The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Should be replaced by Category:History by nation. This was moved to Category:history by country following a two to one vote last week that hardly anyone seems to have paid attention to. The note, made in that debate, that country and nation mean two different things was for some reason ignored. Category:Czech history is not the history of a country, but the history of a nation. The change in name also forced some subcategories to be expelled. Category:Jewish history, for instance, is now classed only under Category:History of religion, which is deeply misleading. - SimonP 23:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Also note that many of the subcategory renames are inappopriate, notably the pending Category:Czech history --> Category:History of the Czech Republic. Both categories should exist; the latter should perhaps be a subcat of the former. -- Visviva 02:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, the original categories were carefully created, whoever changed them is being sloppy and also incorrect, as explained above. IZAK 05:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Where would Kurdish history articles go, for example. This gets kind of hairy, since it's a pair of terms, the distinctions between which post-WWI and, even moreso post-WWII history has muddled, not only linguistically but even in the minds of people. I doubt that this VfD is going to be the end of this, but, IMHO at least, History by country is definitely not the right way to go with this. Tomer ^TALK 06:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT (neither support nor reject): Some histories are histories of countries (such as the US or UK), while others (maybe Croatian or Jewish) may be those of nations. You're right that these are not histories of countries, but at the same time, there are indeed some which are histories of countries. ~ Dpr 05:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, however in those cases where history and nation overlap we generally have two categories. e.g. we have History of Britain and History of the United Kingdom, History of Serbia and Montenegro and Serbian history, and the previously cited Irish example. It would be possible to have a parallel history by country and history by nation category system, but this would cause some duplication as in 90% of cases they are identical. The general policy had been to have the country history pages as sub-cats of the national history ones, which I think works. Someone looking for History of the Republic of Ireland will quickly find it through History of Ireland - SimonP 11:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Wait a second: Ireland describes an island, not a nation. — Sebastian (talk) 09:38, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are two things, territories and ethnic groups. The "history of" categories should clearly distinguish between the two. The word "nation" is confusing, because it can mean either, and many people won't actually realize that. The word "country" should be used in this case, since this should be the category for territory histories. We already have Category:History by ethnic group, and I have added Category:Jewish history there, and I see Category:U.S. history by ethnic group is already there. This makes sense; I would expect to find "History of the United States" and "History of Israel" in Category:History by country (or "History by nation", for that matter). Mixing territories and ethnic groups in the same category will make it too large and too confusing. If any article falls into both categories (hopefully not, for simplicity's sake, but you never know) it should just be listed twice. -- Beland 08:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: To answer the above question, I would put Kurdish history in Category:History by ethnic group. To determine whether or not something is a "country", I usually look at List of sovereign states and List of dependent territories. The Kurds are on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. As for the "Countrian history -> "History of Country" renames, we should handle these separately... -- Beland 08:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're assuming that no country can also be an ethnic group. The French, Greeks, Japanese, Russians etc. are all ethnic groups and are listed as such on our list of ethnic groups. Category:History by ethnic group would thus be almost identical to Category:History by country. What you are proposing is a Category:History by stateless ethnic group, which of course still leaves Category:Jewish history without a good home. - SimonP 18:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point. How about keeping the name and admitting some exceptional inconsistency by adding a comment to category:history by ethnic group: "For ethnic groups whose history is identical to that of a country, see the history of that country."? — Sebastian (talk) 09:38, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Beland. -- Kbdank71 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. R adiant _>|< 10:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Category:History by country and category:History by ethnic group/nation should co-exist. For nation-states such as Japan perhaps the same category already serves both purposes. But the teutonic knights, for instance, are not part of the history of the land presently known as Germany. — Insta ntnood June 28, 2005 16:52 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

This category has an improper spelling and has been converted to Category:Fourth-generation video game consoles; therefore, it should be deleted. Marcus2 16:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted as typo fix speedy renaming. --  grm_wnr Esc 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• And there's a dash in the name why? -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

There is as yet no definition on Wikipedia of what precisely Jewish literature is exactly. This category was created in a care-free fashion, and at the same time by the same user as a near duplicate to Category:Yiddish literature with basically the same 3 or 4 entries placed in it, compare [1] and [2]. This is a "category in search of a subject", and until such time as the subject of Jewish literature is developed on Wikipedia, there is no point to this category. There already exist related categories such as Category:Jewish texts relating to Judaism, Category:Modern Hebrew writers and Category:Israeli writers as categories representative of both Hebrew language and Israeli ( Jewish literature). The aforementioned thus create further doubt about exactly what Category:Jewish literature uniquely includes? (Maybe some day it would be good for secular Jewish books or authors not writing in Hebrew or Yiddish.) But at this point it appears to be a weakly defined category and should be deleted. IZAK 11:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete echoing IZAK, although I doubt it's unlikely it will ever be a useful category. Tomer ^TALK 15:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Does there not exist a large degree of non-Hebrew and non-Yiddish (secular) literature written by Jewish authors? Chaim Potok among many Anglophone Jewish writers, and it exists in Francophone literature, German-language literature, and others. Do you feel that the number of such non-Yiddish/non-Hebrew-using writers is scarce? I feel the subject is well defined. There seems to be a true need: no other category seems to fit. Please let me know if there is one that does. Besides, Yiddish and Hebrew literature ought to be encompassed into one overarching category as well. ~ Dpr

Dpr, what you are describing is Category:American literature or Category:French literature with Jews as literary characters in some of those books. For example, Potok is writing about the phenomenon of (religious) Jews within the larger framework of American culture and not so much as a part of or a continuum of a specifically "Jewish" genre of books or writing (even though many people unfamiliar with Judaism's literary heritage get caught up in thinking that Potok and his type are a breed of modern-day literati equivalant to the Hebrew Bible's Isaiahs and Jeremiahs.) IZAK 05:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not making any argument about 'literati'...I'm just saying that there are multiple interpretations of literature, culture, and community. I believe there may exist something called Jewish literature, that such writers as Potok's and other Jewish writers are not just writers who happen to be Jewish, that such literature is not American or Francophone literature that "happens" to be by a Jewish person or about Jewish communities--instead "Jewish literature" as an entity may exist separately and distinctly (even if it may overlap the others like a Venn diagram.) Some clearly believe this entity does not exist, but we should clarify our statements and agree to disagree--we can only proceed when this stage is reached. Thanks ~ Dpr 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So may I suggest, in good faith, that you go ahead and write a decent informative article about Jewish literature the way you have been describing it. Then other editors may add their views, either accepting, rejecting, or adding to what you are saying. But at this point it makes absolutely no sense to have a vague ill-defined category here that does not even have an article about its main subject. That is like "putting the cart before the horse". IZAK 08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Izak's suggestion. Create a category when/if you have an article that can provide basic criteria as to proper content of category. Buffyg 14:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

There were only about five items in this, which I have now moved to the rest in Category:Political organisations. Deus Ex 11:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too broad. Pavel Vozenilek 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Not too broad, but one spelling will do. - Willmcw June 29, 2005 00:04 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

This category was created for two Swedish scientists, Hans von Euler-Chelpin and his son Ulf von Euler, both Nobel laureates, and as a subcategory of Category:Swedish nobility. I removed the "Swedish nobility" categorization, but it is in any case silly to have a category for only these two persons. Uppland 09:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT a geneaology database. R adiant _>|< 13:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; in agreement with points already made. Buffyg 14:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Too damn wordy, and actresses is not appropriate, where "actor" is gender neutral. Suggest Law & Order actors, Actors in Law & Order etc. Three subcats need renaming too. - SV| t 07:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Um, do we need to categorize acting by television series? Perhaps it's just me, but this seems like a really bad idea. Is there a process for turning a nomination for renaming into a delete vote? -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • It has precedent (e.g. Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast and crew). You can cast 'delete' votes here if you wish (to be absolutely proper, add a CFD template to the article). R adiant _>|< 08:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

actor is NOT gender neutral; women, as well as men, engage in acting. performers is a neutral word. heavily gendered words toward masculinity are passe. yawn.

• Rename to Law & Order cast. Ta dah. R adiant _>|< 08:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This just opens up the worms can for over-categorization. A list is more than enough. RedWolf 19:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per Radiant!. -- Lochaber 28 June 2005 09:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)

Ought to be renamed to Category:Users of banned substances in football. The title itself is POV-sounding. Furthermore, it is also inaccurate: Mark Bosnich uses cocaine, which hardly makes him a cheat (cocaine reduces rather than enhances performance). Mandel 07:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, poor naming. -- Tothebarricades 03:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Delete; in agreement with points already made. Buffyg 14:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as above. Pavel Vozenilek 01:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was listify -- Kbdank71 29 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Use of commercial or proprietary lists by Sony, FHM, Playboy is not an NPOV use of categories. Depopulate list to article, and recat articles by better scheme. - SV| t 00:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree that this category is POV (it's a marketing label whose application can be objectively verified), but I do agree that this would be better served as a list than a category. List & delete. - Sean Curtin 05:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify. R adiant _>|< 11:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete category and listify similar to the article on Player's Choice. Move content up a directory to Category:PlayStation games (although it looks like most if not all of the games are categorized in both). -- TheDotGamer ^Talk 20:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, its not POV: games for PSX that sold a certain amount of copies became labeled "greatest hits" and were sold at a reduced price. It's a finite category and I don't see the harm in it. -- Tothebarricades 03:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete category and listify Buffyg 14:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see the big deal in having this. There are very many Greatest Hits titles. It's not some opinionated crap from Sony, they rerelease games under the Greatest Hits titles, which means that it sold over 400,000 copies. The price is also lowered as well. I'm not the person labelling them as Greatest Hits, Sony doesn't label any title they feel like as Greatest Hits, they have to reach a certain level of popularity to achieve a Greatest Hits label. It's the people that decides what's a Greatest Hits title, because without them, they can't sell, and if they can't sell, they can't become Greatest Hits. And damnit, why does this edit keep disappearing?! -- A Link to the Past 21:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.