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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that "Guamanian" is unique here, but Category:Culture of Guam also has some other Foo of Guam subcategories. Which is preferable, "Guam musical instruments," or "Musical instruments of Guam"? The latter seems a bit less awkward, a bit more clear. postdlf (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Guamanian" may be appropriate here if the term is used to refer to the native inhabitants of Guam. I'm not sure if that's the way "Guamanian" vs. "Guam" are used adjectivally here. Category:Chamorro musical instruments would probably be most appropriate if that is what is intended, since the article is Chamorro people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. In the interests of getting something done here, I would agree to a rename with the proviso that perhaps the category should be nominated for renaming to Category:Chamorro musical instruments. But that discussion can be had later, and in the meantime this category can conform to the others in Category:Guam society. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. Courcelles 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Matching all other portal categories in format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made all these categories(no ownership calims, just an info). If the change is for standardization, I have no problem. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. My impression is that this category is largely unnecessary and to the extent it is used at all, it is used incorrectly. Most pages tagged under this category, e.g. Ralph Asher Alpher, refer to people some of whose ancestors were ethic Jews who at some point in their lives lived in pre-revolutionary Russia, in the part of it that now is the country of Belarus. These people typically do not have any Belarussian ethic ancestry at all, and their Jewish ancestors would have typically, or at least very often, lived in various other parts of Russia during their lifetime. To categorize them as "Belarusian American Jews" seems quite incorrect and arbitrary to me. Nsk92 (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. Before reading the above, I had just removed Alpher from this category because he was born in Washington DC. If American-born persons are to be included, the category should be renamed "Americans of Belarusian-Jewish descent" as in the explanatory note on the category page. If a note is needed to explain what the title really means, then perhaps the note should be used as the title. Alternatively if the name "Belarusian American Jews" is maintained, then only persons born in what is now Belarus should be included. Dirac66 (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of ethnic overcategorization in general, but in this case the category, whatever it is called, seems particularly problematic to me in terms of setting any kind of clear inclusion criteria. For example, if someone was born in Minsk around 1910 and whose family immigrated to the U.S. around 1914, would it be appropriate to categorize such a person as a "Belarusian American Jew"? My feeling is that it would not be. Unlike, say, Poland and Lithuania, Belarus had not ever existed as an independent country prior to 1991. During the pre-revolutionary (Russian Empire) period, people self-identified in two main ways: in terms of their ethnic origin (e.g. Jewish) and nationality/citizenship (Russian). It seems artificial to me to apply the modern label "Belarusian" to an ethincally Jewish person who lived in pre-revolutionary Russian Empire and likely moved around quite a lot and for whom the distinction between Belarus/Russia/Ukraine/Lithuania at the time was often largely an administrative rather than national issue. I could understand applying the label "Belarusian American Jew" to someone who was born in Belarus post 1991 and immigrated to the U.S. after that. But there are very few, if any, WP articles about such people. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible rename to Category:American Jews of Belorussian descent. I understand Belorus to have existed as part of the Russian Empire and then Soviet Union. I recall an atlas calling it White Russia, which I believe to be a literal translation. Alternatively merge to Category:American Jews of Russian descent. WP has many dual nationality categories of this kind, all (excpet perhaps in some US cases) in the form Booians of Fooian descent. Being a Jew is more than merely a matter of religion; in eastern Europe it was also a matter of ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons well set out by nominator. I've often thought that these triple intersection ethnicity categories are overkill, and they are prone to users performing original research or making leaps in logic that aren't necessarily warranted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per category's standard. jonkerz♠ 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per category's standard. jonkerz♠ 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 07:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normal treatment for awards categories is to delete them and produce lists instead. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete as is the usual practice with award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 07:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normal treatment for awards categories is to delete them and produce lists instead. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete as is the usual practice with award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2010 (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:Web documentary film production companies[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was looking to see if there was some general internet or web production company category we should also merge to, but nothing like that appears to exist yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Listify and delete per precedent (1, 2, 3. 4), categorization of people by honorary citizenship is trivial per WP:OC#AWARDS and contributes to category clutter. — ξxplicit 02:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per nom. If these proliferated, certain bio articles would have many, many of these. They are almost akin to the "honorary doctorate" categories for universities. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete as is the usual practice with award categories. This is after all effectively an award category. I gather that listifying is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent per WP:NPOV: "upscale" is an entirely subjective and unverifiable term. Top Jim (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree you're quite right, but not in emptying the category. I believe that's a no-no. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is, 2nd paragraph at WP:CFD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." Still, the nominator is quite right that this is a textbook case of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, yes you're right, I missed that. Sorry: have now reverted the change on all four articles. Top Jim (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2010 (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.
