Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25[edit]

Presidents of X University[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Carnegie Mellon University Presidents to Category:Presidents of Carnegie Mellon University

Propose renaming Category:University of New Hampshire presidents to Category:Presidents of the University of New Hampshire

Propose renaming Category:University of Pittsburgh chancellors to Category:Chancellors of the University of Pittsburgh

Nominator's rationale: Keeping in line with naming conventions: Presidents of X University. See others at Category:American university and college presidents. Dylan 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll no doubt want to hit the following too ×Meegs 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm not so sure about this. While Category:American university and college presidents does lean heavily in the direction you're proposing, the subcats of Category:Faculty by university or college in the United States, Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States and Category:People by university or college in the United States all go unanimously the other way. ×Meegs 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

minor points: its University of Virginia, not University Virginia.

and it is James Madison University, not the James Madison University DGG (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

amended above. Thanks ×Meegs 10:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Good point. I don't care which way it goes, but it ought to be made uniform, both within this category and in the greater categorization scheme. Is there a precedent on this? Dylan 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. These two discussions: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_9#University_presidents and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_27#University_presidents. Personally, I found the argument around the phrase "American University presidents"/"Presidents of American University" to be compelling. I'd suggest renaming all the "(X) University (Y)s" categories to "(Y)s of (X) University". Meanwhile, rename.--Mike Selinker 10:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't care which way it goes either. ×Meegs 20:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Timrollpickering 11:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per precedent, and suggest expansion into the daughter categories. Upon looking at analogues, I found Category:British Museum directors, which should also be renamed to match Director of the British Museum. Tewfik^Talk 08:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Secondary Road[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:Secondary Road to Category:Secondary roads in the Republic of Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a sub-category of Category:Roads in Ireland and also of Category:Roads in the Republic of Ireland, but only contains a subset of entries whch are also in both of the higher categories. CS⁴⁶ 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly object: Surely the solution is to remove the categorisation of the articles in the parent categories rather than delete a perfectly good sub-category? I strongly object to this proposal. (Sarah777 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, it will need renaming to Category:Secondary roads in the Republic of Ireland ~~(or ...in Ireland, as the case may be)~~, with correct pluralisation, capitalisation, and disambiguation. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion modified per Sarah777's comment. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename per Grutness. As Sarah777, says, also remove duplication from higher categories not this sub-cat. Johnbod 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; rename would need to be "Secondary Roads in RoI", because there is no such classification in NI. I see someone has already started to delete some roads articles from the higher categories, leaving only the appropriate sub-cat. But there are probably up to 200 articles affected by this. (Sarah777 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - The main article is at National secondary road. Other categories are Category:National Primary Route (~~currently with very little in but this appears to be due to template problems more than anything else~~ I've just adjusted the template and it's immediately populated the category) and Category:Regional Road. Timrollpickering 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- National secondary road probably needs to be moved since the Philippines also appears to have national secondary roads. Bulgaria may also have some. So someone will proabably need to deal with that issue at some point. Vegaswikian 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness or to some other name. The US is full of secondary roads. So the category as named is confusing. Vegaswikian 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:2006 by day and 2007 by day[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep (due to the technical difference between these two categories), with closer's recommendation to change the names to Category:2006 current events archives by day and Category:2007 current events archives by day, which requires adjusting the programming on the current events portal.--Mike Selinker 14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge, These two categories duplicate exisiting categories. Tim! 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as "x by day" seems to be in exponentially greater use than "days in x", it may be more appropriate to reverse the merge direction. Tewfik^Talk 08:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Regardless of which is used more, I prefer the grammar of Category:Days in 2006. Category:2006 by day sounds to me like we are dividing all of the 2006s by what day they happened on, which is clearly not what we are going for :-) LeSnail 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "by day" categories are for current event archives. The "Days in" category is for articles. It would be nice if the template for the current events had a functional sort key. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional fraternities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the couple of stub articles on fictional fraternities formerly in the category have been merged and redirected to the films they're from and the category isn't needed for the list article. Otto4711 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Onnaghar^{tl ! co} 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wryspy 05:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 atheists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. I understand that Jewish Christians was already deleted, and if "Jewish" meant nothing other than a religious belief, this would be a delete too. But there are ethnic Jews (as opposed to religious Jews). So yes, there can be ethnic Jews who have no belief in God. . Kbdank71 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: The category is an OR and antisemitism magnet. Its ostensible purpose is to categorize "Jews who self-identify as atheists," but few of the people in the category satisfy this criterion.

Only in the rarest instance is the person's putative atheism actually mentioned in the article -- which means, first, that espousing atheism isn't a significant-enough aspect of what the subject is known for to justify adding them to the category. Second, because there is usually no reference to the person's atheism in the article, the claim is unsourced and unverifiable -- especially troublesome when the person is living, due to WP:BLP concerns.

The category is also commonly -- more commonly than it's used for any other purpose -- used by antisemitic vandals with the intention of defaming the subject of the article -- often paired with adding the subject to the category Jewish communists.

More abused than used, and not very useful to begin with, this category ought to be deleted. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it should be deleted. While there is such a thing as "Jewish atheist", it is a personal thing that is extremely hard to identify and categorize. There is no such movement "Jews for no god" that would unite such people. And categorizing random Jewish politicians/entertainers/etc. to this category is in no way relevant. Renata 17:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I could not disagree more with this nomination. Seriously, I challenge anybody to examine the contents of this category and explain with a straight face how it fails to qualify as a valid, nay essential, category. Where is the evidence for any of the nom's assertions? I've seen lots of CFDs where it's been said that WP:ILIKEIT isn't sufficient reason to keep a category. Well, I'm sorry, but this looks to me like a case of it's lesser-known converse/counterpart, WP:ITBOTHERSME. Cgingold 13:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that there are many (probably in the dozens) other eminent people who need to be added into this category. Cgingold 14:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must have skipped right over the rationale section, because none of it had anything whatever to do with "I don't like it" or "It bothers me." What it did have to do with was concrete ways in which the category is misused and abused, and the fact that the rate of these misuses and abuses dwarfs the rate at which the category is employed for its ostensible purpose. With your permission, I'll try again:

The category ostensibly lists "Jews who self-identify as atheists," but is only rarely used for this purpose. If the (few) current members of the category do satisfy this criterion, that would only be because yesterday I yet again removed those who don't. I left only those who meet two criteria set out in Wikipedia:Categorization of people:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief... in question;
The subject's beliefs... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Bringing the category into line with these criteria necessitated virtually emptying it. (No need to fret, though: in a day or so it will be completely repopulated with specious additions by User:Pionier's latest sockpuppet.)

You asked for evidence of the abuse. For starters, check the contribs of User:Pionier and his endless supply of socks, helpfully listed here.

As for adding people to the category, unless in the body of the article there's explicit mention of the subject's self-avowed atheism, together with a reliable citation, there's no basis for such additions, which should be reverted on sight because:

There is no proof "[t]he subject publicly self-identifies with the belief... in question"
Not being important enough to include in the body of the article demonstrates that the "subject's beliefs," in this case atheism, are not sufficiently "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life" to warrant the subject's inclusion in the category.
They fail WP:V, WP:RS and, if the person is living, violate WP:BLP.

A excerpt from Wikipedia:Categorization of people summarizes the point nicely:

"The case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced."

If additions to the category were limited strictly to people who satisfy these criteria, it would then be virtually empty, and so a good candidate for deletion on those grounds alone. But the fact is that if it is allowed to remain, almost nobody will respect the criteria, and the category will go on having to be emptied daily like a wastepaper basket. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but it might be useful to add a headnote to the category concerning its scope. Being Jewish is as much being part of an ethnic group as belonging to a religion. I have not considered the articles etc at all. Peterkingiron 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a headnote: it reads "Jews who self-identify as atheists" [italics mine]. It is customarily ignored. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure the question of Jewish identity is particularly clearcut in this area. From Who is a Jew?:
- A third controversy concerns persons (whether born Jews or converts to Judaism) who have converted to another religion. The traditional view is such persons remain Jewish. However Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism regard such people as non-Jewish, and they do not count as Jewish for the purposes of the Israeli citizenship laws.
Although it's worded as "converted to another religion", it may cover atheists as well (now is atheism a religion one can convert to - serious question). And then we get into the mess of self-identity - the article on Michael Newdow (which is fairly clear he's an atheist) says "his nominally Jewish family". Is it possible to objectively define people as both Jewish & atheist? Timrollpickering 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~(Very) weak~~ Delete: per Dugwiki below. (Previous Rationale: It all boils down to the Who is a Jew? question, and I still haven't understood if "Jew" is a religious or national characterization. In the former case it would be as absurd as Category:Christian atheists, in the latter case, it is as normal as any category in Category:Atheists by nationality. However, I am under the impression that under the most common usage (Eric Cartman dissing Kyle Broflovski comes to mind), it is a religious characterization.) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. I know way too many Jewish atheists for this to be a useful category. Plus, inclusion criteria will be difficult. Wryspy 05:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are no other by-ethnicity subcategories of Category:Atheists, and dividing the category by ethnicity doesn't seem useful or productive, given our usual overcategorization guidelines. And, of course, Atheists-by-religion really makes no sense whatsoever. Xtifr _tälk 05:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vandal magnet. Could change my vote if someone were to convince me that the category is actually of use to anyone other than the offensively antisemitic sockpuppets of user:pionier. --woggly 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really comment one way or another on vandalism and such, but I will say that I don't understand why the category is necessary in the first place. Someone who is of Jewish ethnicity and whose religion is atheism should be categorized under both Category:Jews (or even better, under Category:Jews by occupation) and Category:Atheists. There doesn't seem to be a need to intersect the ethnicity category with the religious category, any more than you'd need to create say Category:African American atheists or Category:Eurasian atheists. Just put the articles under both of the related parent categories simultaneously. Dugwiki 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT ethnicity + religion (or lack thereof) what's next Category:Basque Roman Catholics, Category:Arab Muslims, Category:Scottish Scientologists, wrong-o! Carlossuarez46 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Another needless ethnicity category. Mad Jack 18:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a strong consensus for deletion, so maybe we should also consider the rest of the sub-categories at Category:Atheists by nationality for deletion? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is not ethnicity. There is no problem with categorizing by nationality. Xtifr _tälk 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this won't lead to "Jewish is really a nationality." Bulldog123 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtifr is correct. "Jewish athiests" isn't a subcategory of Category:Atheists by nationality, since Jewish in this context refers to ethnicity and not nationality. So this cfd has no effect on that. Dugwiki 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not Jewish is a nationality, I'm all up for deleting "Atheists by nationality", or any other ethnic-national or religious-national categories... Just saying. Mad Jack 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carlossuarez46 Bulldog123 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First of all, I don't care about vandalism and anti-semitism in this project, we have a veritable army to stop that crap. If those were reasons to delete articles, I can list about 1000 articles that should be deleted. Why I think the category should stay is that there is significant debate on what makes a Jew. Is it a religion? Well, I contend that someone of Japanese ancestry could be converted to Judaism. Is it an ethnic group? Well, yes it is too. Because it is unclear, I don't mind knowing if someone is both a Jew (as an ethnic group) and an Atheist (as a religious designation). I'm quite fascinated by the categorization when I'm reading an article. I'm actually offended by some of the editors above who only what to categorize Jews as an ethnic group. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Who Is a Jew? issue, which has been raised to argue both for and against retention of this category, strikes me as an utter red herring. This is Wikipedia, not a beth din. There is no need to over-finesse or over-stress this point: everybody understands that "Jewish" means different things in a way that often doesn't apply to other faith groups or ethnicities, that it has both a filiative and affiliative component. But nobody, at least for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia article, disputes the appropriateness of referring to a non-observant Jew as Jewish. Since that's the case, there is no need for any hand-wringing over whether a person born to ethnically Jewish parents but who doesn't believe in God is a Jewish atheist. Of course he, or she, is.

My objections [1] [2] to the category don't have anything to do with its accuracy. I know plenty of Jewish atheists and agnostics. Rather, the objections have to do with my sense that the unintentional misuse and, more importantly, deliberate abuse of the category far outweigh its usefulness, and that its usefulness was not great to begin with. User:Wryspy's citation of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference seems to me particularly apposite and sums up the problem nicely. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't I have an opinion? Thanks, my opinion is not up for an argument. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: sorry -- that wasn't meant to be aggressive, and it wasn't directed at you in particular: it was more just a general response to the raising of the Who Is A Jew? issue in this context. It just strikes me as beside the point, since no one disputes that a Jew who doesn't believe in God is still, in at least one important sense, a Jew. Saying "this is Wikipedia, not a beth din" was supposed to impart humour, but instead it came off rather leaden. Of course you can have an opinion. You can have two if you want. :) --Rrburke^(talk) 19:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Orangemarlin. The history of Jews as ethnic, religious and cultural groups are intertwined in ways that few other groups are. This has led to a unique situation where people can even identify as religious and yet be atheists. The category is not at all a trivial intersection and reflects a very encyclopedic topic. JoshuaZ 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement isn't valid because, if someone refers to themselves as a "Jewish athiest", they are clearly using the word "Jewish" to refer to their familial ancestry and not their religious beliefs (ie they are an ethnic Jew, but not an observant Jew). A person who has faith in the religious tenants of Judaism, on the other hand, obviously isn't an athiest and therefore wouldn't refer to themselves as such. It would only make sense to say the person was a formerly observant Jew who converted to atheism. Dugwiki 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I realise the situation might be different among the bulk of the population of, say, the US or Pakistan, but among educated computer users (a category that, hopefully, includes most wikipedians), association with atheism is not a stimulus to hate a particular ethnic group, hence the reason of this nomination is fallacious at best, and tendentious at worst. I see the point in "Jewish" not being a well defined category, and I might vote neutrally should the page be again nominated for deletion on this ground. However, as things stand now, deleting this page would pose an extremely dangerous precedent; I also think the accusation of OR is unsubstantiated, and that the article is just one of the many that fail to quote sources, a fact that is generally (albeit unofficially) tolerated on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer (talk • contribs) 20:41, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Comment from nominator The reasons for the nomination are neither fallacious nor tendentious. I put forward this nomination for precisely the reasons set out in the rationale and followup clarifications and for no other reasons. I'll thank you not to impute to me non-existent ulterior motives. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello, everybody. I honestly don't remember stubbing this cat, but I do remember adding Category:Jewish Christians to the Madeline Albright article, because, well... she's Jewish (ethnically speaking) and a Christian (religiously speaking - (in as much as Episcopalians (IIRC) can be called Christians... :\ )). Hence she belongs to a particular category - ie. one who is of Jew-ish heritage but not Jew-ish religion.

Its not my fault that one of foundational cultures of Western civilization is self-defined by confusingly paradoxical terminology - I was simply being categorical in a way which is (apparently) incongruous with certain particular ethnic concepts. The same obviously applies for people like [a huge number of people] who have a lukewarm religious observance, or who dabble in something else, etc. I remember one oldbie wikipedian explaining that Judiasm is quite "theologically inclusive".. in apparent contrast to ethnically inclusive universalist religions with dogmatic theology).

This subject is no doubt touchy for some people because it really deals with the concept of apostasy - that atheists are, in a sense, apostates from a religion if not converts to a religion. Ill note that I've seen Muslims and Christians likewise make complaints about articles which focus on apostates from their particular religion, althewhile supporting the concept of converts to their religion. Long live all the biased religious marketing....

Anyway, there is no need to be political about it. Jews are not a single monolithic culture, but a rich and diverse one, with people of varying levels of belief and different chosen cultures - in addition to the one inherited through genetic caste. Variations, while no doubt frustrating to those who desperately hold on to notions of cultural unity, are still nevertheless interesting and real aspects of human life and culture. Because these variations (deviations if you want to be prejudiced) are real, and not fabricated, they are nevertheless encyclopedic and categorical, and by coincidence they also happen to be interesting.

I will admit that categories like this in a certain way are political in the sense that they challenge exclusive views that tend to think of A as always being incompatible with B. Someone I know, who was raised Catholic, but is a practicing Buddhist, explained to me that there is no contradiction: The beliefs of Buddhism, while apparently constituting a religion of one kind or another, do not exclude a belief in Jesus or in the Abrahamic God. We may call them both "religions," but they are religions in different senses of the word. Certainly this leads to a need to explain how one thing, which many might think is incompatible with another, is not in fact so. Likewise it requires dealing with the meta-topic of how people differ as to the basic concept of compatibility. Ive got no problem with adding explanations and caveats to suit any distinction.

With that out of the way, I want to talk about this inflammatory notion that this topic is an "anti-Semitie magnet," no doubt implying that the people who support its use are, of course, by definition, "anti-Semites." As someone who's had some experience being smeared as an "anti-Semite" I have little comment, except to say that such person s (the anonymous online personae anyway) who made that accusation are now widely regarded as infamous examples of bad behavior. I have to regard anyone who uses terms like "anti-Semitism magnet" in kind, very much in accordance with the principle behind Godwin's law (ie. 'don't be inflammatory'). Nuf said. -Ste vertigo 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator The assertion that this category attracts Antisemites is not inflammatory, but a simple and accurate observation about how the category is actually used. Should you doubt it, feel free to consult the contributions of any of these users. Moreover, I assume people who support retaining this category do so because they believe it to be a useful category deserving retention -- no more. I strongly resent your unfounded and offensive assertion that I have implied that editors who favour retaining the category are Antisemites. You should retract it. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am glad you are offended, because it tells me that it was not your intention to assert that this was an "anti-Semitic magnet" topic, even if that interpretation follows from a rather natural reading of your stated reasons for listing. Either way, your rationale rests on either a straw-man association with bigots or else an accusation of bigotry itself. Perhaps you can rephrase your reasons for listing, or else retract your listing altogether? -Ste vertigo 00:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It was entirely my intention to say that the category is an Antisemitism magnet. I said that plainly. It is. You appear to have misinterpreted that to mean that it attracts only Antisemites, and that misinterpretation led you to make a baseless and insulting assertion -- one you've yet to retract. --Rrburke^(talk) 01:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've written a lengthy comment dealing with other aspects of this which I will post below shortly. But I would like to deal with this issue separately, since it's already been raised.

First, I want to say that, although we've locked horns over this nomination, I didn't take personal offense at Rrburke's claim that the category is an "antisemitism magnet". I was merely appalled (did I really just say, "merely appalled"??) that a valid and valuable category was nominated for deletion. I'm afraid that I didn't take his explanation as seriously as I would have if he had provided the evidence for his concerns re abuse along with his initial remarks. But, having seen the particulars regarding User:Pionier/etc., I can well understand why Rrburke reacted so strongly. I've dealt with my share of racist/antisemitic crap on Wikipedia, and it ain't no fun.

All the same, I would like to gently suggest that nominating this category for deletion was, nonetheless, an over-reaction to the provocation. To begin with, the category was all of 3 weeks old when it was nominated for deletion -- and as far as I know, there was only that one individual who was causing any sort of problem. So to say that "The category is also commonly -- more commonly than it's used for any other purpose -- used by antisemitic vandals with the intention of defaming the subject of the article" strikes me as a rather misleading exaggeration. Three weeks and one string of questionable edits certainly doesn't constitute a track record of abuse, much less a compelling reason for deleting a category.

I also disagree strongly with the implicit contention that the mere fact of being placed in this category is in itself defamatory and somehow equates to "antisemitic vandalism". I understand why Rrburke was concerned about the string of edits by User:Pionier, which did, in their totality, smack of some sort of antisemitic agenda on his part, in my estimation. But it was the repeated pairing of this category with Category:Jewish communists that revealed his underlying agenda. What's strange is that this category was chosen for deletion, rather than the other, more sensitive category -- which I might add was created even more recently, and by none other than a now-banned sock puppet of User:Pionier.

In the last several days I have personally added about 20 articles to the category, a fascinating assemblage of very notable individuals which collectively demonstrates the fallaciousness of the assertion that this category is primarily used as a vehicle for "antisemitic vandalism". Quite the opposite.

And lastly... Rrburke, I gaped in disbelief when I read your edit summary for removing Leon Trotsky from this category: "putative atheism not mentioned in body of the article, therefore not significant enough to warrant category inclusion; also unsourced, unverifiable". As hard as it may be to imagine that Leon Trotsky (of all people) was (gasp) an atheist, surely common sense should have won out over that sort of reflexive reverting of edits by a suspect editor. And yet -- in the end, I'm actually rather happy about the whole thing, because I wound up adding a very nice section to the article about "Trotsky's Testament", which I heartily recommend to everybody, even those who may feel nothing but disdain for the man. Cgingold 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were absolutely right about Category:Jewish communists. As this category had been deleted in the recent past and later recreated by a sockpuppet of banned User:Pionier, who was also the only one ever to apply this categorization, I redeleted it (until the next time Pionier recreates it).--woggly 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply to Cgingold. I must not be explaining myself clearly, because I can't seem to a way to adequately express my simple point. Let's use Trotsky as an object lesson: I don't find it at all hard to imagine that Trotsky was an atheist, chiefly because I know Trotsky was an atheist. As a matter of fact, I know a lot of things I can't include in Wikipedia articles, because they're not attributable to a reliable, published source that I can cite. It's just that Wikipedia isn't a place to publish things just because I (or anybody or "everybody") happen to know them: there's the further requirement that the "material [that] has already been published by a reliable source" and that this source be cited. Including Trotsky, as the article stood, failed this requirement.

So, I didn't remove Trotsky (and I didn't do it "reflexively") because I had trouble imagining Trotsky was an atheist, but because the inclusion of Trotsky in the category Category:Jewish atheists as the article stood failed specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here they are:

No source was cited, so it failed:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (a guideline)
Wikipedia:Verifiability (a core policy)

There was no mention of his atheism in the article, so adding him to the category failed the guidelines on the categorization of people:

"The case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced":

No mention of subject's atheism in the article text: failed
The article states no facts that would justify the inclusion: failed
Facts absent from the article text obviously can't be "sourced", so: failed

"The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief... in question" (the requirement of self-identification is also explicitly mentioned in the category's headnote):

No quotation from Trotsky which would establish that he "self-identifies with the belief": failed

"The subject's beliefs... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources":

"relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life": probably -- actually, certainly -- true, but not "made clear by the article text", so: failed
"according to reliable published sources": no source is cited: failed

Including Trotsky in the category was, for these reasons, a misuse (as distinguished from abuse) of this category, and it's precisely because virtually all of the people added to the category fail these criteria, that the category ought to be deleted. I note that you've added several people to the category that do satisfy the criteria, and that you've edited the Trotsky article so it also now does; that's commendable. First, just let me pause to observe how proposing deletion invariably improves quality. But I also notice you added, for example, Jacques Derrida, who fails for the same reasons Trotsky failed (and who, moreover, would have been unlikely to offer a straightforward statement of (dis)belief that would qualify as self-identification anyway. That was kind of not his thing).

Finally, there was no "implicit contention that the mere fact of being placed in this category is in itself defamatory and somehow equates to 'antisemitic vandalism'." Let me say again that the category has been used extensively in precisely this way. I absolutely never said it was used exclusively for this purpose, which for reasons not clear to me others seem to have assumed I was saying. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't take the time to fully articulate what I had in mind, Rrburke -- it would have saved you the bother of explaining in such detail. I already understood the, shall we say, "legal rationale" for your edit. I was merely trying to suggest that, since it was of course, quite obvious that Trotsky was indeed a valid member of the category, you might have taken a couple of minutes to add the missing info to the article yourself, rather than just disposing of the problem by removing it from the category.

Another option would have been to leave a note on the article's talk page, asking for the information to be supplied within a certain amount of time. At the very least, your edit summary could have taken a more encouraging tone, and read more like this: "Assertion of atheism not supported within article; please provide valid sourcing if you wish to restore category". Any of these would have been more constructive than simply carrying out another cookie-cutter reversion with the identical edit summary. I think you were basically so intent on sending a stern message to User:Pionier and reverting all of his edits as quickly as possible, that you perhaps lost sight of the "bigger picture", as it were. In any event, as I said before, I enjoyed adding the new section re "Trotsky's Testament". PS - Rest assured, I will be adding the needed info to the Derrida article in the next couple of days. Cgingold 13:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OM and Joshua. Jim62sch 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe it was Salvador Dalì who said that the first thing you want to know about any given athiest is precisely what god he does not believe in. Yes, there probably is something distinct about a Jewish atheist. I'd rather see things like this handled by lists (where it is possible to do citations for the particular matter at hand), but it seems like the consensus has increasingly favored categories over lists. - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to put in a word of support for Rrburke, who seems to be under attack here, whether because people honestly did not understand the rationale behind his nomination, or because they have CHOSEN not to understand it. Not only has this category been abused recently, but there is something inherent in the category that makes it a target for abuse. This is a case where, in my opinion, a list or article is better structured to present the complexities of the somewhat oxymoronic but valid definition "Jewish Atheist". A category is simply a label, and leaves no room for an editor to explain why a certain individual has been added to the category, or to qualify the definition. There are SO MANY non-practicing Jews in the world who could in theory be added to the category, but not all of them are actively, philosophically atheists. The few who ARE such, deserve discussion in a more detailed article. I'm not claiming - and neither did Rrburke - that all who use this category do so for antisemitic reasons. But it is mighty useful for those antisemitic trolls out there editing to have this label they can so easily tack on to whichever article, thus instantly raising hackles and creating a furor. Much easier to track the changes made to a centralized article, than to monitor every single individual article that may or may not be eligible for the "Jewish atheist" label. --woggly 09:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Orange et al regarding "dual religions" The argument to keep based on the opinion that the word "Jewish" can refer either to ethnicity or to religion or both isn't valid. The reason is two fold. First, in the case where Jewish refers to ethnicity, then we are dealing as I described above with a category similar to Category:Eurasian athiests which intersects ethnicity with religion without demonstrating a reason that this category is any more useful than simply having two category tags: one for the person's ethnicity, and one for the person's religion. Second, if "Jewish" refers to the person's religion, then this would be the equivalent of a category such as Category:Christian athiest, which again isn't necessary and is even somewhat paradoxical. A person can't reasonably be expected to have two concurrent religions, so the only context in which it would make sense to have something like "Christian athiests" or "Jewish athiests" would be to instead have a category that talks about former Christians or religious Jews who converted to atheism. But if that is the goal of the category, it would be called something like Category:Christians who converted to atheism, and such categories have a spotty history.

So therefore whether the word "Jewish" in this context refers to a person's ethnicity, or whether the word refers to the person's religion, this category still doesn't appear to be valid. It's either a random intersection of ethnicity and religion, OR it's a misguided intersection of two religions. Either way the category still should be deleted. The only category I could see that might be valid would be something like Category:Religious jews who converted to atheism, but I'm not even sure that category would be supported in cfd. Dugwiki 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh dear, I thought I was all done, but I can see that I need to make a brief comment here! (I was finishing up my mini-essay below while Dugwiki was posting his remarks.) Okay, in a nutshell: the root of the problem is semantic. We use the same term -- "Jewish" -- to cover a variety of interrelated things. The concept of being "Jewish" -- and the complex, messy reality it references in the world we inhabit -- is sui generis. It simply isn't like anything else, much less any other semantic category. So it can't just be shoehorned into the typical Wikipedia categories that, for the most part, work reasonably well for other things.

We all know that "Jewish" can refer to a religion. But then it gets complicated. The rest is some sort of very complex sociological phenomenon. It's not quite accurate to say that it's an "ethnicity", although there are elements of ethnicity. The best term I've been able to come up with in that regard is "quasi-ethnicity". The point, I'm sorry to say, Dugwiki, is that all of your highly logical manipulations of semantic categories simply bear no relationship to the real world. None whatsoever. These categories need to be handled on their own terms, not forced against their will into a pre-existing category schema. Please give serious consideration to my comments below, which elaborate on this very issue. I hope this helped! Regards, Cgingold 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would seem to be arguing then that because the word "Jewish" can refer to either a person's ethnicity or their religion that this would make the category a valid intersection. My point, however, was that it doesn't seem to matter whether you are referring to Jewish as an ethnicity OR as a religion or both. The category also seems to go against the prior deletion of Category:Jewish Christians. Basically I'm saying that there's no reason to handle this category differently from Category:Jewish Christians (people who are ethnically jewish but religiously Christian) or Category:Christians who converted to Judaism. By the way, in order to avoid confusion on replies, and since I made a similar point below at the end of the cfd, I'd recommend that replies be placed at the end of the cfd instead of directly below my comment here. Dugwiki 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment - I want to succinctly address a couple of claims that Rrburke made in his nomination.

1) "Only in the rarest instance is the person's putative atheism actually mentioned in the article..." Now, I haven't yet looked at the articles that he removed from the category (with the exception of the aforementioned Leon Trotsky), but this assertion is just plain wrong when it comes to the articles that I've added. There may be one or two where it's not actually mentioned, but that can easily be remedied. More importantly,

2) "...because there is usually no reference to the person's atheism in the article, the claim is unsourced and unverifiable..." Again, I found reliable sourcing for each of the articles I added to the category, and in nearly every case I made sure that this info was included in the article. The need for credible verification of the individual's atheism should be stipulated on the category page. (I actually left out several people who I am nearly certain belong in this category because I was unable to locate good sourcing via the Internet.) Cgingold 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-Essay - Judging by some of the comments here, it looks as though this category called Category:Jewish atheists struck a number of editors as being some sort of unsightly appendage sprouting from Wikipedia. Jewish atheists??? Well sure, there may be a few, but what does that have to do with anything?!

Clearly there is a fundamental issue/question that really needs to be addressed, which is obviously a mental hurdle of sorts for many people. It's basically a definitional issue: what does it mean to say that a person is "Jewish"?

I presume that for the great majority of people, the first thing that springs to mind -- call it the "default definition" -- is roughly: "somebody who belongs to and practices the religious faith called Judaism". In which case, "Jewish atheists", of all things, appears to be a confounding, self-contradictory term. But, in reality, the Jewish community comprises a wide range of people, many of whom are Jewish by ancestry or heritage but non-religious -- or secular -- in their daily lives. That's a simplified answer to what is a decidedly complex issue -- an issue which leaves an awful lot of people feeling very confused about the whole thing.

Generally speaking, our approach here on Wikipedia should be to use the most inclusive criteria when it comes to putting individuals in Jewish categories. The critical point in that regard, in terms of Category:Jewish atheists, is that it establishes that the individuals so-categorized don't come under that "default definition", and thus helps to convey a broader notion of the term "Jewish".

Now, I would never suggest creating a Wikipedia category purely for the purpose of educating the public on a narrow issue like that. However, I do think it's worth pointing out that the existence of Category:Jewish atheists, along with its matrix of related categories and articles, helps to clarify and illuminate the issues around the larger subject of what is meant by Jewish identity -- and hopefully, to some small degree, to dispel some of the confusion that surrounds that subject.

As can be seen from the current contents of the category, some of the most eminent Jewish figures in modern history are/were atheists. (Many would also argue for the inclusion of Albert Einstein, but he's not included because there's no concensus on the issue.) A number of them are/were, broadly, philosophers whose atheism is/was an integral part of their philosophical outlook; and many of them are/were actively engaged in promoting atheism.

The fact is, there's a long history of Jewish atheism. Moreover, the history of Jewish atheism is embedded in the larger history of Jewish secularism (or secular Judaism, as some might phrase it).

With that in mind, I decided to undertake a comprehensive review of the entire array of Jewish categories. Needless to say, that's a major undertaking, and there's still more work to be done, but what gradually dawned on me was that there was no existing category embracing the range of articles and categories pertaining to that larger subject. So I decided to remedy the problem by creating a new category -- and after giving it a good deal of thought, I decided to go with Category:Secular Jewish culture.

If you look at Category:Jewish atheists, you will see that it is now embedded in four parent categories (two more than previously), one of which of course is Category:Secular Jewish culture. And if you look inside that category, you will see that among the sub-categories there is a matrix of sub-cats that are "cousins" of Category:Jewish atheists -- part of the spectrum of secular identities, if you will. The point is, Jewish atheists are an integral part of Jewish culture and history -- not merely some sort of ad hoc contrivance. And Category:Jewish atheists should be regarded as an integral part of Wikipedia's category structure.

Cgingold 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note previous deletion of Category:Jewish Christians Since someone cited it as an example, I should also note for reference the previous deletion at cfd of Category:Jewish Christians, which is essentially a very similar category that groups people of Jewish ancestry who converted to Christianity. The cfd for that category can be found at [3], and I would suggest that the only real difference between the phrases "Jewish Christians" and "Jewish Atheists" is the religion to which the ethnically Jewish person converted. So again, prior precedent would seem to suggest that the intersection of "Jewish (other religion here)" probably isn't valid as a categorization scheme. Dugwiki 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply - Please be sure to see my reply to you, above, Dugwiki. I will simply add that atheism is not a religion. (Honestly, that's an absurd notion.) And one does not "convert" to atheism. (Yikes -- another absurd notion!) Jewish atheists don't stop being Jewish -- they simply don't adhere to the religion. Okay, that's it -- I've got to go now! Cgingold 15:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is very much a religion, as it is the religious belief that god does not exist. It does not have religious rites or places of worship, but it is still clearly a religion as it is a clear definition of a person's religious beliefs (ie what the person believes in relation to the existence and nature of God.) So while atheism has a different organizational structure than codified religions, it is as much a religious belief as believing in the existence of any particular deity.

And yes, you can convert to atheism from Judaism or Christianity or vice versa. Religious conversion is a redefining of an individual's beliefs in the nature of God. So if your religious beliefs change from being one of believing in the existence of God to one of the non-existence of God, or vice versa, you have undergone a religious conversion.

So again, just because atheism doesn't involve religious rites doesn't mean it's not a religious belief. And regardless of whether you prefer to call atheism a "religion" or simply a "religious belief", either way for purposes of categorizing articles, Category:Atheism and the related categories are treated as religious categories. Dugwiki 16:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is a highly original re-definition of both terms, "atheism" and "religion". I really urge you to undertake some serious reading on the subject of atheism, starting with basic definitions. I truly hope you're not planning on adding stuff like this to any articles in the mainspace, because it would swiftly go down in flames as WP:Original research. Rather than reply at length, I will simply say that people drift away from religious beliefs all the time, without necessarily undergoing a "conversion" to something else. They simply leave their former beliefs behind -- and sometimes they wind up as atheists. To describe that as a "conversion to another religion" is a bizarre misuse of words. No wonder we're at loggerheads here. Cgingold 13:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's just agree to disagree then rather than calling each other names. Especially considering whether you refer to atheism as a "religion" or a "religious belief" has no actual relevance to any of the arguments for deletion I posted. Dugwiki 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't read the entirety of the discussion, but I was surprised to find that Atheist Jew was not mentioned. That is, my gut-feeling was to delete as OCAT and per lack of precedent (xtifr ? ) - although the Who is a Jew? issue isn't unique to this category, and thus I don't find it relevant), however the existence of a mainspace entry discussing the concept significantly clouded that clarity. Tewfik^Talk 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very good point. There was so much other ground to cover that I never got around to mentioning it. In fact, I recently added a main article link to Atheist Jew on the Category page, and touched up the Category definition as well. (Btw, I'm going to propose that it be renamed to "Jewish atheism", which would also be better aligned with the name of the category.) As I said above, Jewish atheists are not merely an ad hoc contrivance, but rather, an integral part of Secular Jewish culture. The single most important thing I would like everybody who's not yet persuaded of the validity of this category to do is this: Take a few minutes to look at the contents of Category:Secular Jewish culture -- which illustrates the crucial point that Jewish atheists are one sliver in the array of philosophical approaches that comprise the spectrum of Jewish secularism. Cgingold 12:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Trotsky - I've posted a short reply to Rrburke above (following his comment on the handling of the Leon Trotsky edit).
Delete, oxymoron. Also, overcat, and we don't generally do ethnic/religion crossovers, and apparent vandal magnet. >Radiant< 15:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Orders, decorations, and medals of the German Democratic Republic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the German Democratic Republic to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of East Germany

Nominator's rationale: The main article is at Orders, decorations, and medals of East Germany. Since the last renaming, the article on the country has been moved from German Democratic Republic to East Germany. This is the only subcategory of Category:East Germany that now doesn't use the name and should be brought in line. Note also that other national subcategories of Category:Orders, decorations, and medals use the common name form for the countries, including Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany. Timrollpickering 13:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename since categories should reflect the article-space consensus, Tewfik^Talk 08:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I always regarded this as a bit of inconsistency in the otherwise fairly settled Category:Orders, decorations, and medals scheme of categorisation. I'm glad to see that the whole East Germany issue seems to have reached a resolution.

Xdamr^talk 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:WikiProject Rugby league (State of Origin) articles by importance[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:C1. Tewfik^Talk 08:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Your Replaced by Category:Rugby league (State of Origin) articles by importance SpecialWindler talk 12:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:WikiProject Rugby league (State of Origin) articles by quality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:C1. Tewfik^Talk 08:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Your Replaced by Category:Rugby league (State of Origin) articles by quality SpecialWindler talk 12:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

State highway categories in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename as nominated except for Georgia (renamed to Category:State highways in Georgia (U.S. state) to match other Georgia roads categories), Oregon (renamed to Category:State routes in Oregon to match syntax), DC (renamed to Category:Routes in the District of Columbia to match syntax), and Massachusetts and Rhode Island (untouched for now). The latter four may be renamed if they can be brought in line by consensus later on.--Mike Selinker 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For standardization, as these categories are at nonstandard names. This is renaming to what the categories are called on Commons. The parent category is also being renamed for standardization as well to Category:State highways in the United States. (note its parent, Category:Roads in the United States. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories are to be renamed to Category:State highways in <state>:

Category:Alabama state highways
Category:Alaska state highways
Category:Arizona state highways
Category:Arkansas state highways
Category:California state highways
Category:Colorado state highways
~~Category:District of Columbia routes~~ - struck out by NE2; see discussion below
Category:Connecticut state highways
Category:Delaware Routes
Category:Florida State Roads
Category:Georgia state highways

There's a problem with this one, it should be Category:State highways in Georgia (US state) or Category:Georgia (US state) state highways. 132.205.44.5 22:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond below.

Rename all state categories and the parent category per nom and WP:NCCAT#Man-made objects. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ for one relatively minor reason. In some New England states, there is no relationship between state highways, which are roads maintained by the state, and numbered highways, which are highways assigned numbers by the state. Thus a category of - for instance - state highways in Massachusetts would include everything red on [4]; for specific examples see [5], where the connections between US 6 and Route 6A are state highways, [6], where the red line paralleling I-93 is not a numbered highway, or [7], where Route 145 is not a state highway but several other roads are. In fact, if I'm reading the maps correctly, none of Route 145 is a state highway, and thus it would not belong in the category. I suggest Category:Numbered highways in <state> instead. --NE2 08:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that the District of Columbia has no state highways, since it is not a state. It has numbered highways though. --NE2 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Numbered highways seems too open-ended. U.S. Route 20 is a numbered highway in New York; does it belong in the category? How about Broome County Route 7? Changing it to numbered highway messes up the actual scope of the category, and Commons has no problem with using "State highways in <state>". As for the DC cat, I wonder if that cat is even needed - it's only populated by three articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no reason why Category:U.S. Highways in New York and the county road categories can't be subcategories. Commons is not a good precedent; they have a Category:Interstate Alaska. --NE2 21:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point I was attempting to make is that changing the name to "numbered highways" doesn't make the scope of the category visible immediately, whereas "state highway" does. Something tells me we're not going to agree on this issue... As an aside, I would rather retain the current flawed categories than change to "numbered highway". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Changing it to "state highways" makes the wrong scope visible for states such as Massachusetts. --NE2 21:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about what the category holds is dear to this - NE2, not all editors know of Massachusetts' method of numbering and maintenance - so I agree that Numbered highways in <state name> is more appropriate for that. And if we think of it from a broad sense - what we are trying to do is make these more standard to Wikipedia. Many of the List articles also vary in how they're named. TMF I'm going to have to agree with NE2 on this one since these categories refer mostly to the numbered routes. ~~but in the end - i'm Indifferent on what to do - since we have special cases out there I suggest we look at it on a case-by-case bases and leave them as is for now.~~ master son^{T - C} 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- rename - except for those with "Numbered [highways/routes/roads] in <state name>" - and research any that fall into the same situation as MA. If they do - name them appropriately. master son^{T - C} 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an acceptable compromise?
- If one of the categories, like Massachusetts or D.C., would not work with the generic "state highways" category, one of us strikes it through in the above list.
- Everything not struck out gets moved, assuming there is consensus to move.
- Then we figure out how to standardize the few that don't get moved in a separate discussion.
Are there any objections to this? Can people accept them not all having the exact same title format?
By the way, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are definitely out. Vermont, on the other hand, has "town-maintained highways which form the extension of a state highway route and which carry a state highway route number", so we should be fine with calling them state highways, and I don't think Connecticut, New Hampshire, or Maine have locally maintained signed routes. New York may be a problem, with county-maintained portions of state routes; do you know if there are any that are not state-maintained at all? In any case, I think the real issue is that in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, there are a lot of state highways that have no number. In other states, such as Connecticut and New York, they are assigned "secret" numbers. Outside New England, I don't think there are any issues; in states like Virginia that use primary and secondary systems, we can just place the secondary category as a subcategory of the primary one. Despite the current name, I don't think Louisiana is a problem. --NE2 04:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with this principle. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is acceptable only if New York is renamed as per the original proposal. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think New York is a problem, as long as Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes remains a subcategory. --NE2 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see why it wouldn't remain that way. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In don't understand why it should be renamed that way. For instance, all arrticles in Category:Minnesota state highways are named Minnesota State Highway 1 and so on. Why should the cat be named different in comparance to its contents? The same in other cats proposed above which I reviewd (I didn't check all). Therefore Category:North Carolina State Highways should be renamed to Category:North Carolina state highways, Category:Nebraska state highways be kept as it is as Minnesota, Category:State Routes in New Jersey renamed to Category:New Jersey state routes and so on. --Matthiasb-DE 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCCAT#Man-made objects. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that is a good solution in cases in which names of the articles are made by "official" decisions, laws or authorities. Definitely Routes shouldn't be handled according to WP:NCCAT#Man-made objects. --Matthiasb-DE 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the Oregon entry Category:Oregon state routes actually needs to be renamed Category:State routes in Oregon. We already have Category:Highways in Oregon. Routes and highways in Oregon are separate entities per State highways in Oregon, the difference being that routes are signed and highways are unsigned. I find all this extremely confusing, however, so I bow to the knowledge of any road geeks who actually understand this stuff. Katr67 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I see in [8], it looks like you're right. I'm striking out Oregon. --NE2 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with Category:Georgia state highways, it should be Category:State highways in Georgia (US state) or Category:Georgia (US state) state highways. 132.205.44.5 22:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the country have state highways? --NE2 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article Transport in Georgia (country) isn't well developed yet, but my guess is that "state highway" would be confusing as the term can mean what's also called a "public road" in some countries. But in any case it's better to be consistent in the use of disambiguation in these sorts of cases. Timrollpickering 10:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - When there's no risk of ambiguity, like Savannah, Georgia, disambiguation isn't used. Searching for "state highway" on .ge domains does not give anything in the country. --NE2 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused as to why some of the above are struck out, and the explanation above wasn't clear. What is the reasoning? --Holderca1 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my oppose. --NE2 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that why I was unclear on it, I couldn't read the maps, none of them are labeled and I am not familiar with Massachusetts highways to figure it out without the labels. Are you proposing a numbered highways cat with the state highways as a subcat? --Holderca1 12:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No; if anything it would be the other direction, but I don't see the need for a state highway category at all in those states. --NE2 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But, US and interstate highways are numbered highways as well, I just don't see the difference from other states, should they all be numbered highway cats? --Holderca1 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A state highway is a road maintained by the state. In some states, not all state highways are given numbers, and numbered routes can be routed over local roads. And Interstates and U.S. Highways are state highways; some states reflect that correctly by placing those as subcategories of the main state highway category. --NE2 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well for starters, not all roads maintained by the state are state highways, especially U.S. and interstate highways, they aren't state highways. I don't follow you on the not all state highways are given numbers, then how is it a state highway if it isn't designated as such? Do you mean that not all state highways are signed? --Holderca1 13:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A state highway is, by definition, a road maintained by the state. For instance, in Texas, see [9] and [10]. In several states, there are state highways that are simply not given numbers. They are maintained by the state, but only called by the local name. --NE2 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, the Texas example is of a farm to market road, which is a secondary state highway. I thought we were talking roads without a number. So you are saying the drive to the governor's mansion is a state highway? It is maintained by the state, I think we had this conversation once before, I had thought you had it figured out from last time. Yes, Texas has state highways without a number, see Texas State Highway OSR. --Holderca1 14:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Replace "number" with "alphanumeric designation" if you want to get technical because of OSR. I'm not sure if the governor's driveway is a state highway, since it's not open to the public; it appears all state highways have ~~numbers~~ alphanumeric designations in Texas. But there are long sections of road maintained by the Massachusetts Highway Department that do not have and never had an alphanumeric designation. --NE2 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But are they a part of the state highway system? Just because a road is maintained by the state, it is not automatically part of the state highway system. The problem you are going to run into with using numbered highways is where does a highway like named toll roads that are part of the state highway system go? --Holderca1 14:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The system of roads maintained by the state is the state highway system. Named toll roads that are state highways... belong in a category of state highways. For an example of a state where only a few state highways have numbers - but all numbered routes are state highways - see Category:Alaska state highways. --NE2 14:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a better reason for renaming other than what is being done at the Commons? I generally find that unconvincing, as they lack in much of the policy and procedure that we've developed here, and I often find them to be lacking. Tewfik^Talk 08:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See naming conventions page referenced above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all I don't see the necessity of renaming them all, it doesn't make a bit of sense why some are struck out and are to remain at <state> state route/road/highway, while other must move to route/road/highway in <state>. If we are going to move them, they should all have the same name with exception to the state name. --Holderca1 14:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:DC Comics crises[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. Andrew c ^[talk] 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization. Don't categorize by storyline type. Wryspy 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambiguous cat at best, either it covers almost all DC story arcs, since they are all a crisis of one type or another, or just the material in the list, and the list works better. - J Greb 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:DC Comics storylines. Categorizing based on the use of the shared word "crisis" in the title is overcategorization. Otto4711 14:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Otto4711. Onnaghar^{tl ! co} 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, but there's not actually anything to merge. They're all already categorized under DC Comics storylines. Wryspy 07:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that's escaped the other category and delete the category. Timrollpickering 09:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this OCAT, Tewfik^Talk 08:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.