thanks for your sensible comments. You are undoubtedly correct that a substantial list, e.g. with a double column format and under a succinct lede would be preferable and possible and would be an useful addition to Wikipedia. I've seen a lot of lists done badly on Wikipedia but I suspect that this one would have enough serious editors to be done properly. I am not disagreeing with you. The point for the here and now however (related to Harley's nominations) is that the criteria for categories, the link I was given, specifically and clearly says that a list/header article does not have to exist, but only has to reasonably be able to exist, which in this case the dozens of source refs/footnotes to general 20thC literature/music/arts secondary and tertiary reference works, + specific works by Kater, Levi, Hirsch etc. scattered among the bio articles, general music/arts articles, and specific articles like Jüdischer Kulturbund and Theresienstadt already meet the criteria for subcategorization. And this is not an either/or, the criteria specifically says that non-trivial subcategorization can come before an umbrella article. And again there is the issue of User friendliness - why do cats exist? To enable navigation yes? The most likely use of a cat Category:Suicides by occupation (with a population of nearly 1000 bio articles) is going to be, apart for unhealthy morbidity, drawing probably rather pseudo connections between writers/actors/artists and depression, but in the case of the these subcategories it will be someone with a specific interest in, say, poetry, wanting to sift 5 poet articles out of 120 bio articles. It evidently is not "wrong"/"trivial" for a Wikipedia User with an interest in poetry to want to sift 5 poets from 120 bio articles in this way, so why should editors be coming along and deleting a User-friendly and notable category simply because (as the nominator has argued) those who murdered these people didn't murder them for being poets/musicians/etc. I'd hope everyone else can get past this and focus on what the nomination is actually proposing: - removing the option for a Wikipedia User with e.g. an interest in Jewish poetry to find 5 poet bio articles among 120 articles. Can anyone explain why that User should not be allowed that subcat? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user interested in Jewish poets will find them in Category:Jewish poets. If Category:Poets who died in the Holocaust is supposed to be just for Jewish poets then it's redundant and it's also artificially limited. Further, people other than Jews died in the Holocaust so none of these categories is specifically a "Jewish" category. That I think is what is tripping some people up about this nomination. It's being seen as some comment about Jews and Judaism and how Jews are categorized on Wikipedia when it's really nothing of the kind. It remains undisputed that not one of these people has been shown to have been killed because of what they did for a living. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harley, this is now the 7th or 8th time that you've made the point that the Germans did not murder these poets/artists/musicians/composers for being poets/artists/musicians/composers. Do you have a useful argument, reason or comment beyond this point?

Do you? Because I haven't noticed one so far. And the point that these people were not killed because of their occupation is the salient point showing that these are trivial intersections of unrelated facts. Harley Hudson (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occuli, you may wish to click through from the example Frank gave of Category:Actors from Kansas as a redundant category that is always upmerged, since it is not upmerged but has 97 actors in it as a subcategory of Category:American actors by state. You really want to upmerge all of these into 1 category with 1200 American actors in it? Why indeed have a special category for American actors as opposed to Category:Fijian actors? Also, I somehow doubt that there are as many academic sources discussing the place of actors from Kansas as there are books discussing the impact of the Nazi era (and most notably extermination of significant numbers of practitioners and audience) on music/arts/literature/science/journalism in Europe. As the Kansas example illustrates, the main difference between the Nazi genocide and other atrocities such as Category:Victims of the September 11 attacks is scale, which eliminated whole categories of artists/writers/musicians/composers/etc from European cultural life. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_27#Category:Opera_singers_who_died_in_Nazi_concentration_camps John Pack Lambert (talk) comments "(it is probably many of the people killed in the Holocaust who were musicians were Gypsies) is just not the right approach." 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC). Again this goes to the issue of WP:Notability, which, unfair as it is, means that opera singers who made recordings for HMV, toured in Chicago and New York, premiered roles in operas, featured in magazine articles and reviews, and then perished in the camps, the Vitebsk ghetto, etc., are more NOTABLE than the thousands of gypsy violinists and singers who did not make recordings for HMV, did not tour in Chicago and New York, did not premiere roles in operas, did not feature in magazine articles and reviews, do not have downloadable mp3s of their recordings linked in their Wikipedia articles. Unfair, but that is what WP:Notability is. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked every article in every category before making this nomination and not one of them indicates that any of the people in the categories were targeted specifically because of their occupation. However notable any individual person may have been, notability is not the determining factor for how an article is categorized. Even if it were, it is not particularly notable that someone was an opera singer and died in the Holocaust, or that someone was a tailor and died in the Holocaust, or was a professional ping pong player and died in the Holocaust. There still has been nothing offered here by way of proof that any of the professions categorized here were targeted simply because of the profession. There were undoubtedly any number of opera singers and tailors and possibly ping pong players who were never sent to the camps or otherwise detained or interfered with by the Nazis and who survived the Nazi regime, because the Nazis did not as a matter of policy target them because of their profession. Not every combination of two notable facts about a person serves as the basis for a category. That's why we have for example Category:Actors and Category:2011 deaths but not Category:Actors who died in 2011. Arguments in favor of these categories as documentation of the cultural impact of the Holocaust on the arts strike me as original research through synthesis since we cannot point to the categories or to the people they contain as evidence of that impact beyond the removal of those particular people from the cultural landscape. You acknowledge in your comments that the professions of these people were not relevant to the Nazis. I agree and since that is the case they should not be categorized on the basis of the intersection of two facts that are irrelevant to each other. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Harley.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was not asking whether those proposing deletion had checked the articles to see whether "any of the people in the categories were targeted specifically because of their occupation." ......... I think everyone here is now aware, if they weren't before, that genocide (by its very nature) doesn't sub-categorize victims, and that point does not require repeating. However most Wikipedia users are presumably not taking their definitions of what is WP:NOTABLE from the standpoint of those committing genocide, but simply from what is user-friendly and relevant to Wikipedia Users.

Again, I note your comment that "Arguments in favor of these categories as documentation of the cultural impact of the Holocaust on the arts strike me as original research through synthesis since we cannot point to the categories or to the people they contain as evidence of that impact beyond the removal of those particular people from the cultural landscape.", but that only suggests to me that you simply aren't a listener to 20th Century classical music, nor interested in, say, German literature - since otherwise there's no way you could be unaware of the impact of the death of these artists upon their art? (that's a question, but a fairly secure question) But even without being a listener to 20th Century classical music, or a reader of German literature, anyone can verify from any mainstream text on 20th Century European music, art or literature that the removal of these artists had an impact on German culture. I am not specifically referring to texts concentrating on the subject such as Michael Kater Jewish Musicians in the Third Reich (1989), in F. C. DeCoste, Bernard Schwartz The Holocaust's ghost: writings on art, politics, law, and education (2000), Erik Levi Music in the Third Reich (1994), or Kater's The Twisted Muse OUP (1997), or Lily E. Hirsch A Jewish Orchestra in Nazi Germany Musical Politics and the Berlin Jewish Culture League (2010) but just simple general texts on music.

For example, can any of those proposing deletion name me one book on 20th Century European music (in particular, since this is an area I know) which doesn't discuss the sudden disappearance of half of Germany's composers, conductors, musicians, singers from German musical life first by banning (1933) and then extermination? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And an article or series on the subject of the impact of the Holocaust on music, literature, etc. drawing upon those sources would I'm sure be a fascinating read. But the sourcing for it would need to come from outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia categories can't be pointed to as evidence of that impact. You appear to be arguing in part that these categories should be kept because they serve to document the cultural impact of the Holocaust. Categories can't be used to document; only to classify. Keeping them to serve as documentation violates WP:OR. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harley, well those books are outside Wikipedia, which is why some of them are referenced on Jüdischer Kulturbund, Theresienstadt etc. and the other 120 bio articles you have nominated for removal of subcategorization. I repeat my question, can you name me one book on 20th Century European music which doesn't mention the impact of the Holocaust on music? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is irrelevant. It makes no difference to categories what potential sources for articles say. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harley, well (a) they aren't potential in that they are already in some of the articles and (b) even if they were, the Wikipedia criteria which Occuli linked says they do make a difference.

To wrap things up here, I note also that you didn't nominate Category:Religious workers who died in Nazi concentration camps, Category:Resistance members who died in Nazi concentration camps, Category:Children who died in Nazi concentration camps. Do you require sources being supplied to show that these categories are non-trivial also? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well (a) obviously I meant as potential sources for an article about the cultural impact of the Holocaust and (b) no they don't when it comes to this discussion. As I said quite clearly at the top of this nomination, the deaths in concentration camps structure is not under discussion here because I have not had the time to review its much more extensive contents, but at least some of those categories appear to suffer from the same shortcomings as these. Harley Hudson (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Keep for the reasons given by IZAK, Squiddy and Brewercrewer --Yoavd (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep. Arguments of In ictu oculi are persuasive. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep per IZAK and In ictu oculi. This is a useful categorization. And we also need Category:Rabbis who died in the Holocaust. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - assuming arguendo that the sources that discuss the culture gap caused by the Holocaust justify categorizing artists on that basis (a point I do not in any way concede) then the categories for historians and scientists should still be deleted since they are not performers. Harley Hudson (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all No valid rationale for deletion has been proposed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Useful and sensible subcategorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's useful is not a valid argument and there's no sense in categorizing people by characteristics that are wholly unrelated. to each other. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When a category is large, it is useful to subcategorise to aid the reader in navigating. Occupation is historically a typical defining characteristic, and someone browsing for someone is likely to know their occupation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That some sub-categories are useful is not an argument in favor of all sub-categories. The parent category is not particularly large and would not become much larger should these categories be merged to it, coming in at around 125. Someone browsing for violinists is very likely to start at Category:Violinists and supremely unlikely to start at Category:Violinists who died in the Holocaust. I am not saying that one's occupation is not defining and indeed all of these people are in at least one other occupation category. But being of a particular occupation and dying in the Holocaust is not a defining intersection because these people would have died in the Holocaust regardless of how they earned a living or if they earned a living at all. They would have died in the Holocaust whether they were opera singers or office workers, piano players or piano movers, oboists or obstetricians. Their occupations were irrelevant to the circumstances of their deaths. The Nazis did not target these people because of their occupations and categorizing them by that intersection makes the claim that they did. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Harley, that would now be the 11th and 12th time respectively that you've made the point that these WP:notable composers, musicians, poets, were not murdered for being WP:notable composers, musicians, poets; so as you were asked before, do you have another point/comment/reason beyond this point? If not I suggest we close this discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll make the point as often as I feel like making it and if you don't like it you're free to stop reading this discussion at any time. I don't need to make any additional points; the ones I've made should be sufficient and if it weren't for a bunch of editors who rarely if ever set foot outside the Judaism Wikiproject wrongly believing that this has something to do with the way Jews are categorized it probably would be. Maybe instead of complaining about how often I make a particular point you could try refuting it, except that it's pretty irrefutable. How about as you were asked before (I can meaninglessly bold things too) you offer up some specific sources that support the concept that these categories assert, that there is some relationship between being a poet and being killed in the Holocaust. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harley, please read above, the only person saying, 3 or 4 times, that "these categories assert that there is some relationship between being a poet and being killed in the Holocaust." is you. Why should anyone else have to provide evidence for something only you think? As to "I'll make the point as often as I feel like making it," then in the absence of any further reason/comment/evidence can we take that as time to close the discussion?In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Harley, I do indeed feel that some occupations belong and not necessarily that all occupations belong. I think there i redundancy among the musicians. And the scientists subcategory is very small (Did the nazis successfully not victimise the scientists?). But I read your nomination as a blanket merge/deletion and am not convinced it is thought through (though it may be, and is just not well explained) with the support of others, and so, no, your nomination does not have my support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokey Joe, FWIW "Violinists" should be upmerged to "Musicians" as in the context of Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz or in the Ghetto Swingers jazz band of Theresienstadt a musician is a musician. As for scientists many like Albert Einstein found entry to America easier - a different kind of non-trivial intersection between profession and (in Einstein's case) not dying in the Holocaust. I would like to propose that "Violinists" be upmerged to "Musicians", "Poets" renamed to "Writers", and close this unnecessary discussion.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The Nazis were specifically trying to kill off the Polish inteligentisia, and they also targeted other sections of the inteligentsia, especially Jewish scientists and artists with unfavored religious/ethnic backgrounds or disaproved political phylosophies. Some of the small categories might be worth questioning, but the holocaust victims by occupation is a worthwhile organization in many cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again making the point that the scientists were not killed because they were scientists but because they were Jews, and the artists were killed not for being artists but because of their religious or political beliefs or opinions. If the goal was to eliminate the Polish intelligentsia then shouldn't they be in Category:Polish people who died in the Holocaust? Harley Hudson (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Holocaust victims. This is an issue of MediaWiki software, one should be able to search articles by multi-category correlation (i.e. search for those in Category:Actors and Category:Holocaust victims at the same time). Beta M (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BetaM, MediaWiki can you please link to a demonstration of how a User would use software to correlate Category:Actors and Category:People from California? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the Nazis killed many victims (and of course, not only Jews), those who are likely to be noteworthy among those victims would be those with noteworthy occupations. Nahum (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why they should be categorized by their occupation and by their status as Holocaust victims, but not by the intersection of the two, which have nothing to do with each other. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that the categories may not be directly related, in that Nazis didn't kill actors for being actors. However, I would think these categories are for the readers, not the editors. Albert Einstein was a famous Jewish scientist who made it out of Germany before the Holocaust. Readers may well want to know if there were any other Jewish scientists who weren't so lucky - hence, Category:Scientists who died in the Holocaust. Without this, a reader (or editor, for that matter) would have to try and find the intersection between Category:Scientists +subcats and Category:People who died in the Holocaust +subcats. I think of it like the numerous "ABC-type buildings in XYZ-Country" categories we have. Does a certain type of building directly relate to the country it's in? No. Does it aid a reader looking for certain information? Yes. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:37, 1 Sivan 5771 / 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• The categories are not limited by religion so their existence does not serve your suggested purpose. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:18, 3 Sivan 5771 / 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• The strikethrough doesn't address the underlying issue, the non-relatedness of occupation and "killed in the Holocaust". Some readers may be interested in going from Einstein to finding other scientists who didn't make it out, but there's no navigational link between Einstein's article and the scientists category. At least one editor, its creator, is interested in every category that gets made but that interest doesn't prevent us from deleting other categories and it's interesting isn't an argument. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:19, 7 June 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalle: Per the subcategories of Category:Articles by importance in over 1000 other WikiProjects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand the rationale to rename. Why do all projects have to use the same naming scheme? What is the harm in allowing projects to choose the naming scheme for these categories? (By the way I think you have missed some in your list, e.g. Category:Top-Priority mathematics articles). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I believe that we should go, as far as possible, to a uniform category name scheme. As to your comment about the Mathematics WikiProject categories, you are correct - I missed those because of different capitalization (I seached for "priority .* articles", not for "[Pp]riority .* articles", in a case-sensitive search). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This seems an appropriate tidying up of a category scheme. It doesn't really matter if it is called priority or importance, but as importance is more common, it makes sense to use that. This is the maintenance side of Wikipedia, and the general consensus is that the maintenance side is more functional and effective when using uniform terminology and categories. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. In fact "priority" would probably be the best choice, & might avoid some of the ridiculous over-rating many projects suffer from here, but its probably too late to argue for that. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The matters of articles assessment should be decided by the appropriate WikiProjects, not in one fell swoop such as here. There is nothing wrong in asking each affected WikiProject to take another look at how their assessment processes work and perhaps changing the terminology as suggested here, but the final uniform decision should be up to them, not imposed by a vote of a handful of uninvolved people.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 17, 2011; 13:27 (UTC)
• Support. I am generally pro standardization and I don't see why we wouldn't rename these categories proper. This does not change the individual project assessment process in any way. This only makes naming consistent. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, projects should be given latitude to organize things as they see fit but I find it really hard to believe that people would fight such a trivial change. In this context, foo-importance and foo-priority are synonymous. (After all, nobody in their right mind would set up parallel schemes to assess both the priority and importance of an article). Standardization might seem silly to a long-time editor of a given project but to inexperienced users it's very convenient and I believe we should think of their interests first. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nobody in their right mind would set up parallel schemes to assess both the priority and importance of an article" - well they might, because priority and importance are not the same thing. Importance implies significance, so relates to the most fundamental pages of a topic. Priority implies urgency, so for example a contentious BLP that's in the news might be a "high priority to improve", even though it's not that important an article. That said, AFAIK "priority" has always been used as a synonym of "importance", so unless there is a real difference in meaning, there's no reason to use that terminology. On the other hand, if "priority" is not synonymous in some or all cases, then in those cases it should not be renamed. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 28 May 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.

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) 13:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mishnah rabbis to Category:Tannaim

Nominator's rationale: In line with main article name. Chesdovi (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; also in line with the convention of Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period.- choster (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because 1. it is both a sub-category of the parent Category:Mishnah. 2. It is part of and similar to Category:Talmud rabbis. 3. The main article and the structure and naming of the categories are not required to be the same and it's a very flimsy "reason" to rename a long-standing name for this category that is clear, while 4. the word "Tannaim" remains less well-known and the word "Mishnah" remains well-known in both Judaic and non-Jewish sources. IZAK (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you now worried about "non-Jewish sources"? When it comes to the Land of Israel vs. Palestine, you are very adamant that no non-Jewish names (Palestine) ever be used fot Jewish sujects? Would you suggest "Early day scholars" for Rishonim because Rishonim is the Jewish word and is not well known in non-Jewish circles? Tannaim less known? An encylopeadia is meant to inform: "Mishnah rabbis 200 results. Tannaim Nearly 60,000. Chesdovi (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chesdovi: The name "Land of Israel" is in perfect English simultaneously being Jewish phraseology and the two words "Mishnah rabbis" is also a perfect English name also being acceptable Jewish terminology. IZAK (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but am interested to know why you think people who know of the word Mishnah, would be unfamiliar with the word Tanna. Also, Google scholar has next to no results for "Mishna rabbis", but hundreds for Tannaim, which would indicate useage in non-Jewish sources. We don't have to oversimplfy terms for people here. They can use wiki simple english for that. Chesdovi (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: The nominator is running around and creating confusion by nominating various categories relating to rabbis for changes (see Category:Haredi rabbis in Europe, Category:Hasidic rabbis in Europe), rather than starting a general discussion somewhere, such as at WP:TALKJUDAISM, to cover all the categories and not go about his self-appointed task in a piecemeal and disjointed fashion when such key long-standing categories are involved. He has already been blocked and warned not to act hastily in this department, and is well-known for creating uncalled for edit wars, see User Chesdovi (talk · contribs · logs · block log). So let's cool it here and not go to the brink again. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per IZAK. "Mishna rabbis" is not the best-sounding category name (I would perhaps prefer "rabbis of the mishna", but this would raise another host of problems, I'm sure), but "tannaim" is unnecessarily jargon-ish and unknown to most readers. My 2 cents. —Dfass (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jargonish or not, this is the proper term used in encyclopeadias: TANNAIM AND AMORAIM. Tannaim is not called Mishnah rabbis for a reason. Hebrew wiki calls them קטגוריה:תנאים, as does German wiki Kategorie:Tannait, Yiddish wiki קאַטעגאָריע:תנאים, French wiki Catégorie:Tannaim, Russian wiki Категория:Таннаим. As does the Template:Tannaim. Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Chesdovi: You are twisting things and no need to be cynical, please follow WP:AGF. Firstly, the phrase "Mishnah rabbis" works when combined as two words! Secondly, this has been a good name for this category since August 2004 for almost 6 years and no one has ever complained. Thirdly, there is no WP "law" that all terms must be the same on all the WP languages or that they must adopt only Hebrew terminology. Fourthly, this matter of Hebrew names has been discussed umpteen times, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) as an example and there has never been one iron-fisted over-all consensus about Hebrew versus English/other languages naming rules. So cool it. Finally, you should try starting these kinds of changes to long-standing categories with good faith serious discussions and inviting proficient Judaic editors to WP:TALKJUDAISM first and that way you will avoid controversy and arguments later. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

I am not saying "Mishah rabbis" has no merits, for that's indeed what these people were. All I am advocating for is a change for what I feel is a better alternative. I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion. That's why we discuss and vote here. The fact that no one has ever suggested a rename in 6 years would be interesting, if not for the fact that that assertion is frankly untrue. Also, a category with this name has proved to be confusing on two counts: 1. There was confusion over whether Zugot included in this category could really be called "rabbis", it being an anachronistic term for them. 2. There was also confusion which triggered a small edit-war over whether Category:Talmud rabbis really belonged in this category. With both these points, there would be no confusion if the proper periodic term was used instead. I trust you accept that I was not to know a nomination here would prove to be "controversial". There is also no reason why arguments for and against the change can't take place right here. Chesdovi (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chesdovi: I think our basic operating assumptions differ here. My view is that WP categories should be practical and navigable to a world audience that knows nothing about this very obscure subject and so therefore "Mishnah rabbis" is the simplest and clearest name in plain English as well as acceptable for all of Judaism for a category that can include a broad range of names in the Mishnah without distractions as to what the terminology is in yeshivas, since after all Wikipedia is NOT a yeshiva, and that's why it has worked so well until now. While you are focusing on the nitty-gritty of the Hebrew/religious names and want to make them the new names of the categories that would not help navigation which is the main function of categories. Proving that the word "Amora" is on Google does not prove anything here (should we translate it into it's literal sense as well as "Speaker/Lecturer/Interpreter"? see Jastrow, p 76), because yes it is a widely used Hebrew/Talmudic word among select Jewish religious groups but it's totally meaningless to the rest of humanity who could be fed easier and correct terminology for the same thing. Again, categories are not required to "religiously" match main articles because often categories perform more complex and more inclusive roles that a finite article alone could not. Ironically the "exception" you link to Category talk:Mishnah rabbis#Rename shows there was no interest in further confusing an already confusing subject. Why are Zugot a problem, they are known through Pirkei Avot that is part of the Mishnah. I am still not sure what you problem is with Category:Talmud rabbis and again all I can say is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Perhaps you should outline on your talk page somewhere what you see as the over-all set of problems and what you would like to do and invite feedback rather than jumping from category to category nominating for changes and deletion that just creates confusion and gets others' backs up rather than getting editors to cooperate with you. Try aiming for WP:CONSENSUS and not setting up situations that bring you into head to head butting that then violates WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree with Dfass that Category:Rabbis of the Mishnah is the best solution. Category:Mishnah rabbis is rather vague; it sounds like it includes rabbis who teach Mishnah to their constituents between Mincha and Maariv. Category:Tannaim will only be understood by our yeshiva-graduate readers, which are only a fraction of a percent of total Jewish readership, which is only a fraction of a percent of total Wikipedia readership. Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the correct terminology, but make category redirects from Category:Mishnah rabbis and Category:Rabbis of the Mishnah for those who wouldn't understand these, and make sure that the category page explains what "Tannaim" are. The word "Tannaim" has only 85,800 google hits, while the word Mishnah has 722,000 hits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tanna" also has 584,000. Chesdovi (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is clearly a much more appropriate terminology. Of course the Category must include a brief explanation of the word Tanna and a prominent link to the main article Tannaim. Giving a category the same name as its main article assists clarity. (Mishna rabbi is pretty much a made-up term; there is no article of that name.) --Redaktor (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per OdMishehu (including redirects) and Redaktor. And rename the Amoraim article to suit - "Talmud Rabbis" is equally dumbed down unencyclopedic language. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mishna rabbis is more familiar to the general reader. Category and article names should generally be what is familiar to the reader, not waht is in some academic sense "correct".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed Tannaim. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states: "Wikipedia … uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." "Mishna rabbi" returns 10,000; "Tannaim" 196,000. There is just no comparison here. The fact that you never heard of the word Tanna instead of Mishna just shows that you are less informed and therefore you should fully support the correct appellation here. That’s what wiki’s about – leaning new things. We could keep Category:Mishnah rabbis, it would include Zugot and Tannaim, but we should use Category:Tannaim as a sub-specific category for the rabbis of the Tannaic era. Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 25 May 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous albino animals to Category:Individual albino animals

Propose renaming Category:Famous bears to Category:Individual bears

Propose renaming Category:Famous birds to Category:Individual birds

Propose renaming Category:Famous bovines to Category:Individual bovines

Propose renaming Category:Famous camels to Category:Individual camels

Propose renaming Category:Famous cephalopods to Category:Individual cephalopods

Propose renaming Category:Famous cetaceans to Category:Individual cetaceans

Propose renaming Category:Famous crocodiles and alligators to Category:Individual crocodiles and alligators

Propose renaming Category:Famous deer to Category:Individual deer

Propose renaming Category:Famous dogs to Category:Individual dogs

Propose renaming Category:Famous elephants to Category:Individual elephants

Propose renaming Category:Famous felines to Category:Individual felines

Propose renaming Category:Famous fish to Category:Individual fish

Propose renaming Category:Famous giraffes to Category:Individual giraffes

Propose renaming Category:Famous goats to Category:Individual goats

Propose renaming Category:Famous hippopotamuses to Category:Individual hippopotamuses

Propose renaming Category:Famous horses to Category:Individual horses

Propose renaming Category:Famous lobsters to Category:Individual lobsters

Propose renaming Category:Famous mongooses to Category:Individual mongooses

Propose renaming Category:Famous mules to Category:Individual mules

Propose renaming Category:Famous pigs to Category:Individual pigs

Propose renaming Category:Famous non-human primates to Category:Individual non-human primates

Propose renaming Category:Famous rabbits to Category:Individual rabbits

Propose renaming Category:Famous rhinoceroses to Category:Individual rhinoceroses

Propose renaming Category:Famous rodents to Category:Individual rodents

Propose renaming Category:Famous sheep to Category:Individual sheep

Propose renaming Category:Famous tortoises to Category:Individual tortoises

Propose renaming Category:Famous wolves to Category:Individual wolves

Propose renaming Category:Famous giant pandas to Category:Individual giant pandas

Propose renaming Category:Famous polar bears to Category:Individual polar bears

Propose renaming Category:Famous cattle to Category:Individual cattle

Propose renaming Category:Famous cats to Category:Individual cats

Propose renaming Category:Famous lions to Category:Individual lions

Propose renaming Category:Famous tigers to Category:Individual tigers

Propose renaming Category:Famous meerkats to Category:Individual meerkats

Propose renaming Category:Famous groundhogs to Category:Individual groundhogs or Category:Individual Groundhog Day prognosticating groundhogs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardize on name used in parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the second option on groundhogs is that the category is actually limited to these, so to match the name of the category to the contents, the second option there would appear to be the correct albeit longer name. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Fame is subjective. LeSnail (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The renaming of the parent went through very quickly with almost no participation, overturning a previous debate with far more. The cases are not exactly similar, as the parent contains other categories than "famous" ones. The previous rationale was that any animal deemed notable can be called "famous", which works for animals but not people. This still seems good to me. The "individual" names risk being mistaken for individual species etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, per all the reasons above, because fame is uncitable, and because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_12#Category:Famous_dogs.Curb Chain (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – Fame is subjective but arguably anyone or any animal with a Wikipedia article is famous. However, a problem with the new names may arise in the case of an article about a pair of cats, for example. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Makes sense. Notability is a prerequisite for the article to exist. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure - slightly in favour of Johnbod's reasons, noting also Mclay1's comment about plurals "The Tamworth Two were a pair of pigs that escaped while being unloaded from a lorry at an abattoir in the English town of Malmesbury, Wiltshire in January 1998."...In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. "Famous" is an odd qualifier. The correct concept is "notable," but that's tautological, because any animal whose article is not deleted is presumed to be notable. So "individual" seems like a perfect qualifier, in that it makes no judgments, but allows breakaway from the main category for each species.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 18 May 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serial killers sentenced in 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It is not normal to categorize criminals by year of sentencing. I would suggest merging to somewhere, but both articles are already in any category I would suggest. LeSnail (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Year of sentencing is not defining, and Bradford murders is not a serial killer. (Russell Williams is a surprising read.) Occuli (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not part of a larger scheme and agree that it should not be one that is developed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If ever to classify a serial murder spree by year - as is costumary with other types of homicide - it's most logical to categorize by the killer's year of sentencing as a serial murder spree often span multiple years. PsychoticInq (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not be categorizing articles about murderers by year. Articles about murders are categorized by year, but the articles about the people who committed the murders should not be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 19 May 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.

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:Relaxation (approximation).--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Relaxation methods to Category:Relaxation techniques (mathematics)

Nominator's rationale: To match main page Relaxation technique (mathematics). Current name is highly ambiguous. LeSnail (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proposed name is non-informative and cumbersome, and it doesn't match the improved names of the articles. It was better simply to disambiguate the articles' names, per WP's naming conventions. (It would have been better simply to discuss this on talk pages rather than jump to the renaming discussion, imho.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming (2). The rename should be Category:Relaxation (approximation)

The articles' names have been disambiguated/moved as follows

• Relaxation (iterative method)
• Relaxation (approximation)

I corrected that mis-statement that the topics are unrelated, in the latter article, and provided in-line references to the former article.

(In the future, creating a category for "large-scale" optimization, which would include relaxation and decomposition methods, may be useful.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something this has nothing to do with breathing exercises or yoga. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Motion to close This category is now empty. The category "relaxation (approximation)" is now populated. I shall not monitor this page anymore.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 21 May 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worcester, Massachusetts city councillors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Membership in the city council of a not terribly large city is not defining and is not an appropriate form of categorization. All 3 articles categorized here are for people who were in fact mayor of Worcester and are also categorized accordingly. LeSnail (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as nom Worcester is the second largest city in its region with over 181,000 residents. I have added more city councilor categories as well. Generally, categories with at least 5 articles that are part of a widespread scheme are considered useful no matter the size of the city.--TM 11:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Worcester, like many cities in the US, has had in its history both a strong (independent of the city council) and weak mayor (a ceremonial elected mayor of the council), thus justifying the inclusion of both categories.--TM 11:35, 12 May 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.

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: Closing this and merging it into the relevant discussion above - there is clearly enough oposityion to the target name proposed here for a SNOW closure, and otherwise this nomination adds nothing t the nomination above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous dogs to Category:Notable dogs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Famous is a culturally ambiguous word that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Curb Chain (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Individual dogs. This matches the parent Category:Individual animals. The word individual was previously determined to be best in such a situation to make it clear that the category is not for famous or notable breeds of dogs. Any dog with a wikipedia page is both famous and notable, so both words are redundant. (Note that there are many other categories in Category:Individual animals that deserve a similar rename, but I don't have the energy to nominate them all.) LeSnail (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Individual dogs to match parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the other animal cats above. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to whatever matches the other CFD. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:15, 15 May 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Estonian towns to Category:Mayors of places in Estonia

Nominator's rationale: For accuracy and consistency with other subcats of Category:Mayors by country. In particular, Tallinn is not a 'town' by most standards. LeSnail (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Tallinn is not a town by any reasonable standard, lol. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:52, 13 May 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.

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:County-level divisions of Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. Jafeluv (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:County-level divisions of Diqing Prefecture to Category:County-level divisions of Dêqên Prefecture

Nominator's rationale: same reasons for renaming Category:Diqing Prefecture –HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If renamed, it should be to Category:County-level divisions of Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, if you insist... then we could do that. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:11, 20 May 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.

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:Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. Jafeluv (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diqing Prefecture to Category:Dêqên Prefecture

Nominator's rationale: Dêqên is both the variant used in our article title and the one used officially. "Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture" is unnecessarily long, as we can identify the division simply by "Dêqên Prefecture" –HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If renamed, it should be to Category:Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, if you insist... then we could do that. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:11, 20 May 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.