The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this as one of around two dozen categories listed on Bob Hope's article. Many of the other people tagged with it also have a large number of categories. This is much better covered by a list, which exists. The categorisation of people is getting out of hand, imposing some restraint is essential or the system will be ruined. Osomec 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First-off, this is a re-do of a former nom, but since then we've seen something of a creeping consensus emerge that it is inappropriate for any category that is grouped as "x by country" to contain categories named "Fooish x". "Fooish," after all, is a nationality, not a country, so it stands to reason that the overarching category's name is a straight-up linguistic misrepresentation. Conversely, "x by nationality" categories are not expected to take the form "x (of/in/etc) Fooland". (The one exception are the Republic of Congo/Democratic Republic of Congo-type situations where useable Fooishes are not forthcoming.) So I say let's give'er another kick.
When the whole category naming convention-party went down last year, I don't think it was really understood that suddenly we'd get to a situation where a relatively sensible system would emerge without ever emphatically having it out over it in one talk page. And yet categories are far, far, tidier today than they were six months ago after a series of incremental adjustments often made without too much concern for what sort of grand system would emerge. Go us!
A by country/by nationality split seems to have oozed into existence along the following lines—"by country" for things that are spatially fixed or somehow loosely associated with the governing apparatuses of various states, "by nationality" for things that are more abstractly linked to notions of nationhood, often self-identified and usually not constrained by borders. Greek art is as much Greek art in a gallery in California as it would be in Athens. Conversely, you can take a Picasso into an Athens museum and it doesn't become Greek. Vietnamese people are Vietnamese no matter what chunk of earth they sit on. A Vietnamese person can emigrate to Canada, potentially losing Vietnamese legal citizenship in the process, but if they can still be identified most readily as Vietnamese (whether they themselves are emphatic about it, or we outsiders perhaps a few decades later stick to such associations), then the categorization stands. That's why someone like Alexander Graham Bell can be American, Scottish and Canadian all at once. Nationality also holds up a lot easier with shifting political and demographic factors over history. Saladin and Hammurabi aren't Iraqis, for instance, but the Euphrates is a river in the country of Iraq.
This clump of categories is a significant chunk of the remaining outliers to the aforementioned split. We have the general form Fooian radio/magazines etc., but the parent cats all use by country. Kurieeto has thankfully taken on a few of the last remaining other outliers below; we ought to be pretty close to closing this weirdness out altogether if we pass them all.
I favour treating media as a fundamentally non-territorial concept, akin to a play or a literary tradition. While it would be possible to empirically file all media sources by the patch of ground on which their CEO's desk is or where the AVID unit that puts together that final cut of a news segment, I don't think gybes with how the average person identifies media: The Times of London is British the same way The Beatles are British, not "of the United Kingdom" the way Loch Ness is "of the United Kingdom." NBC is American the same way line-dancing is American, not "in the United States" the way the Sears Tower is "in the United States." (In fact, there's a whole WTO/UNESCO background to this issue that backs this up involving Sheila Copps and split-run magazines and the ruling that cultural industries weren't state-linked that I can't go into at this time, but media studies sorts will no doubt get where I'm going)
I think this is especially true in the general globalization-heavy millieu we live in: these days, printing presses and transmission towers and ownership groups or any media outlet that could be used to construct a geospatial frame of reference may be located on entirely different continents from the original cultural location, which endures in the form of the normative cultural identity we all commonly ascribe to that media outlet. (Exhale.) In other words, the BBC is "British media" even when the newscaster is South Asian coming from their Washington studio for broadcast outside the UK on the international service. The Jerusalem Post is "Israeli media" even though it was at one time owned by Canadian/British git. A category name like "Newspapers in France" that includes International Herald Tribune doesn't strike me as superbly effective.
So I'm going to say rename this and its various daughters as such:
Apologies for the above essay. I got on a roll. The Tom 20:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Withdrawn - TexasAndroid 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More accurate term. --Dangerous-Boy 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 02:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Description and albums included refer to punk rock albums. 2. Category level up is Punk rock albums. Visor 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why have a longer name, which is not entirely comprehensive (community building is only a part of what makes community)? Community building may have it's own subcategory withing the community category, but currently this term doesn't even have it's own article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much orphaned. not even really used by WP:CJ. Computerjoe's talk 17:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by Proto --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned cat, subjective name, only two articles both of which are also in the much more widely used Category:Right-wing populists. Category:Far-left politicians is nominated for deletion below and the consensus so far is to delete that too, hence there are also issues of balance and NPOV to consider. Valiantis 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a by nationality category in line with category:Writers by nationality. Rename Bhoeble 15:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename both in plural form. Syrthiss 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common problem on WP, of confusing "soundtrack" with "film score". There has never been a "best soundtrack oscar". The Oscar category has gone through several names, but "best original music score" would probably be the simplest. JW 14:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was upmerge. Syrthiss 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category has existed since December of 2005, but only contains 2 images. I see it as unneccessary categorization. Proposal is to merge it with its parent cat, Category:Company logos. Kurieeto 14:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete (as the article exists already in the merge target). Syrthiss 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian reality television series already serves the purpose of categorising reality television shows in Australia. This category isn't necessary and is non-descriptive. Contains just 1 article which is also found within the Australian reality television series category. -- Longhair 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename to Aircraft manufacturers of Foo. Syrthiss 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following Aircraft manufacturers by country categories are named "Nationality x". However, as they contain exclusively manufacturing companies, I believe that they should be following the Wikipedia naming convention for companies, which is to use "of country" as defined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Two new category wordings would be acceptable to me: "Aircraft manufacturers of x" or "Aircraft manufacturing companies of x". The contents of Cat:Aircraft manufactuers by country are proposed for renaming to follow established company naming conventions as follows, with a choice between two wordings for their renaming:
--Kurieeto 11:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename to Hawaiian businesspeople to match both parent cats. Syrthiss 02:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category uses "businesspeople", ie category:American businesspeople. Scranchuse 02:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]