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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. If that wasn't enough, it's trumped by Category:Wikipedians in the United States. Snout ^(rummage) 20:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Category:Anglo-American Wikipedians and fill category. Surely some of you've got British genes... 12.73.196.215 02:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most USAians have "some British genes", so it's too broad. If it's only for first-generation immigrants, just list the two categories. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:28, 22 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Forms of water. Created and being populated by an anon. Vsmith 19:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP it is not redundant with Forms of water. Forms of water is an unholy grabbag of things. Where would you keep physical chemistry articles anyways? 132.205.45.110 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT "Created and being populated by an anon" - are you saying that anons should be banned, or that all anon contributions are vandalism? 132.205.45.110 20:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If "forms of water" is a mess, the proper action is to clean it up rather than to create a duplicate. We generally avoid abbreviations in category titles. As to banning anons, of course not. Vsmith made the factual and neutral statement that the cat was created by an anon. Any implications therein are in the eye of the beholder.

Radiant_>|< 00:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you can't create subcategories, then how do you clean it up? 132.205.44.134 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By removing anything from the category that doesn't belong there. And frankly I don't see that many that don't. Radiant_>|< 12:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • forms of water is used in a very generic way. So how do you create a specific physical chemistry category then. "Ice-IX" is like "Bay of Bengal", but both are under "forms of water". Having just cleaned up some of the forms of water into the proper subcategories, what's wrong with a physical chemistry subcat? IT is a more specific category, like the other subcats existing in "forms of water". 132.205.45.148 17:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you are entirely correct that it should be a category related to physics and chemistry. Hence, "Bay of Bengal" shouldn't be in there. I note that it has already been moved out; wouldn't you agree that the cat now looks a lot better? Radiant_>|<
          • It has been cleaned pretty thoroughly, (the subcats need cleaning too), but if it is upmerged, there still wouldn't be a cat for the phases of water, isotopic water (D2O, DPO, T2O, TDO, TPO), and the like. 132.205.44.134 06:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I disagree with this for the same reason I disagree with Water (molecule) being separate from Water. —Keenan Pepper 01:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. —Cleared as filed. 04:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Bhoeble 13:02, 23 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion really has nothing to do with chess playing. There is a lot of discussion on the good faith status of some of these categories and lists, (Jewish Bankers, Jewish Criminals, etc.) While this may very well be in good faith, it's still a generally bad idea. Descendall 15:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I declare an interest as the originator of this category. I cannot conceive how this could be interpreted as in bad faith; few people regard chess players as undesirables like criminals or even part of some international conspiracy, as some regard bankers. As has been said many times, these are ethnic lists, not religious ones (though quite a few chess players have been fairly orthodox Jews). It is quite a startling statistic that such a high proportion of great chess players (including I think a majority of world champions) are or were Jews, and this category is useful in illustrating this.
  RachelBrown 09:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I abhor the attitude that Jews aren't allowed the same self-identity as anyone else. Surely this is at least as meaningful as Category:Ukrainian chess players for people who lived before the break-up of the USSR. - Poetlister 12:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category is an ethnic category, not a religious category. Compare to the close companion category Category:Jewish classical musicians. Jews have a unique place in the history of chess, and this is often noted and discussed. The first two chess world champions (Wilhelm Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker) were Jewish. In fact, 7 of the first 16 world champions (ending with Garry Kasparov) were Jewish. Many of the most important chess writers and theoreticians were Jewish (Siegbert Tarrasch, Ksawery Tartakower, Aaron Nimzowitsch, Reuben Fine, Fred Reinfeld, and dozens of others). The important early A History of Chess (1913) by H.J.R. Murray includes a section titled Chess among the Jews. Dutch psychologist and chess researcher Adriaan de Groot has considered the question of Jewish talent in chess. British journalist David Spanier includes a chapter on Jews in chess in his book Total Chess. The Jewish Encyclopedia includes bios of Jewish chess players. Jewish chess players have sometimes been attacked for their ethnicity. Steinitz faced anti-Semitic attacks. Alexander Alekhine and Bobby Fischer (ironically himself Jewish) were/are noted anti-Semitic chess players. I agree that the category should be given some descriptive text to make clear that it is an ethnic classification not a religious one. It should also give some indication of the importance of the contributions of Jewish chess players to the history of the game. Quale 15:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is already a list of Jewish Chess Players..either delete that or delete this. 72.144.139.115 20:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep list as well and use it to show extra info. Honbicot 12:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's definitely something about Jews and chess - everyone I know who is a good chess player is Jewish. It's always difficult to know whether a list or category is better, so why not have both? There's any amount of redundancy on Wikipedia, anyway - it's good, makes things easier to find. - Londoneye 13:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for Keep, but I feel compelled to say this is a bit too stereotypical. I live in a part of the Midwest where Jewish people aren't that common, but I certainly know several people who are good to great at chess. Added to that the Jewish people I do know are not especially into chess. The best player I've personally seen was this guy who was converting to Catholicism from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Ethnically he was Hispanic.--T. Anthony 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm minded to, but not yet voting delete. Personally, I feel this works better as a list. I find it odd that Kasparov is not in Category:Chess players and believe this is overcategorisation. However, it occurs to me that this problem could be solved by having this as a sub-cat of Category:Jews but not of Category:Chess players. Hiding talk 13:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Garry Kasparov is in Category:Chess grandmasters which is a subcat of Category:Chess players for players who have received the FIDE International Grandmaster title. He is also in the appropriate Category:Chess players by nationality subcategories. 165.189.91.148 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to mention: There is such a list, List of Jewish chess players, but it's on WP:AFD and it seems likely that it will be deleted. 165.189.91.148 16:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew there was a list, but ta. Hiding talk 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Jewish chess masters (I guess likewise for any other "chess player" category though, which probably isn't going to happen quickly). It's probably pedantic, but people who play chess w/o being masters aren't interesting (in terms of chess). However, I guess if the cat avoids silly entries of people who play amateur chess, you can count my vote as keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and for the future all Jewish (religion) categories of this type can be renamed to Jews (ethnicity) as to not confuse ethnicity with religion. --Vizcarra 20:37, 22 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 11:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on the November 10 section below it looks as if a merge will occur as nominated. if it does then it is requested that the following cats be given mergers: (more will follow once these are voted on) -Mayumashu 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Canadian music professors to Category:Canadian musicologists
• Category:Canadian anthropology professors to Category:Canadian anthropologists
• Category:Canadian art professors to Category:Canadian academics of fine arts
• Category:Canadian biology professors to Category:Canadian biologists
• Category:Canadian women's studies professors to Category:Canadian academics of women's studies
• Category:Canadian chemistry professors to Category:Canadian chemists
• Category:Canadian computer science professors to Category:Canadian computer scientists
• Category:Canadian economics professors to Category:Canadian economists
• Category:Canadian engineering professors to Category:Canadian academics in engineering
• Category:Canadian law professors to Category:Canadian legal academics
• Category:Canadian professors of literature to Category:Canadian literary academics
• Rename/merge all It isn't important whether an individual in these fields happens to have a professorial chair or not. All the people in each field who merit an article should be grouped together. CalJW 02:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't nominate these. The nominator forgot to sign. CalJW 02:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oops, that was me. now signed -Mayumashu 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator. —Cleared as filed. 04:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator. Carina22 17:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT, are all music professors actually musicologists? wouldn't some other name be better? 132.205.44.134 04:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: None of these have been tagged with {{cfd}}. --Kbdank71 20:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename as proposed. I've done the tagging. Honbicot 13:09, 22 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court --Kbdank71 14:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard capitalization. jengod 02:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course (speedy), but you probably want to go with "nominees" rather than "mominees". Christopher Parham (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Miers had no children, I believe there have been no failed mominees. Descendall 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaa. Fixed.

• Actually, to do this up right, it should be changed to Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court, as "failed" is somewhat POV, and we're at war with abbreviations. BD2412 T 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Have to disagree as this would overlap with Category:Withdrawn nominees to the United States Supreme Court --Kralizec! 17:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court per BD2412. —Cleared as filed. 04:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress Law Library Reading Room designates this category as "Supreme Court Nominations - Not Confirmed or Withdrawn" http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/notconfirmed.html Antoniosfca 14:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The Library of Congress should know better than to put a modifier at the beginning of an either/or clause - it reads like 'not confirmed or not withdrawn'. :-D BD2412 T 15:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ooops, looks like I got the capitalization wrong when I created the category. It should be renamed to Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court --Kralizec! 17:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There are three possible reasons why a person would be nominated to the Supreme Court, and not then become a member of the Court: 1) the nomination is withdrawn either by the nominee or by the President before the Senate has a chance to vote; 2) the Senate votes, and the candidate does not get enough votes to be placed on the Court; 3) the nominee dies before the vote (this having never happened). In any event, all three of these would constitute unsuccessful nominations, making it a supercategory for the specific types of lack of success, which would also have to contain a subcategory for Category:Rejected nominees to the United States Supreme Court. BD2412 T 18:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are two more reasons why a nomination could fail: 4) (or maybe it should be a subset of 3) the nominee is approved by the Senate but dies before taking office (such as Edwin M. Stanton); 5) the Senate can "postpone indefintely" the Senate hearing without ever holding a vote. I agree with you about the additional subcategories ... just give us some time.  :-) --Kralizec! 19:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd categorize an indefinite postponement as a rejection - and a death after approval but before swearing in as a successful nomination! BD2412 T 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with all the Category:Jewish American actors, etc. already around -- Perfecto  00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ambiguous (what is a "race"?) and redundant as per nom. Valiantis 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 'race' is a poor word. even 'ethnicity' is problematic. the idea behind this cat seems to be that there are three basic ethnicities - African, Asian and European - but the trouble with this is that it is far more a categorical division of convenience (for a poorly done census return or something) than of fact - ethnicities do not divide up so clearly and conveniently -Mayumashu 14:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are too many ethnic categories already. Carina22 17:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't provide much information. --Vizcarra 07:30, 22 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep as is. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Dimension" is not a topic, it is an object, so it should be plural. -- hike395 16:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What we're discussing in most of these articles is not different dimensions, but different notions of dimension. Lebesgue covering dimension, Hausdorff dimension, and inductive dimension, are not usually treated as "objects"; more as "concepts". That's the mathematical side--from the physical side, I hardly think dimensional analysis can reasonably be called "a dimension" either. --Trovatore 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, with Trov, that is. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a topic, not an object. -- Dominus 20:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Trovatore. Blackcap | talk 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Trovatore. Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• dubitative: on the agree side, consider that the equality of some dimensions are still conjectures (for instance, equality of Kaplan-Yorke dimension and information dimension has been only partially settled). Consider also that the concept of dimension appeared in several contexts (topological spaces, algebra, statistics, partial orders). Hence a plural could mimetic the category Duality theories. On the oppose side, all these dimensions seems to be at least "cousin", and the singular is usually more natural than the plural when performing a search. Thus a singular would mimetic Geometry. pom 01:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if it is a topic, shouldn't it be called Category:Dimensionality ? -- hike395 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dimension theory might make sense, but it might exclude too much. (Certainly it should exclude Dimensional analysis, which frankly I don't think belongs with the other articles, so that doesn't bother me. What might bother me a little is if it excluded things like VC dimension, which probably aren't dimension theory as usually conceived, but are conceptually similar enough to be included.) --Trovatore 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Dimension theory is a standard mathematical topic. The analogy is with something like Category:Symmetry. Charles Matthews 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Trovatore. However, there is also a need for Category:Dimension theory as a subcat of topology. linas 03:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting ambiguous. Are the last 2 opposes voting against Category:Dimension theory, Category:Dimensionality, or both? -- hike395 06:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB Category:Dimension theory now exists as one of three subcategories, the others being Category:Dimensional analysis and Category:Fractals. It's a keep for me, now more than ever (I have voted above). Charles Matthews

• Oppose the topic of Dimension, sounds correct to me. --Vizcarra 20:39, 22 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Rename. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the name to Category:Cinema of Korea to be in line with every other country, so this one is empty. I moved the (4) articles from it already (sorry, I wasn't aware that they could be moved along with the category). - Bobet 17:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete as proposed. Honbicot 12:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed, and establish Cinema of foo as the convention for subcats of Category:Cinema by country at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as it's empty now. --Vizcarra 20:40, 22 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.