< May 20	May 22 >

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: listify. For sports where it's important, a specific category - left-arm bowlers, southpaw boxers, blah - would make sense.

Category:Left handed athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by intersection of occupation and trivial characteristic. True, left-handedness can be significant in some sports (e.g., baseball), as it can put the athlete in some sort of advantage, or disadvantage, depending on the sport and the particular situation. However, to have a category for all athletes that are left-handed will be vastly overinclusive, because it will include athletes in sports where handedness of the participants is insignificant trivia. (For example, Manu Ginóbili is currently in the category. He's a basketball player, and in basketball handedness is not generally a significant issue (apart from the fact that most players have to learn to shoot competently with both hands).) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but no runners etc. I know nothing about basketball but would be surprised if it as insignificant a factor there as the nom claims. It is certainly very important in cricket. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three basketball players are in the category right now and lefthandedness is not mentioned in two of the articles, let alone cited. (It is cited in the Manu Ginóbili article.) As I said, players generally need to learn to dribble and shoot with both hands, so handedness becomes irrelevant once someone masters the necessary skills. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created this category. Manu Ginobili's left handedness actually does provide him with an advantage. Most defenders are right handed, and trying to poke a ball away that in a different direction can be frustrating. Also Manu does take his shots with his left hand and blocking that can be difficult as well. When I was playing NBA Live 07 the commentators were actually talking about Manu's left hand being an advantage. And in the 2004 NBA Eastern Conference Finals, Tayshaun Prince made a huge block on Reggie Miller. It's because of his left hand that he was able to come out and just swat it away without making contact with Miller. If a right handed person did that he would have been called for a foul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontractkilla (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restrict to where it is relevant (it has to be cited - it would be surprising if we could discover whether Lord Coe is left-handed). Tennis, cricket, soccer(left-footed). And there is already a large subcat for southpaws. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Except it should be 'Left-handed sportspeople' (per Left-handedness and Category:Athletes which doesn't include boxers, cricketers, basket ballers etc). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, better. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete - similar to the recently-deleted "counter-clockwise spinning figure skaters" or whatever it was called. Interesting fact about the sportsperson in question, not rising to the level of defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't similar to figure-skaters - in cricket, tennis, baseball, boxing, there is an opponent whose handedness is critical to the contest. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In a handful (heh) of sports it's important. Meaning that in the vast majority of sports (American football, figure skating, speed skating, volleyball, skiiing, running, motorsports, swimming, I could go on for days) the handedness of the sportsperson has no relevance to athletic performance. Otto4711 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed; it should be restricted to those sports, ideally and eventually by only having sub-cats like the Southpaw one, & no loose articles in the main cat. I was surprised there don't seem to be any cricket cats already; it is totally defining for spinners - see Left-arm orthodox spin etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You know as well as I do that this won't be restricted once the category scheme gets established. We will get leftie categories for every sport and a series of left-handed pissing contests at CFD over them. Best to nip it now by creating a list article and shutting down the category option. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that - where would they get the information? But if necessary I will be happy to keep voting to delete Category:Left-handed marathon runners. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete per Otto. However, I believe the list should also include golfers who swing left-handed. Note that this does NOT mean being left-handed in everyday life—see Ben Hogan, who was left-handed but swung right-handed, as opposed to Phil Mickelson and Mike Weir, right-handers who swing lefty. Although the handedness of a golfer is not critical to his or her performance, so few top golfers through history have been left-handed that when one does win an important event, his or her handedness is invariably noted. In fact, Mickelson's most common nickname is "Lefty", as he is arguably the most successful left-handed golfer in history (though one could also make a case for Bob Charles). — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (update to comment by me... grammar and noted Bob Charles)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Left-handed sportspeople. Add to the headnote that only participants in sports left-handedness is a significnat characteristic should be included. This should become a parent category, with separate subcategoreis for those sports where it is singificant (e.g. cricket). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is overcategorization. Outside of boxing and baseball, we don't spend much time discussing athletes' handedness. Weight lifting? No. Football? Who cares. Swimming, running, curling? Heck, no. It matters in some cases but not broadly enough for categorization. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! What next - blonde magicians? Flowerparty^☀ 07:45, 4 June 2008 (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: merge Category:Bethlehem Shipbuilding to Category:Defunct shipbuilding companies of the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bethlehem Shipbuilding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It is a category for a defunct company and category has no navigational value. OccamzRazor (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How did this get a merge, when there are more keep votes?Telecine Guy (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there are many Bethlehem shipyards. But, the new should be Bethlehem shipyards not Bethlehem Shipbuilding. Category:Bethlehem shipyardsTelecine Guy (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability does not expire, and Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation is a notable, albeit defunct, company. The company operated at least four shipyards in Fore River, Sparrows Point, San Francisco, and Staten Island in the United States, and the category serves as a convenient way to link the articles on individual shipyards with Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, the shipbuilding company. --Eastmain (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Notability is an issue pertaining to articles, not categories. As the creator of this particular category, it is expected that you would vote in favor of keeping it. However, can you show that this category is truly useful? I don't believe it is. The main article -Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation - includes a comprehensive list of all shipyards that were owned by Bethlehem at various times. Most of the shipyards listed were owned by multiple corporations during their existence and would not therefore fit in a special catetgory for Bethlehem Shipbuilding. Therefore, I believe the main corporation article itself, which contains a comprehensive list of shipyards once owned, is sufficient as a navigational hub directing to articles about shipyards that were at times owned by Bethlehem, even though the majority don't even have an article on Wikipedia. OccamzRazor (talk)

• Upmerge to Category:Defunct shipbuilding companies of the United States - Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation serves as an appropriate navigational hub for this material, as it contains a list of all of the yards operated by Bethlehem. Should there be a sudden explosion of articles for Bethlehem's shipyards then there is no prejudice to recreating the category but for now it isn't warranted. The notability of the shipyard is not relevant to whether it should have a category as notability refers to articles. Otto4711 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I can find at least five articles linked in main article that should be included in the category (and are not currently). There are also other yards mentioned in the article that in due time may be written, and could also be added to the category. On another matter, it is utterly irrelevant if the company is defunct or not. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as a single entry category. Both the article and the category shared the defunct parent so I dropped that from the category. The points made about deleting the category since it is a defunct company are not material. Also, if there are other articles that should be included, then they can be added and notice provided here so that opinions on what to do with this nomination can be changed if the additional contents justify a change in position. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No longer a single-entry category. Another editor removed the category from a page, and I restored it pendng resolution of this CfD. I would regard this category as appropriate for any shipyard ever owned by BethShip, even if it was subsequently sold. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll still say delete since there is a complete list in the company article. With so few do we really need a category? With some editors suggesting 10 or 20 entries is too small, clearly this may be to small especially if it is not likely that there will be more. By adding the additional entries, a simple upmerge is no longer possible since some of these are not defunct, some of the yards are still active or at least the renamed version (does that make it defunct?). So delete and then back add if anyone really feels the need. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Otto4711. Lou Sander (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and categorise the rest of the yards into (see list in comapny article). The scope of the company's activities will be of historic importance. Oppose upmerge, which would scatter a coherent group of yards among many others. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2008 (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: merge Category:Acadian to Category:Acadian people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Acadian to Category:Acadian people

Nominator's rationale: Merge, apparent duplicate category for people who are Acadian. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Obvious merge candidate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge to Category:Acadia - cat page is empty now, so academic, but there s also Category:Acadian culture, Category:Acadian history etc. Mayumashu (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (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: merge into Category:Irish_television_programmes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Irish_television_programmes. Ian Cheese (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge to Category:Irish television series to match many of the subcats of Category:Television series by country, all of which should be renamed to 'series' to reflect the fact that these cats are about a group (series) of programs, not just a singleton program. Hmains (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I speedy deleted this as empty and did not get back here to close before the above comment. At this point I think it is best to leave this open. The deletion really lost nothing and if the consensus is to do a reverse merge, then that can happen at the end of the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note No barrier to recreation - in fact the reverse merge would plainly be stupid, & this would be a perfectly valid cat if it had contents. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while many things done in WP are 'stuped' by some definition or another, what would be 'stupid' about making category name to be Category:Irish television series to match the content of the category and to match its sister categories in Category:Television series by country Or maybe you are referring to 'reverse merge' to accomplish this result? Hmains (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing merging Category:Irish_television_programmes, a category covering all Irish TV programmes, including the News, Category:Irish television films etc etc into Category:Irish television series. Stupid doesn't seem an inappropriate description of this idea. Or was that not what you meant? It is what you said. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - as I understand it, "series" means something different in British television lingo than it does in America. Here a "series" refers to the show itself, with subdivisions of that series being called "seasons." What Americans call a "season" the Brits call a "series," so using the word "series" in British categories is ambiguous. I think the parent category can stand the British exception without crumbling off its foundation, certainly without requiring the level of vitriol it's inspired to date. Otto4711 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (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. This should have been speedied. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finnish GLBT celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merge. First, WP uses "LGBT", not "GLBT", but since I'm proposing deletion that is neither here nor there. Rather than classify people as "LGBT celebrities" of a specific nationality, it seems more sensible to classify them (1) as LGBT people of a particular nationality, and (2) as LGBT people of a particular occupation. In other words, those in the category should be merged into Category:LGBT people from Finland and the appropriate category(ies) of Category:LGBT people by occupation. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this should be deleted. I couldn't, at first, find the proper category, then I found it: category:LGBT people from Finland. Sorry abouT the confusion! Best Leopea (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can probably be speedied on the basis that it was an erroneous creation that was abandoned as soon as its creator (Leopea) found the existing category. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (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. If someone wants it listified, let me know, though I don't find it necessary. Wizardman 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biblical polygamists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: First of all, Category:Polygamists was deleted over a year ago. That said, this article seems like a trivial intersection. Out of the 14 people listed, how many of them are MOST notable because of polygamy? The categorization tree for Category:Biblical people is not arranged in a manner which necessitates breaking up the categories based on such characteristics (it is currently distributed based on prophethood/sainthood and what part of the bible the individuals are found). On top of that Category:Polygamy is also not broken down by polygamists (especially in light of the last CfD). This category serves no adequate purpose in view of how categories work on wikipedia.Andrew c ^[talk] 22:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and listify. It's not defining, and nowhere else in WP categories that I am aware of do we use marital status to classify people (with the exception of Category:Convicted bigamists, but that's more of a classification by criminal offence than by marital status). This seems to be the kind of thing that's ideal for a list. There's a list for Latter Day Saint practitioners at List of Latter Day Saint practitioners of plural marriage, which works far better than categories for Mormon polygamists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 21 May 2008 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heavy industry companies of Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - for pretty much the same reasons why the similar Saudi Arabian category was deleted. There is no objective definition of Heavy industry. While it's more likely that people would agree that the articles included here are engaged in "heavy industry" it's still POV to an extent in the absence of an objective definition. Each of the articles appears to be in one or more of the parent Category:Companies of Norway by industry so they will remain more precisely categorized on that basis. There is no Category:Heavy industry by country structure. This appears to be the only one remaining on WP and a similar one for South Korea was renamed over two years ago. Otto4711 (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (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: merge. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpinists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant duplicate of Category:Mountain climbers. Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Alpinists into Category:Mountain climbers. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom as duplicate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Mountain climbers as duplicate.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Alpinists should be those who climb in the (European) Alps. It should be a subcategory of Mountain Climbers. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Alpinists are those that climb in the European Alps? No doubt that is the root etymology, but isn't the word "alpine" a little bit more cosmopolitan than that now in 2008? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom It is rather outdated now with any meaning, and such a sub-cat would only be confusing. Nowadays no notable climber sticks to one continent, surely? The best case might be to keep it for early European climbers, but why bother? Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. If someone feels strongly about deleting, bring that up in a new nomination. I changed one target from 'Austrialian descent' to 'Australian descent'. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

• Category:Ukrainian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Ukrainian descent
• Category:Turkish-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Turkish descent
• Category:Swiss Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Swiss descent
• Category:Swedish-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Swedish descent
• Category:Spanish-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Spanish descent
• Category:Serbian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Serbian descent
• Category:Scottish-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Scottish descent
• Category:Russian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Russian descent
• Category:Romanian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Romanian descent
• Category:Portuguese-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Portuguese descent
• Category:Polish-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Polish descent
• Category:Panamanian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Panamanian descent
• Category:Norwegian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Norwegian descent
• Category:Moroccan-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Moroccan descent
• Category:Lithuanian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Lithuanian descent
• Category:Lebanese Brazilians and Category:Lebanese-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Lebanese descent
• Category:Korean-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Korean descent
• Category:Japanese Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Japanese descent
• Category:Jamaican Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Jamaican descent
• Category:Italian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Italian descent
• Category:Iraqi Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Iraqi descent
• Category:Hungarian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Hungarian descent
• Category:Greek-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Greek descent
• Category:German-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of German descent
• Category:French-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of French descent
• Category:Ethiopian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Ethiopian descent
• Category:English-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of English descent
• Category:Dutch-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Dutch descent
• Category:Danish-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Danish descent
• Category:Czech-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Czech descent
• Category:Croatian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Croatian descent
• Category:Chinese-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Chinese descent
• Category:Chilean-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Chilean descent
• Category:Bulgarian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Bulgarian descent
• Category:Bolivian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Bolivian descent
• Category:Belgian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Belgian descent
• Category:Basque-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Basque descent
• Category:Austrian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Austrian descent
• Category:Australian Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Austrialian descent
• Category:Armenian-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Armenian descent
• Category:Argentine-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Argentine descent
• Category:Arab Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Arab descent
• Category:Angolan-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Angolan descent
• Category:American-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of American descent
• Category:Afro-Brazilians to Category:Brazilians of Black African descent

(all tagged)

Nominator's rationale: continuation of alike nominations made within the last few weeks (of subcats for Category:British people by ethnic or national origin, Category:French people by ethnic or national origin, Category:German people by ethnic or national origin) for reasons stated in discussions on these recent nominations Mayumashu (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - And I'd probably say the same about all intersections of ethnicity and nationality. (So I'll likely ignore cries of WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) This is just too vague. How far back do we go for someone to qualify for inclusion? Is this really that different than, for example, "Irish football players"? And does this mean that such cats will grow to include every possible intersection? Do we really wish to see such categories as: British-Swahili-Macedonian-Bosnian-Jews? Really. Look at this list. And this is just those from Brazil! So to me this is just an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. - jc37 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  go back as far as there is that can be referenced - providing sources limits severly what can be done with these pages; I don t understand the "Irish football players" reference; there is nothing at all here suggestive in random intersection - here its one intersection of citizenship with ethnicity/national origin (refer to the discussion on Category:Americans with German-Irish ethnicity recently held, where the same users saying 'rename' here said 'delete' there for incidental intersection; the example given at WP:Overcat.#Non-not. intersection is nationality+ethnicity+occupation, a so-called triple intersection Mayumashu (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my comments directly below. - jc37 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - per previous reasons. These are dble intersections whereas jc37's are triple or more. Category:Irish footballers? It would indeed be nice (but unrealistic in wiki-reality) to get rid of all these at a stroke, and save Mayumashu a great deal of work (just another 239 or so countries to go - there are 245 listed on List of countries - fortitude!). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See, that's exactly the problem. I was speaking of Irish ethnicity and you brought up a nationality cat : )

  These are (presumably) a mix of nationality and ethnicity. (Or even possibly a mixture of ethnicities.) The point of the WP:OC link is that intersecting ethnicity doesn't sound like it's "defining". One can claim the nation of an individual may be defining enough to create a category grouping, but to have ethnicities for every BLP? And worse, intersect all the possible ethnicities with other possible notable aspects of the BLP? (Such as nationality, or profession.) Sounds like a bad idea to me. I think I'm going to have to scour the archives, because I vaguely recall a large chunk of ethnicity intersectioned cats being deleted in the past for just these reasons. - jc37 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I see these as nationality intersections - present nationality (Brazilian) intersected with nationality of a forebear (fooian), apart from Afro-Brazilian (and Basque-Brazilian is becoming rather tenuous). There is a comprehensive article on Afro-Brazilians, so there the intersection is in fact non-trivial. (I expect one would be hard pressed to write much of an article on Dutch-Brazilians but I might be wrong.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if we were to look at them that way, then you've now brought the question of the notability of the ancestor, much less the ancestor's nationality. And even if so, wouldn't such a cat be more appropriate on that person's article? In addition, I just am having a hard time imagining categories such as: "Decendants of Brazil nationals" (or some such name) being a "good idea". The closest I can think of are things like the Daughters of the American Revolution (pretending for a moment that such would be a category of decendants, rather than members of an org). But even those ancestors are notable due an historic (notable) event. Decendants of pilots in WWII might even pass muster based on your definition. But a general category of anyone who's a decendant of anyone who's ever lived in a certain country? I'll leave the obviously confusing Jew/Israel question alone, but how about Italy? When I consider the Roman Empire... Or Turkey (Ottoman Empire). Or (here's a fun one) CHINA! Will that include anyone throughout history who's descended of a past citizen of China? Will that include people from Taiwan? Cambodia? Japan!?

  And that's not even dealing with the question of intersecting such categories. Such potential intersections could potentially bring together ancestors from far in the past with those of the recent past. Who decides how long ago is "too long"? Would we be getting into questions similar to the One-drop rule? Should we have categories to categorise those who we might "neutrally" define as Quadroons? I sincerely hope not.

  And now, since current convention is to limit to "only two", which two do we pick? If someone's mother is from Germany, and their father is from the US, but his father's mother is from Brazil, and his father's father is from Ireland, what cat does this person belong in? And if this person marries someone from Brazil and they have a child, and the child becomes the new pop singing sensation (and becomes "notable" along the way, having an article created), what category would that person belong in? (Consider also the excellent example of Mariah Carey.) Who decides which two ethnicities are applicable? And what criteria do we base that upon?

  And what if the person denies the heritage? (Let's say for religious or nationalistic reasons). Imagine if a Wikipedian uncovered some WP:RS that some high-ranking official in a country persecuting people of certain ethnicity was of the persecuted ethnicity. What if the person denies the ancestry? Consider the WP:BLP concerns then. And what should we treat as verifiable reliable sources? What the person states? What their parents may state? What some magazine or journal may have stated?

  It would appear that ethnicity is just too subjective (and problematic) for such categorisation, and really should be dealt with in mainspace where explanations can be indicated.

  And as for your comments about existing (or potentially existing) articles, personally, I'm thinking that this is a classic example of how "not every article needs to have an associated category". - jc37 03:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If Belgian is an ethnicity then I am a Dutchman. This is a simple cfd to rename existing ill-named hold-all categories into a more coherent scheme. I merely wish to know whether a Fooian-Booian is at home in Boo or in Foo. At present we have Italian-Irish who are (apparently) at home in America; an African American is at home in America; a British Asian is at home in Britain; Brewcrewer below would like Swiss Brazilians to be at home in either Foo and Boo (despite what the article says). By all means tag all Booian-Fooian categories for deletion (especially the American ones) - I would support delete, and would anticipate a 'no consensus keep' (possibly after multiple DRVs). In the meantime let them be renamed. (Category:People of Brazilian descent.) There are also Americo-Liberians - worth a read. (Mariah Carey seems to be in the 'descent' categories I would expect from reading her article. There are more than 2, so I'm not sure what your point might be. Vivica Genaux is better still.)-- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The point was if you have 3 or more ethnicities (national descents, if you prefer), who decides which two to "count" for categorisation? And what criteria do they they use to make that choice?

  As for the rest, I have no problem with us taking these on a step at a time, to eventually delete them all. The "triple" intersections are already conventionally deleted.

  An thinking about it, there's no neutral reason I can think of that 2 intersections is ok, but 3 is not. It sounds rather subjective to me. And honestly, aren't we actually incorrectly categorising such people? If we put someone who has more than two in a category which only defines two, are we not then miscategorising the individual? (Perpetrating a falsehood?) Who decides which two are "the most notable"? As I mentioned, it's subjective, not neutral, and really seems like a bad idea. - jc37 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Reflect upon Einstein and see what you think. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the entire pacifists tree should probably be group nommed per WP:OC#OPINION. There are quite a few others that I might question as well. I seem to recall that the dividing line was whether the nationality, ethnicity, gender-based intersection was "notable" in and of itself. I'll leave the question of how to define the word "Jew" for some other discussion, but in looking over the other examples, do you see notable reasons for such intersections? - jc37 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there are too many articles about "ancestries" of Brazilians. Articles like "Afro-Brazilian" or "Italian Brazilian" must stay. But articles like "Swiss Brazilian" are quite unnecessary. Opinoso (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These "descents" will - by applying the cat correctly and literally - cause crazy overcategorizations. Most of us, without even consulting family trees, know about being descendant from multiple countries of origin and ethnicities. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But there is no difference that I can discern between the existing Swiss-Brazilian - 'A list of Brazilian-born or naturalized people with Swiss family origins' and the proposed rename. So the floodgates which you fear are already open. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you found one cat that was incorrectly described. But that can easily be fixed (and I did), but it is far more difficult to rename a category. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?? but what you ve described with this statement requires POV to determine - how is a 'strong connection' decided upon at all objectively - and your description would have both Brazilian or Swiss citizens in the same list, not to mention including expatriates, Brazilian in Switerland and Swiss in Brazil. (at least, you d need to split the list between Category:Brazilian dispora in Switzerland and Category:Swiss diaspora in Brazil, surely) all this inclusiveness is just what these recent renamings is countering. Mayumashu (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom and roundhouse. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT, trivial, POV, subjective, and useless to boot, per my comments on similar CFDs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename - We have had this kind of discussion too many times already. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. DutchDevil (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]