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:manually delete all, after checking all articles are properly categorised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all. These are all small categories for TV series which have little or no potential for expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Delete but first ensure that the articles are otherwise adequately categorized. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (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:MOOT. It appears that the nominator is happy with a de-subcategorisation approach. As far as I can see no category by the name the nominator refers to currently appears in this category, so I think the nomination is moot. In any case, there is no consensus that this one should be deleted or renamed as proposed. -Splash - tk 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: NPOV. Suggesting Middle Eastern Jews have an Arab descent is controversial (see: Arab Jews), while "Middle Eastern descent" is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben tetuan (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 November 2013
I think BHG should actually look at the contents of this category. There is no claim that these people have Arab ancestors. What next, will we put Category:Isareli people of Russian descent in Category:Israeli people of Salvic descent. To call the Jews coming from Russia to Israel "Slaves" is problematic. In fact, I have to say all the "Arabic" ancestry claims are problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the case of Israel this is not how people are actually defined. They either are Arabs, or they are not Arabs. Attempts to classify Jews as having either Arab or Middle Eastern descent is just a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely there is a POV problem with using the Israeli government as the defining authority on ancestry! Seyasirt (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- With the exception of Category:Arab citizens of Israel and one bio-article, this is a container category for Israelis (presumably mostly Jewish) from Arab countries; often with a sub-cat for emigrants from Foo to Israel. The Jews are ultimately a Semitic people; so are the Arabs; but that does not means that the Jews are Arabs. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete racial/ethnic/descent category. Frankly, how a government classifies people by race/ethnicity/etc. is usually not rational or clades genetically. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a stupid suggestion. We have subcats for Morocco and Sudan, which are not in Asia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as stupid as you think peter. It is a simple matter to classify the moroccan descent under Israelis people of African descent. I should have noted that this was a change of scope but I thought that was rather obvious.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do not change There is nothing to change here. This is but one of 61 subcategories in the category: Category:People of Arab descent and there is no specific category problem with any of them. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose to leave the category and just remove from it the subcategories of Jews from the MENA region (though then it would be left just with sub-Category:Arab citizens of Israel). The main point here is that it's controversial to claim Jews from Arab countries are Arabs or have Arab descent so we shouldn't include them in this category.Ben tetuan (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most Jewish Israelis are also ultimately of Middle Eastern descent (otherwise Israel, which is clearly in the Middle East, wouldn't be the Jewish homeland, would it?), so the proposed category name makes no sense. But actually, I see no problem with the current name anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current name is clearly wrong. Jews in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen have never been considered Arabs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created this because they were showing in Category:Carry On films, which was obviously not appropriate. I have no problem with deleting, as long as we do not upmerge, but note that they are crew members, not actors, so nominators rationale is wrong. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am sure that we do not need categories for crew. The normal case of PERF categories concerns actors, but crew articles will be at least as bad. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while possibly not explicit in PERF all of the same rationales apply. Crew can work on any number of projects in the course of a career and establishing categories for every such project would result in vast useless category clutter. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: For reference, Religious institute (Catholic) explains why orders are a subset of religious institutes. "order" and "institute" are often used as synonyms but the former is a colloquialism. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Canonical term is "Religious Institute" but since it is so common to use religious "order", I think it should be a redirect. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 07:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The coloquialism is so widespread that I think COMMONNAME comes into play. If someone convinces me that is a regional English variation, I would change my opinion though.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (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.
