Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

Category:Musical instrument destruction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify (already done). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Musical instrument destruction ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Novelty category with no informative purpose, clutters up category listings for bands. Entire concept of category could be covered in a single article List of musicians known for destroying instruments or similar. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Matsuri Hino manga

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. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Matsuri Hino manga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Completely unnecessary category for a manga author who has only written four titles. Not prolific enough to need a category, and all four are already properly wikified from her article. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Failed pilots

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:Television pilots not picked up as a series. Kbdank71 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Failed pilots to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per strong consensus against categorizing "failures" as POV. Not sure what the best name is. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • However series is used as a singular here. I just think that since the form with the 'a' works in the various versions of English, it might be preferred. Working but not reading right is a problem. I will agree that both suggestions are better then what we have now. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Sorry. Failure seems an adequate term. If you want to soften it, use 'Unsuccessful'. All of this word wrangling is not only odd, but leading to needleess ambiguity. Yeago ( talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish Christians

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 (default to delete) - As this is a recreation of a category which has been deleted twice per two separate CfDs, and there is, per this discussion, no current consensus concerning whether it should be a category, defaulting to WP:CSD#G4 - recreation, and therefore, delete.

(Note to those interested, I took the deletion review of this CfD into consideration of this closure. Even without the 2 puppets, the consensus still appears to be delete.) - jc37 11:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Jewish Christians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1)Too ill-defined:How much Jewish ancestry, if you consider Judaism a race, 1/2, 1/4 or any, it has no official standard of inclusion Also, the category:Jewish communists which existed previously was deleted. Finally it was deleted previously Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22#Category:Jewish Christians. -- Java7837 ( talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but purge. The contents seem mostly to be Christian converts from Judaism. A few may be Christians of Jewish descent, rather than converts. The contemporary term is Messianic Jews, but to apply that to converts of the 16th to 19th centuries would be an anachronism. On the other hand, the inclusion of the 12 apostles (also a subcategory) and others from the early Christian church, while technically correct, seems odd; they should perhaps be moved to a subcategory, perhaps Category:1st-century Jewish Christians. An alternative for the core group of converts etc. might be Category:Christians of Jewish descent. We have similar categories for expatriates. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
comment: Messianic Jew doesn't mean a Jew who became Christian, the majority in that movement weren't just to start with-- Java7837 ( talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Indeed, Messianic Judaism is a specific religious movement. "Jewish Christians" on the other hand are people of Jewish ancestry, who, to some degree, hold a Christian religious belief. Hardly controversial - Ste vertigo 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree with these comments. My statement on Messianic Jews was imprecise. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • What people generally mean when they say that a person is of Jewish descent, they generally mean the person descends from either the Sephardi, or more commonly the Ashkenazi community, they communities are mostly of Israelite descent, but it should be noted that the only thing the Ashkenazi and Sephardi have in common, is religion, they have different histories for the last 2000 years or so, traditionally spoke different languages, ate different foods, had different forms of dress, and have different customs, they also have lived in different parts of the world, until relatively recently. Judaism is not an ethnicity, nor is Jewish, Ashkenazi is though. Abayudaya, B'nai Moshe, and other Jewish ethnic groups, are not of Israelite descent, these are communities that embraced Judaism, yet if one of the Abayudaya intermarried and his/her kids were brought up as Christian, people would be less likely to say that one of the kids of the Abayudaya is a Jewish Christian. The word proselyte, from which the word proselytize comes from, in Greek means a convert to Judaism, they had a word for this because it was not uncommon for Greeks to convert to Judaism. The only reason why people generally think Jews are a race or ethnicity, is because it has been illegal for last 2000 years or so to convert to Judaism, in Christian and Muslim countries, and still in force in Muslim countries. In fact if a person is of European descent they can bascially call themselves a Jewish Christian, because when the Roman Empire conquered Israel during the Bar Kokhba's rebellion, millions of Jews were enslaved and were forced to convert to the religion of their masters, just like the African Americans, later the Romans were forced to convert to Christianity. So why do they not Categorize European Christians, and people who descend from them, as Jewish Christians, because the category, only exists to say hey look some Jews have converted to Christianity. The category, is simply useless, and has no definition on how much ancestry from the alleged Jewish race is necessary for inclusion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic faith is overwhelmingly following by the Romance peoples, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, and the peoples who descend from them, like the Hispanics, but no ever ever says they are a Roman Catholic Buddhist. Because people can convert to Catholicism and people do, and this why Judaism and Catholicism are not races, nor ethnicities. -- Java7837 ( talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree. I would suggest that Category:Early Jewish Christians would be an appropriate subcategory both of Category:Early Christians and of that under discussion here. Naturally those included would be purged from both parents. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Note - the nomination appears to be pushing a POV. The nominator, who originally registered as User:Jesusmyth, and his recently blocked sockpuppet User:Alpha166, have been active editors of List of converts to Judaism#List of converts to Judaism from Christianity, List of former Christians#Judaism and Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus. Conversions of notable people between religions are generally valid encyclopedic knowledge, in whichever direction they occur. Categories providing navigation links to them are therefore useful. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you for this. The nominator, User:Java7837 might like to respond to the charges. If true, it would be enough for an Arbcom review, and a slight reprimand, perhaps banning him from editing particular articles. That said, there may have been issues with the category: deletion certainly is not the answer, but a little tidying up won't hurt. - Ste vertigo 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Fayenatic, do you support creating a Jewish Muslims category then, since you think Jewish is an ethnicity, or do you only support this category, because you believe Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism? Like I have said earlier Ashkenazi, is a ethnicity, Sephardi, is an ethnicity, and so is Abayudaya, an ethnicity (they are not of Israelite descent). People do not need to be of Israelite descent to be Jewish, people cannot convert to Belgian for example. The fundamental problem is the general American populace is ignorant of Judaism. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked, Do Jews believe in G-d? I find it simply ridiculous that non-Jews are telling Jews what Jewish is.-- Java7837 ( talk) 14:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
People do become Belgian (whether you use the word "convert" rather than "naturalize" is just semantics); that's why all these race/religion intersection categories are useless...I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with Christians of Jewish descent which has the subtlety that those who believe that Christianity descends from Judaism - even if a convert to Christianity had no Jewish ancestors - all Christians can be placed in that cat. This is a meaningless as all race/ethnic/religion/"descent" categories. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Ah, someone else who is not clear on the difference between race and ethnicity. Someone else after me, that is. - Fayenatic (talk)
Reply: I hadn't realised it was contentious that "Jewish is an ethnicity"; I was quoting User:David Shankbone above, but I've also read it from User:IZAK at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 15#Category:Jews by religion, which I've only just come across. I hope it's not ridiculous for me to believe (or repeat) what an articulate, educated and apparently Jewish editor writes.
I've only argued that the category should be kept as a depopulated navigation aid to its existing sub-categories and a new Category:Early Jewish Christians or similar. On further exploration, the CFD discussion linked above resulted in Category:People of Jewish descent by religion which is probably sufficient.
I also hadn't realised that there were so few ethnicity/religion intersections in categories, although there are more articles about such intersections.
I'm therefore prepared to see this category deleted, but can we achieve consensus on setting up Category:Early Jewish Christians? I suggest that that is the best name since the Twelve Apostles and other earliest Christians probably would not self-identify as Category:Converts from Judaism to Christianity. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi. I am not sure of what User:Fayenetic is driving at, but for the record, the following is what I stated there and it's consistent with my position here: (Delete because this "category" will only add confusion and misrepresentation, it may also violate WP:NONSENSE. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" means BOTH a member of the Jewish RELIGION ( Judaism) and being part of an ethnicity, therefore it is both ludicrous and dangerous to classify Jews as part of other religions. As far as Judaism is concerned, the moment a Jew joins another religion they become Apostates making this subject even more complicated. This topic is a violation of both WP:NEO (Jews cannot be artificially redefined by Wikipedia discussions as part of other religions. There are the Jew and Judaism articles, and more, that discuss those topics) and Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK ( talk) 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete this violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP, because truth be told it is objectively, truthfuly and theologically impossible for there to be such a hybrid animal as a "Jewish Christian" or a "Christian Jew" for that matter because Judaism and Christianity are conflicting religions. Yes, there are Messianic Jews or Hebrew Christians, but they are CHRISTIANS first and foremost holding to some smattering of Jewish rituals maybe, but once one is baptized into Christianity one stops being a Jew in the religious sense and it's only ethnicity a much broader notion not tied to religion, but that cannot help one bridge Judaism with Christianity either. Christianity teaches that Judaism is over and kaput and Jews are sinners for not accepting Jesus, while Judaism teaches that Jesus was a traitor to his people and deserved what he got and that Christianity is a false religion. Judaism regards Islam as true Monotheism better than Christianity. This is not a mystery and it's well known to serious scholars and theologians. It is only in pop-culture that these kinds of things can get mixed up. On the religious level one either follows/believes Judaism and is therefore Jewish or one follows Christianity and is therefore a Christian. In addition, this category is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK ( talk) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: None of this is an argument against renaming as Category:Christians of Jewish descent per Cgingold. This has the advantage over Category:People of Jewish descent by religion that it would be an acceptable sub-cat of Category:Christians. Also, nobody has expressed any objection to adding a new Category:Early Jewish Christians and unless that happens I will take this CFD as approval in advance for that category. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • comment one term causes confusion and two in Judaism once anybody accepts anything as being the embodiment of G-d, they are an apostate. Also I doubt category would be made called, Ealy Jewish Goldencalfists, if the worship of Golden calf, still existed. The category, Early Jewish Christians, only exists, to say to try to say hey look the Early Christians were of Jewish descent. The problem is I doubt the Christian community would apply the same logic to making Ealy Jewish Goldencalfists. -- Java7837 ( talk) 18:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply


  • comment Fayenatic your suggestion, that to rename it Christians of Jewish descent, has the problems, Too ill-defined:How much Jewish ancestry, if you consider Judaism a race, 1/2, 1/4 or any, it has no official standard of inclusion. Like I have said earlier you fail to listen to not all Jewish ethnic groups descend from the Israelites. Genetics studies show that the Ethiopian Jews, who number about 200,000 , are on a genetic standpoint almost indifferentiable from the Ethiopian population, showing this group may descend mostly from Ethiopian converts. yet despite this they are Jewish, a convert to Judaism, is as Jewish as Moses. As such according to the same logic a category called, Jews of Christian descent, could be created. You cannot convert into an ethnic group! Because Judaism is a religion only! No maybe one can became a citizen of Belgium by naturalization, but they are still ethnically not Belgian.

"What people generally mean when they say that a person is of Jewish descent, they generally mean the person descends from either the Sephardi, or more commonly the Ashkenazi community, they communities are mostly of Israelite descent, but it should be noted that the only thing the Ashkenazi and Sephardi have in common, is religion, they have different histories for the last 2000 years or so, traditionally spoke different languages, ate different foods, had different forms of dress, and have different customs, they also have lived in different parts of the world, until relatively recently. Judaism is not an ethnicity, nor is Jewish, Ashkenazi is though. Abayudaya, B'nai Moshe, and other Jewish ethnic groups, are not of Israelite descent, these are communities that embraced Judaism, yet if one of the Abayudaya intermarried and his/her kids were brought up as Christian, people would be less likely to say that one of the kids of the Abayudaya is a Jewish Christian. The word proselyte, from which the word proselytize comes from, in Greek means a convert to Judaism, they had a word for this because it was not uncommon for Greeks to convert to Judaism. The only reason why people generally think Jews are a race or ethnicity, is because it has been illegal for last 2000 years or so to convert to Judaism, in Christian and Muslim countries, and still in force in Muslim countries. In fact if a person is of European descent they can bascially call themselves a Jewish Christian, because when the Roman Empire conquered Israel during the Bar Kokhba's rebellion, millions of Jews were enslaved and were forced to convert to the religion of their masters, just like the African Americans, later the Romans were forced to convert to Christianity. So why do they not Categorize European Christians, and people who descend from them, as Jewish Christians, because the category, only exists to say hey look some Jews have converted to Christianity. The category, is simply useless, and has no definition on how much ancestry from the alleged Jewish race is necessary for inclusion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic faith is overwhelmingly following by the Romance peoples, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, and the peoples who descend from them, like the Hispanics, but no ever ever says they are a Roman Catholic Buddhist. Because people can convert to Catholicism and people do, and same applies to Judaism, and this why Judaism and Catholicism are not races, nor ethnicities."

Furthermore there are few ethnicity/religion intersections in categories in the first place


Fayenatic, do you support creating a Jewish Muslims category then, since you think Jewish is an ethnicity, or do you only support this category, because you believe Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism? Like I have said earlier Ashkenazi, is a ethnicity, Sephardi, is an ethnicity, and so is Abayudaya, an ethnicity (they are not of Israelite descent). People do not need to be of Israelite descent to be Jewish


-- Java7837 16:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You say Jewish is a religion only, but other Jewish editors say it is a religion and also an ethnicity.
Do you understand "parent category"? If there were more relevant sub-categories than Category:Converts from Judaism to Islam, then I might well support a parent category for Muslims of Jewish descent. However, there is currently only one such category, so there is no need for a new parent. In contrast, there are four categories, the contents of which are justifiable, currently grouped in this one. It makes sense to me to continue to hold them together with a head category that is appropriately named for Christian believers who have a Jewish heritage.
I have explicitly stated that there should be no articles in this category; it should be tagged as a parent category and only exist as a navigation aid between the sub-cats. So, not 1/2, not 1/4, not even 4/4 Jewish grandparents would justify an article being in this category. I'm willing to volunteer to patrol and depopulate it if any articles get added later on.
As for the new sub-cat, Category:Early Hebrew Christians might be better. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles of the Operations Against Major Confederate Cities 1862 of the American Civil War

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Battles of the Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach of the American Civil War and Category:Conflicts in 1862. Kbdank71 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles of the Operations Against Major Confederate Cities 1862 of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why to the first? That's a completely different theater, no?
  • Comment - I would be extremely wary of starting down the road of placing American Civil War battles directly into those conflicts by year cats -- for the simple reason that there are many scores of such articles, and they would completely swamp those categories. As things currently stand, the ACW battle articles are not categorized by year, so it's not as though we'd be losing any existing info by not doing this. My recommendation is for a full set of categories for ACW battles by year, which I suspect the WikiProject would happily take on. Cgingold ( talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Probably upmerge per nom & others. Is there any justication for all the Caps in the name - I think not. Johnbod ( talk) 04:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Scenic Areas (Scotland)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:National Scenic Areas (Scotland) to Category:National Scenic Areas in Scotland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need to have brackets in category name, "Foo in Country" is standard naming. Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories:1972 through 1989 top-tier pro tennis circuits

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: multiple Unless I have this wrong: Merge first three (1989 ATP Tour, etc) into (1989 Nabisco Grand Prix, etc), do not rename to add "tennis tour". Next, delete the ones nominated for deletion. Finally, rename the remaining ones (1xxx ATP Tour and 1xxx ATP Buenos Aires) to (1xxx Volvo/Buenos Aires Grand Prix), do not add (tennis) or (tennis tour). See [1] for list. Kbdank71 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming/merging the following

(1984, 1983 no Buenos Aires tour tourney held)

Propose deleting these below (there was not a single top-tier pro tour in these years)
Nominator's rationale: the ATP Tour only began in 1990 - prior to that year there was the World Championship Tennis, the Grand Prix tennis tour and a couple others, briefly, in the early 1970s. I can find reference that Nabisco was the Grand Prix circuit's 'name sponsor' from 1985 through 1989 and Volvo from 1980 through 1984. Pepsi-Cola apparently was in 1970 but for the rest of the 1970s, I don t know. Until 1978 and again from 1982 to 1984 the WCT and Grand Prix were separate circuits so a delete is nominated for these years as the contents need to be separated. Mayumashu ( talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Modify/Merge/Delete: Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix renames seem too wordy to be used as proper category titles. Propose that current Nabisco Grand Prix categories be kept, proposed Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix categories be modified to fit (i.e. just Nabisco/Volvo Grand Prix), ATP Tour categories proposed for merging merged while the ATP Tour categories proposed for deletion be deleted. Totalinarian ( talk) 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
So keep Category:1989 Nabisco Grand Prix and rename to Category:1984 Volvo Grand Prix etc. and not rename to Category:1989 Nabisco Grand Prix tennis tour or Category:1984 Volvo Grand Prix tennis tour etc. I suppose, although I like the clarity that adding 'tennis tour' or 'tennis circuit' would add Mayumashu ( talk) 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While adding 'tennis tour' or 'tennis circuit' certainly adds clarity to the categories, unless Nabisco or Volvo or Pepsi-Cola sponsored something like a motor racing event for a number of years, it is just easier to categorise with as specific a name as possible, as summed up here. Totalinarian ( talk) 12:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rude behavior

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Rude behavior ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria and POV title. Gilliam ( talk) 12:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This a simply too subjective a concept to serve as a category. And of course, it might also be thought to refer to what people do when they're naked. :) Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • KeepRename (see comment below), as per Wikipedia's guidelines with referencing, this category is only supposed to contain articles in which it can be referenced within the article that the behavior is rude. Some of the articles do meet that requirement; others don't. Shaliya waya ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - "rude" to one is good manners to another. Far too culturally subjective for categorization purposes. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Whether a behavior is rude depends on context: time, location, environment. Crossing one's legs in a way that reveals the sole of one's shoe to another person is extremely rude in some cultures and utterly harmless in others. Using profanity at a place of worship is likely to be seen as rude, whereas it is acceptable in the company of like-minded friends. Compounding the problem is that, even within a single culture, rudeness is ultimately in the eye of the beholder: there's nothing to stop some people from perceiving open-mouth chewing as being rude and others from perceiving mass murder as being rude. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but Rename to something. Pretty well all these topics fall short of ideal behaviour by just about any standards, and I see a cat gathering them as useful. Maybe Category:Offensive behavior, or something. Johnbod ( talk) 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • As with 'rude', whether a particular behavior is offensive is ultimately subjective across and within cultures and contexts. I could suggest Category:Antisocial behaviour, which (at least in my mind) is more official-sounding, but it also is essentially subjective and, therefore, overly inclusive (unless there is a clear, narrow medical definition of antisocial behavior of which I'm unaware). Anything from poor hygiene habits to mass murder, and from noisy eating to embezzlement, could qualify as "behavior opposed or detrimental to social order or that violates social norms"; see Antisocial. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Or that. Personally I don't see the need to wait for the AMA or some such source to officially declare Hate speech, or Mooning, rude, offensive or anti-social. Johnbod ( talk) 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I think those examples illustrate the problem with the category. I consider hate speech to be one of the most (if not the most) offensive behaviors; however, hate speech against a particular group would not be considered offensive in the context of a discussion (or a bash-fest) between like-minded individuals. Just as an example: insults directed against homosexuals would be considered extremely offensive in the Netherlands, but less so in Saudi Arabia. Same for mooning: mooning a judge is offensive in virtually all contexts, but mooning a drunk friend at a frat party is less so. :-) – Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename It is true. Something that is rude by one's standards may be polite by another. But obviously, articles in this category were written neutrally to describe that at least some people (meaning a significant portion of the world's population) view these behaviors as "rude" or "antisocial," even to the point that the society's that do will impose some sort of sanction against such a person. A new name more neutrally reflecting this would be appropriate. Shaliya waya ( talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people

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. Kbdank71 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people to Category:Pennsylvania German people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Pennsylvania German" is the more academically correct name used to refer to those people who immigrated to Pennsylvania prior to the year 1808 and their culture. Alphageekpa ( talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peace studies

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. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Peace studies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland

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 to foo of/people killed during/etc "The Troubles (Northern Ireland)". Kbdank71 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland to Category:The Troubles
Nominator's rationale:
  1. Common name: Naming conventions guide us to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In common English usage, "The Troubles" (with the "The" being capitalized) refers to the Northern Ireland conflict; moreover, there does not seem to be any "conflict with the names of other people or things", see Troubles (disambiguation).
  2. Consistency with the article: The naming convention identified above is followed at the main article ( The Troubles) and the category should match it.
  3. Shorter title: 'Category:The Troubles' is just 21 characters long, compared to 41 characters for 'Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland'. All things being equal, shorter titles are almost always better than longer titles.
  4. More accurate title: The title "The Troubles in Northern Ireland" suggests that its scope excludes anything related to The Troubles that took place outside of Northern Ireland. This is plainly not the case, as the inclusion of articles such as Harrods bombing, Anglo-Irish Agreement and James Kelly (Irish Army officer) demonstrates. In fact, the very first sentence of The Troubles reads: "The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) was a period of ethno-political conflict in Northern Ireland which spilled over at various times into England, the Republic of Ireland and mainland Europe." (emphasis added)
    This naming convention also leads to ambiguous category names such as Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland media; it is not clear from the title whether this refers to media related to The Troubles or portrayal of The Troubles in the media of Northern Ireland.
Notified category creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a reference to Northern Ireland in the title. 'The Troubles (Northern Ireland)' might be preferable. Category names ought to be self-explanatory and I don't think 'Category:The Troubles' is - sounds like a punk band from NY. Occuli ( talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Hah - I would have said British, myself. But an inspired idea, all the same -- and you were only off by about 360 miles: It turns out there's a real punk band called "The Troubles (RIP)", and where do they hail from? You guessed it: Belfast.
Now where were we? Oh, yes. No opinion on the band -- but I've got to agree with my esteemed colleague that the Category name should retain a reference to Northern Ireland. While I do sympathize with my other esteemed colleague, it's important to consider that even at their height in the 1970s-80s, an awful lot of English-speaking people (i.e. outside the UK & Ireland) would not have recognized the term. So on balance, I come down in favor of retaining some sort of reference to Northern Ireland -- probably parenthetically. Cgingold ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'd support a parenthetical disambiguator over the current phrasing; although I'd like to avoid using "Northern Ireland" (per #4 above), the only alternative that comes to mind is to use years, but that would be problematic since the claimed start-year of The Troubles varies by source (no later than 1969, but various works indicate a start-year as early as 1966). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My feeling is that the parenthetical disambiguator is an improvement over the current formulation precisely because it leaves out the word "in", and can therefore be construed more broadly. Cgingold ( talk) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The rename suggestion is not nearly clear enough for a category name. Personally I think (& have said there) the article should be renamed, since "troubles" is actually a generic term, and episodes known as "The Troubles" in Britain & Ireland stretch back to the middle ages. To my grandmother and her generation "The Troubles" meant the Irish Civil war & the period leading up to it. Johnbod ( talk) 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • An interesting point -- I have seen/heard the Irish Civil War referred to as "The Troubles" on occasion. But are these other uses of sufficient concern to require additional disambiguation? Cgingold ( talk) 15:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American Civil War categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to parent categories. Kbdank71 15:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: These CFDs are a follow-on to the Feb. 8 CFD for Category:Battles of the Expedition to Port Royal Sound of the American Civil War. Cgingold ( talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations of the Gulf Blockading Squadron of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations of the Gulf Blockading Squadron of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Expedition to St. John's Bluff of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Expedition to St. John's Bluff of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations near Saint Mark's of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations near Saint Mark's of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations in LaFourche District of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations in LaFourche District of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow McMuff ( talk) 06:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations Against Fort Pulaski of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations Against Fort Pulaski of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow McMuff ( talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Expedition to Hillsboro River of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Expedition to Hillsboro River of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Categort too narrow McMuff ( talk) 06:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Carolina Coast Blockade of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Carolina Coast Blockade of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Naval Attacks on Fort McAllister of the American Civil War
Category:Naval Attacks on Fort McAllister of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Potomac River Blockade of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Potomac River Blockade of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations against Tampa of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations against Tampa of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Florida Expedition of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Florida Expedition of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Mexico Chiles (USISL) players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold ( talk) 19:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:New Mexico Chiles (USISL) players to Category:New Mexico Roadrunners
Nominator's rationale: was team's actual nickname when franchise was in USISL. (See New Mexico Chiles) Mayumashu ( talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
You re right - got confused. Move to withdraw nomination Mayumashu ( talk) 17:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_13&oldid=1141928338"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

Category:Musical instrument destruction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify (already done). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Musical instrument destruction ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Novelty category with no informative purpose, clutters up category listings for bands. Entire concept of category could be covered in a single article List of musicians known for destroying instruments or similar. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Matsuri Hino manga

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. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Matsuri Hino manga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Completely unnecessary category for a manga author who has only written four titles. Not prolific enough to need a category, and all four are already properly wikified from her article. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Failed pilots

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:Television pilots not picked up as a series. Kbdank71 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Failed pilots to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per strong consensus against categorizing "failures" as POV. Not sure what the best name is. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • However series is used as a singular here. I just think that since the form with the 'a' works in the various versions of English, it might be preferred. Working but not reading right is a problem. I will agree that both suggestions are better then what we have now. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Sorry. Failure seems an adequate term. If you want to soften it, use 'Unsuccessful'. All of this word wrangling is not only odd, but leading to needleess ambiguity. Yeago ( talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish Christians

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 (default to delete) - As this is a recreation of a category which has been deleted twice per two separate CfDs, and there is, per this discussion, no current consensus concerning whether it should be a category, defaulting to WP:CSD#G4 - recreation, and therefore, delete.

(Note to those interested, I took the deletion review of this CfD into consideration of this closure. Even without the 2 puppets, the consensus still appears to be delete.) - jc37 11:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Jewish Christians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1)Too ill-defined:How much Jewish ancestry, if you consider Judaism a race, 1/2, 1/4 or any, it has no official standard of inclusion Also, the category:Jewish communists which existed previously was deleted. Finally it was deleted previously Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22#Category:Jewish Christians. -- Java7837 ( talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but purge. The contents seem mostly to be Christian converts from Judaism. A few may be Christians of Jewish descent, rather than converts. The contemporary term is Messianic Jews, but to apply that to converts of the 16th to 19th centuries would be an anachronism. On the other hand, the inclusion of the 12 apostles (also a subcategory) and others from the early Christian church, while technically correct, seems odd; they should perhaps be moved to a subcategory, perhaps Category:1st-century Jewish Christians. An alternative for the core group of converts etc. might be Category:Christians of Jewish descent. We have similar categories for expatriates. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
comment: Messianic Jew doesn't mean a Jew who became Christian, the majority in that movement weren't just to start with-- Java7837 ( talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Indeed, Messianic Judaism is a specific religious movement. "Jewish Christians" on the other hand are people of Jewish ancestry, who, to some degree, hold a Christian religious belief. Hardly controversial - Ste vertigo 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree with these comments. My statement on Messianic Jews was imprecise. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • What people generally mean when they say that a person is of Jewish descent, they generally mean the person descends from either the Sephardi, or more commonly the Ashkenazi community, they communities are mostly of Israelite descent, but it should be noted that the only thing the Ashkenazi and Sephardi have in common, is religion, they have different histories for the last 2000 years or so, traditionally spoke different languages, ate different foods, had different forms of dress, and have different customs, they also have lived in different parts of the world, until relatively recently. Judaism is not an ethnicity, nor is Jewish, Ashkenazi is though. Abayudaya, B'nai Moshe, and other Jewish ethnic groups, are not of Israelite descent, these are communities that embraced Judaism, yet if one of the Abayudaya intermarried and his/her kids were brought up as Christian, people would be less likely to say that one of the kids of the Abayudaya is a Jewish Christian. The word proselyte, from which the word proselytize comes from, in Greek means a convert to Judaism, they had a word for this because it was not uncommon for Greeks to convert to Judaism. The only reason why people generally think Jews are a race or ethnicity, is because it has been illegal for last 2000 years or so to convert to Judaism, in Christian and Muslim countries, and still in force in Muslim countries. In fact if a person is of European descent they can bascially call themselves a Jewish Christian, because when the Roman Empire conquered Israel during the Bar Kokhba's rebellion, millions of Jews were enslaved and were forced to convert to the religion of their masters, just like the African Americans, later the Romans were forced to convert to Christianity. So why do they not Categorize European Christians, and people who descend from them, as Jewish Christians, because the category, only exists to say hey look some Jews have converted to Christianity. The category, is simply useless, and has no definition on how much ancestry from the alleged Jewish race is necessary for inclusion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic faith is overwhelmingly following by the Romance peoples, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, and the peoples who descend from them, like the Hispanics, but no ever ever says they are a Roman Catholic Buddhist. Because people can convert to Catholicism and people do, and this why Judaism and Catholicism are not races, nor ethnicities. -- Java7837 ( talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree. I would suggest that Category:Early Jewish Christians would be an appropriate subcategory both of Category:Early Christians and of that under discussion here. Naturally those included would be purged from both parents. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Note - the nomination appears to be pushing a POV. The nominator, who originally registered as User:Jesusmyth, and his recently blocked sockpuppet User:Alpha166, have been active editors of List of converts to Judaism#List of converts to Judaism from Christianity, List of former Christians#Judaism and Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus. Conversions of notable people between religions are generally valid encyclopedic knowledge, in whichever direction they occur. Categories providing navigation links to them are therefore useful. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you for this. The nominator, User:Java7837 might like to respond to the charges. If true, it would be enough for an Arbcom review, and a slight reprimand, perhaps banning him from editing particular articles. That said, there may have been issues with the category: deletion certainly is not the answer, but a little tidying up won't hurt. - Ste vertigo 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Fayenatic, do you support creating a Jewish Muslims category then, since you think Jewish is an ethnicity, or do you only support this category, because you believe Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism? Like I have said earlier Ashkenazi, is a ethnicity, Sephardi, is an ethnicity, and so is Abayudaya, an ethnicity (they are not of Israelite descent). People do not need to be of Israelite descent to be Jewish, people cannot convert to Belgian for example. The fundamental problem is the general American populace is ignorant of Judaism. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked, Do Jews believe in G-d? I find it simply ridiculous that non-Jews are telling Jews what Jewish is.-- Java7837 ( talk) 14:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
People do become Belgian (whether you use the word "convert" rather than "naturalize" is just semantics); that's why all these race/religion intersection categories are useless...I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with Christians of Jewish descent which has the subtlety that those who believe that Christianity descends from Judaism - even if a convert to Christianity had no Jewish ancestors - all Christians can be placed in that cat. This is a meaningless as all race/ethnic/religion/"descent" categories. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Ah, someone else who is not clear on the difference between race and ethnicity. Someone else after me, that is. - Fayenatic (talk)
Reply: I hadn't realised it was contentious that "Jewish is an ethnicity"; I was quoting User:David Shankbone above, but I've also read it from User:IZAK at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 15#Category:Jews by religion, which I've only just come across. I hope it's not ridiculous for me to believe (or repeat) what an articulate, educated and apparently Jewish editor writes.
I've only argued that the category should be kept as a depopulated navigation aid to its existing sub-categories and a new Category:Early Jewish Christians or similar. On further exploration, the CFD discussion linked above resulted in Category:People of Jewish descent by religion which is probably sufficient.
I also hadn't realised that there were so few ethnicity/religion intersections in categories, although there are more articles about such intersections.
I'm therefore prepared to see this category deleted, but can we achieve consensus on setting up Category:Early Jewish Christians? I suggest that that is the best name since the Twelve Apostles and other earliest Christians probably would not self-identify as Category:Converts from Judaism to Christianity. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi. I am not sure of what User:Fayenetic is driving at, but for the record, the following is what I stated there and it's consistent with my position here: (Delete because this "category" will only add confusion and misrepresentation, it may also violate WP:NONSENSE. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" means BOTH a member of the Jewish RELIGION ( Judaism) and being part of an ethnicity, therefore it is both ludicrous and dangerous to classify Jews as part of other religions. As far as Judaism is concerned, the moment a Jew joins another religion they become Apostates making this subject even more complicated. This topic is a violation of both WP:NEO (Jews cannot be artificially redefined by Wikipedia discussions as part of other religions. There are the Jew and Judaism articles, and more, that discuss those topics) and Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK ( talk) 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete this violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP, because truth be told it is objectively, truthfuly and theologically impossible for there to be such a hybrid animal as a "Jewish Christian" or a "Christian Jew" for that matter because Judaism and Christianity are conflicting religions. Yes, there are Messianic Jews or Hebrew Christians, but they are CHRISTIANS first and foremost holding to some smattering of Jewish rituals maybe, but once one is baptized into Christianity one stops being a Jew in the religious sense and it's only ethnicity a much broader notion not tied to religion, but that cannot help one bridge Judaism with Christianity either. Christianity teaches that Judaism is over and kaput and Jews are sinners for not accepting Jesus, while Judaism teaches that Jesus was a traitor to his people and deserved what he got and that Christianity is a false religion. Judaism regards Islam as true Monotheism better than Christianity. This is not a mystery and it's well known to serious scholars and theologians. It is only in pop-culture that these kinds of things can get mixed up. On the religious level one either follows/believes Judaism and is therefore Jewish or one follows Christianity and is therefore a Christian. In addition, this category is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK ( talk) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: None of this is an argument against renaming as Category:Christians of Jewish descent per Cgingold. This has the advantage over Category:People of Jewish descent by religion that it would be an acceptable sub-cat of Category:Christians. Also, nobody has expressed any objection to adding a new Category:Early Jewish Christians and unless that happens I will take this CFD as approval in advance for that category. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • comment one term causes confusion and two in Judaism once anybody accepts anything as being the embodiment of G-d, they are an apostate. Also I doubt category would be made called, Ealy Jewish Goldencalfists, if the worship of Golden calf, still existed. The category, Early Jewish Christians, only exists, to say to try to say hey look the Early Christians were of Jewish descent. The problem is I doubt the Christian community would apply the same logic to making Ealy Jewish Goldencalfists. -- Java7837 ( talk) 18:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply


  • comment Fayenatic your suggestion, that to rename it Christians of Jewish descent, has the problems, Too ill-defined:How much Jewish ancestry, if you consider Judaism a race, 1/2, 1/4 or any, it has no official standard of inclusion. Like I have said earlier you fail to listen to not all Jewish ethnic groups descend from the Israelites. Genetics studies show that the Ethiopian Jews, who number about 200,000 , are on a genetic standpoint almost indifferentiable from the Ethiopian population, showing this group may descend mostly from Ethiopian converts. yet despite this they are Jewish, a convert to Judaism, is as Jewish as Moses. As such according to the same logic a category called, Jews of Christian descent, could be created. You cannot convert into an ethnic group! Because Judaism is a religion only! No maybe one can became a citizen of Belgium by naturalization, but they are still ethnically not Belgian.

"What people generally mean when they say that a person is of Jewish descent, they generally mean the person descends from either the Sephardi, or more commonly the Ashkenazi community, they communities are mostly of Israelite descent, but it should be noted that the only thing the Ashkenazi and Sephardi have in common, is religion, they have different histories for the last 2000 years or so, traditionally spoke different languages, ate different foods, had different forms of dress, and have different customs, they also have lived in different parts of the world, until relatively recently. Judaism is not an ethnicity, nor is Jewish, Ashkenazi is though. Abayudaya, B'nai Moshe, and other Jewish ethnic groups, are not of Israelite descent, these are communities that embraced Judaism, yet if one of the Abayudaya intermarried and his/her kids were brought up as Christian, people would be less likely to say that one of the kids of the Abayudaya is a Jewish Christian. The word proselyte, from which the word proselytize comes from, in Greek means a convert to Judaism, they had a word for this because it was not uncommon for Greeks to convert to Judaism. The only reason why people generally think Jews are a race or ethnicity, is because it has been illegal for last 2000 years or so to convert to Judaism, in Christian and Muslim countries, and still in force in Muslim countries. In fact if a person is of European descent they can bascially call themselves a Jewish Christian, because when the Roman Empire conquered Israel during the Bar Kokhba's rebellion, millions of Jews were enslaved and were forced to convert to the religion of their masters, just like the African Americans, later the Romans were forced to convert to Christianity. So why do they not Categorize European Christians, and people who descend from them, as Jewish Christians, because the category, only exists to say hey look some Jews have converted to Christianity. The category, is simply useless, and has no definition on how much ancestry from the alleged Jewish race is necessary for inclusion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic faith is overwhelmingly following by the Romance peoples, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, and the peoples who descend from them, like the Hispanics, but no ever ever says they are a Roman Catholic Buddhist. Because people can convert to Catholicism and people do, and same applies to Judaism, and this why Judaism and Catholicism are not races, nor ethnicities."

Furthermore there are few ethnicity/religion intersections in categories in the first place


Fayenatic, do you support creating a Jewish Muslims category then, since you think Jewish is an ethnicity, or do you only support this category, because you believe Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism? Like I have said earlier Ashkenazi, is a ethnicity, Sephardi, is an ethnicity, and so is Abayudaya, an ethnicity (they are not of Israelite descent). People do not need to be of Israelite descent to be Jewish


-- Java7837 16:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You say Jewish is a religion only, but other Jewish editors say it is a religion and also an ethnicity.
Do you understand "parent category"? If there were more relevant sub-categories than Category:Converts from Judaism to Islam, then I might well support a parent category for Muslims of Jewish descent. However, there is currently only one such category, so there is no need for a new parent. In contrast, there are four categories, the contents of which are justifiable, currently grouped in this one. It makes sense to me to continue to hold them together with a head category that is appropriately named for Christian believers who have a Jewish heritage.
I have explicitly stated that there should be no articles in this category; it should be tagged as a parent category and only exist as a navigation aid between the sub-cats. So, not 1/2, not 1/4, not even 4/4 Jewish grandparents would justify an article being in this category. I'm willing to volunteer to patrol and depopulate it if any articles get added later on.
As for the new sub-cat, Category:Early Hebrew Christians might be better. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles of the Operations Against Major Confederate Cities 1862 of the American Civil War

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Battles of the Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach of the American Civil War and Category:Conflicts in 1862. Kbdank71 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles of the Operations Against Major Confederate Cities 1862 of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why to the first? That's a completely different theater, no?
  • Comment - I would be extremely wary of starting down the road of placing American Civil War battles directly into those conflicts by year cats -- for the simple reason that there are many scores of such articles, and they would completely swamp those categories. As things currently stand, the ACW battle articles are not categorized by year, so it's not as though we'd be losing any existing info by not doing this. My recommendation is for a full set of categories for ACW battles by year, which I suspect the WikiProject would happily take on. Cgingold ( talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Probably upmerge per nom & others. Is there any justication for all the Caps in the name - I think not. Johnbod ( talk) 04:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Scenic Areas (Scotland)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:National Scenic Areas (Scotland) to Category:National Scenic Areas in Scotland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need to have brackets in category name, "Foo in Country" is standard naming. Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories:1972 through 1989 top-tier pro tennis circuits

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: multiple Unless I have this wrong: Merge first three (1989 ATP Tour, etc) into (1989 Nabisco Grand Prix, etc), do not rename to add "tennis tour". Next, delete the ones nominated for deletion. Finally, rename the remaining ones (1xxx ATP Tour and 1xxx ATP Buenos Aires) to (1xxx Volvo/Buenos Aires Grand Prix), do not add (tennis) or (tennis tour). See [1] for list. Kbdank71 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming/merging the following

(1984, 1983 no Buenos Aires tour tourney held)

Propose deleting these below (there was not a single top-tier pro tour in these years)
Nominator's rationale: the ATP Tour only began in 1990 - prior to that year there was the World Championship Tennis, the Grand Prix tennis tour and a couple others, briefly, in the early 1970s. I can find reference that Nabisco was the Grand Prix circuit's 'name sponsor' from 1985 through 1989 and Volvo from 1980 through 1984. Pepsi-Cola apparently was in 1970 but for the rest of the 1970s, I don t know. Until 1978 and again from 1982 to 1984 the WCT and Grand Prix were separate circuits so a delete is nominated for these years as the contents need to be separated. Mayumashu ( talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Modify/Merge/Delete: Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix renames seem too wordy to be used as proper category titles. Propose that current Nabisco Grand Prix categories be kept, proposed Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix categories be modified to fit (i.e. just Nabisco/Volvo Grand Prix), ATP Tour categories proposed for merging merged while the ATP Tour categories proposed for deletion be deleted. Totalinarian ( talk) 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
So keep Category:1989 Nabisco Grand Prix and rename to Category:1984 Volvo Grand Prix etc. and not rename to Category:1989 Nabisco Grand Prix tennis tour or Category:1984 Volvo Grand Prix tennis tour etc. I suppose, although I like the clarity that adding 'tennis tour' or 'tennis circuit' would add Mayumashu ( talk) 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While adding 'tennis tour' or 'tennis circuit' certainly adds clarity to the categories, unless Nabisco or Volvo or Pepsi-Cola sponsored something like a motor racing event for a number of years, it is just easier to categorise with as specific a name as possible, as summed up here. Totalinarian ( talk) 12:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rude behavior

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Rude behavior ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria and POV title. Gilliam ( talk) 12:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This a simply too subjective a concept to serve as a category. And of course, it might also be thought to refer to what people do when they're naked. :) Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • KeepRename (see comment below), as per Wikipedia's guidelines with referencing, this category is only supposed to contain articles in which it can be referenced within the article that the behavior is rude. Some of the articles do meet that requirement; others don't. Shaliya waya ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - "rude" to one is good manners to another. Far too culturally subjective for categorization purposes. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Whether a behavior is rude depends on context: time, location, environment. Crossing one's legs in a way that reveals the sole of one's shoe to another person is extremely rude in some cultures and utterly harmless in others. Using profanity at a place of worship is likely to be seen as rude, whereas it is acceptable in the company of like-minded friends. Compounding the problem is that, even within a single culture, rudeness is ultimately in the eye of the beholder: there's nothing to stop some people from perceiving open-mouth chewing as being rude and others from perceiving mass murder as being rude. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but Rename to something. Pretty well all these topics fall short of ideal behaviour by just about any standards, and I see a cat gathering them as useful. Maybe Category:Offensive behavior, or something. Johnbod ( talk) 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • As with 'rude', whether a particular behavior is offensive is ultimately subjective across and within cultures and contexts. I could suggest Category:Antisocial behaviour, which (at least in my mind) is more official-sounding, but it also is essentially subjective and, therefore, overly inclusive (unless there is a clear, narrow medical definition of antisocial behavior of which I'm unaware). Anything from poor hygiene habits to mass murder, and from noisy eating to embezzlement, could qualify as "behavior opposed or detrimental to social order or that violates social norms"; see Antisocial. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Or that. Personally I don't see the need to wait for the AMA or some such source to officially declare Hate speech, or Mooning, rude, offensive or anti-social. Johnbod ( talk) 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I think those examples illustrate the problem with the category. I consider hate speech to be one of the most (if not the most) offensive behaviors; however, hate speech against a particular group would not be considered offensive in the context of a discussion (or a bash-fest) between like-minded individuals. Just as an example: insults directed against homosexuals would be considered extremely offensive in the Netherlands, but less so in Saudi Arabia. Same for mooning: mooning a judge is offensive in virtually all contexts, but mooning a drunk friend at a frat party is less so. :-) – Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename It is true. Something that is rude by one's standards may be polite by another. But obviously, articles in this category were written neutrally to describe that at least some people (meaning a significant portion of the world's population) view these behaviors as "rude" or "antisocial," even to the point that the society's that do will impose some sort of sanction against such a person. A new name more neutrally reflecting this would be appropriate. Shaliya waya ( talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people

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. Kbdank71 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people to Category:Pennsylvania German people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Pennsylvania German" is the more academically correct name used to refer to those people who immigrated to Pennsylvania prior to the year 1808 and their culture. Alphageekpa ( talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peace studies

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. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Peace studies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland

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 to foo of/people killed during/etc "The Troubles (Northern Ireland)". Kbdank71 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland to Category:The Troubles
Nominator's rationale:
  1. Common name: Naming conventions guide us to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In common English usage, "The Troubles" (with the "The" being capitalized) refers to the Northern Ireland conflict; moreover, there does not seem to be any "conflict with the names of other people or things", see Troubles (disambiguation).
  2. Consistency with the article: The naming convention identified above is followed at the main article ( The Troubles) and the category should match it.
  3. Shorter title: 'Category:The Troubles' is just 21 characters long, compared to 41 characters for 'Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland'. All things being equal, shorter titles are almost always better than longer titles.
  4. More accurate title: The title "The Troubles in Northern Ireland" suggests that its scope excludes anything related to The Troubles that took place outside of Northern Ireland. This is plainly not the case, as the inclusion of articles such as Harrods bombing, Anglo-Irish Agreement and James Kelly (Irish Army officer) demonstrates. In fact, the very first sentence of The Troubles reads: "The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) was a period of ethno-political conflict in Northern Ireland which spilled over at various times into England, the Republic of Ireland and mainland Europe." (emphasis added)
    This naming convention also leads to ambiguous category names such as Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland media; it is not clear from the title whether this refers to media related to The Troubles or portrayal of The Troubles in the media of Northern Ireland.
Notified category creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a reference to Northern Ireland in the title. 'The Troubles (Northern Ireland)' might be preferable. Category names ought to be self-explanatory and I don't think 'Category:The Troubles' is - sounds like a punk band from NY. Occuli ( talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Hah - I would have said British, myself. But an inspired idea, all the same -- and you were only off by about 360 miles: It turns out there's a real punk band called "The Troubles (RIP)", and where do they hail from? You guessed it: Belfast.
Now where were we? Oh, yes. No opinion on the band -- but I've got to agree with my esteemed colleague that the Category name should retain a reference to Northern Ireland. While I do sympathize with my other esteemed colleague, it's important to consider that even at their height in the 1970s-80s, an awful lot of English-speaking people (i.e. outside the UK & Ireland) would not have recognized the term. So on balance, I come down in favor of retaining some sort of reference to Northern Ireland -- probably parenthetically. Cgingold ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'd support a parenthetical disambiguator over the current phrasing; although I'd like to avoid using "Northern Ireland" (per #4 above), the only alternative that comes to mind is to use years, but that would be problematic since the claimed start-year of The Troubles varies by source (no later than 1969, but various works indicate a start-year as early as 1966). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My feeling is that the parenthetical disambiguator is an improvement over the current formulation precisely because it leaves out the word "in", and can therefore be construed more broadly. Cgingold ( talk) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The rename suggestion is not nearly clear enough for a category name. Personally I think (& have said there) the article should be renamed, since "troubles" is actually a generic term, and episodes known as "The Troubles" in Britain & Ireland stretch back to the middle ages. To my grandmother and her generation "The Troubles" meant the Irish Civil war & the period leading up to it. Johnbod ( talk) 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • An interesting point -- I have seen/heard the Irish Civil War referred to as "The Troubles" on occasion. But are these other uses of sufficient concern to require additional disambiguation? Cgingold ( talk) 15:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American Civil War categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to parent categories. Kbdank71 15:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: These CFDs are a follow-on to the Feb. 8 CFD for Category:Battles of the Expedition to Port Royal Sound of the American Civil War. Cgingold ( talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations of the Gulf Blockading Squadron of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations of the Gulf Blockading Squadron of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Expedition to St. John's Bluff of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Expedition to St. John's Bluff of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations near Saint Mark's of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations near Saint Mark's of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations in LaFourche District of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations in LaFourche District of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow McMuff ( talk) 06:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations Against Fort Pulaski of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations Against Fort Pulaski of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow McMuff ( talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Expedition to Hillsboro River of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Expedition to Hillsboro River of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Categort too narrow McMuff ( talk) 06:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Carolina Coast Blockade of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Carolina Coast Blockade of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Naval Attacks on Fort McAllister of the American Civil War
Category:Naval Attacks on Fort McAllister of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Potomac River Blockade of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Potomac River Blockade of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations against Tampa of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations against Tampa of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Florida Expedition of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Florida Expedition of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Battles of the Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II of the American Civil War
Category:Battles of the Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff ( talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Mexico Chiles (USISL) players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold ( talk) 19:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:New Mexico Chiles (USISL) players to Category:New Mexico Roadrunners
Nominator's rationale: was team's actual nickname when franchise was in USISL. (See New Mexico Chiles) Mayumashu ( talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
You re right - got confused. Move to withdraw nomination Mayumashu ( talk) 17:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_13&oldid=1141928338"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE