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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose either deletion or splitting of category. Racial categories were discouraged in this earlier Cfd discussion on the since deleted Category:British people of Black African descent parent cat. Also, no comparable Category:White British writers exists. Alternatively, recommend parsing existing pages into Category:Afro-Caribbean writers and constituent Sub-Saharan African writer categories (e.g. Category:Nigerian writers). Also note that WP:CATEGRS disallows such racial categories: "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a ridiculous idea. I have googled the term 'Black British writers' and it brought back over 1 million results. The category has nothing to do with 'white british writers', which is entirely irrelevant. Black British writing and writers are established subjects of academic and journalistic thought. For example, this in this Guardian article [[1]] Catherine Johnson writes "There is clearly no shortage of talented black writers – Courttia Newland, Malorie Blackman and Andrea Levy, to name a few" At this BBC History page, [[2]] Onyekachi Wambu writes "Black British literature, or that literature written in English by Caribbean, Asian, African, and other people who originated from the ex-British Empire, has an ancient pedigree, as ancient as the Empire itself." Goldsmiths College offers an M.A. in Black British Writing [[3]]. If Wikipedia were to delete this category it would make the entire website seem lacking in intellectual rigour. The social category 'black' cannot be reduced to either 'Afro-Caribbean', nor to 'Sub-Saharan African', nor to 'Nigerian'. It is not dependent on Carlton Coon's bizarre theories of race but has emerged in many societies, for many reasons and in many ways.Ackees (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"White British writers" similarly brings back almost 1 million results, but yet that category doesn't exist. This brings us to the crux of the problem with this category and all similar ones: they require editors to make a subjective judgement call as to which individuals racially "belong" in that category. Consequently, WP:CATEGRS discourages such categories (see above). Middayexpress (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Black British' is a very well recognised social identity not a pseudo-scientific 'racial bloc'. That is not to say that 'race' and 'racism' as social constructs are irrelevant to black identity. Writers in the UK, who identify as black, such as Rageh Omar, are not making grand statements about 'racial genetic' theories, they are talking about a sense of belonging to what is ultimately a series of socio-political identity groups - black people. I appreciate that this is a subtle theory and not easy to grasp, but bruv, there it is. Black identity in the UK is not primarly determined by US, or Caribbean, or African 'race relations' - it is a fluid and developing concept that occurs in the UK.Ackees (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Key word: fluid. In other terms, who is and who isn't "Black British" is entirely at the discretion of the Wikipedian, like I wrote. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not at all... black British writers on Wikipedia are WP:NOTABLE and some black British writers, such as Nadifa Mohamed repeatedly identify themselves as black[4] If there is a WP:GOODFAITH mistake, no doubt a rational discussion, (eliminating WP:FRINGE theories) will fix things. Ackees (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Black British" arose in the 1980s to emphasize the political relationship between all ethnic minorities in Britain. It is now mainly used to refer to British nationals descended from first-generation Afro-Caribbean migrants, though the term is sometimes also extended on a political basis to all African or Caribbean immigrants [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a disallowed categorization by race. The "do not categorize by race" rules make it pretty obvious we should not be categorizing people by race in this manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no rule or convention which states "do not categorize by race". There has been consensus in the past that we do not categorize by mere skin colour. However, "Black British" is a well-recognised ethnicity and goes well beyond merely categorising by skin colour or "race", and Black British culture is a subject of academic study, of which writing is a subgroup. Ultimately, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to pick off this one category for deletion given the extensive nature of the subcategories within Category:Black British people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under the guidelines on categorizing by ethnicity and other things it says "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." That is a very specific directive to not categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement is meaningless unless you can explain by what you mean by "race" and how the definition differs from "ethnicity". Since the concept of "race" is so slippery, some would refer to an ethnicity as a "race", as you apparently have done, since you have taken the "Black British" ethnicity and referred to it as a racial classification. That confusion of the two concepts makes the guideline you refer to non-sensical. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. 'Black' is much too non-specific and is currently non-defined on the page and I would suggest it is pointless to try and come up with a satisfactory definition in the context of British writers. Googling is no guide at all to informing sensible knowledge management at WP. Many of the people currently listed in the cat in fact of mixed parentage such as Jackie Kay, Andrea Levy, Zadie Smith, George Lamming, Mary Seacole and Malcolm Gladwell. 'Black' is not a 'race' in any definable way, nor to do with nationality or ethnicity. We should not categorise by melanin skin content, which is what this comes down to; unless you're planning to use the cat as catch all for 'people who are not white'. Nice. Span (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, I think you're right. Perhaps it's the parent category itself that should be nominated. We don't, for example, see a Category:White British people. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GO; Black British writing is widely recognised as a distinct literary category, just like its US equivalent. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Black British is the established name to refer to a specific ethnic group, as used on census, and some seeing it as being a less politically correct name than other ethnic group names is not our concern. Black British writers as a topic has received academic scrutiny. I can't see why this would be deleted without also deleting both the entire Black British tree and half the Writers by ethnicity tree.--Qetuth (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:CATEGRS#Ethnicity_and_race: "Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group.. See Lists of ethnic groups for groups that are typically considered ethnic groups rather than races." Black British is listed. So in this case it would pass. This is an esoteric side of Wikipedia rules but it does support categorization by Black British. (props to Andrewaskew for finding it). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed on that page because someone added it, though it shouldn't be according to the definition of an ethnic group. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not simply a matter of how Wikipedia categorizes people but of how people self-define. Some writers would probably not comfortably place themselves in any other category. Proscribe (talk)
Comment - Black British as a term refers mainly to Afro-Caribbeans (c.f. [6]). What makes it a racial term is the adjective "Black". Had this been Category:White British writers, this would perhaps be more obvious. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This idea of Category:White British keeps coming up in this discussion. The short answer is that White British, White people, and even Caucasian race are not on the list so are easily disallowed.
The longer more involved answer has to do with cultural differences that are similar to the differences between American and British English discussed on MOS:SPELL. In American cultural contexts Black operates as a somewhat inulting adjectival race descriptor; the proper ethnographic term is, I believe, African American (to the extent that I have heard American people use the term "Australian African American"). In British cultural contexts Black is more neutral, and is operating less as an adjective and more as part of an ethnographic compound noun (though not literally). The term is more like Blackbritish than Black... British.
If editors are still opposed to the term, then that is less a problem for Cfd, and more something to be discussed on Talk:Black British with WikiProject Ethnic groups and it's descendent WikiProject African diaspora. Though I believe you would have quite a fight on your hands, make sure you know your policies and sources. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Black British and WP:EGRS. While the current situation with ethnicity-related cats is argueably still in flux, if we follow the current reading of WP:EGRS, then this can arguably be kept. Not a strong keep by any means. For one thing, there is no assertion that what all these black british writers are writing meets the criteria of EGRS. So some are being categorised merely because some others meet the criteria. Seems odd to me. But then, that's apparently the current situation of WP:EGRS-related categorisation. - jc37 00:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Black British" is a reasonably well-understood category, covering both direct Africans and West Indian descent. We do not have Afro-British (as an equivalent of Afro-American). Furthermore, there has bene a lot of imigration direct from Africa to UK, mostly from former colonies. This is a significant difference from USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists. The only way this would be a legitimate category is if the folks in the category were notable for being British AND a writer AND black, but aren't notable exclusive of any of those traits. Example : Martin Luther King's being Black AND a civil rights activist are pertinent to his notability; hence "Black Civil Rights Activists" would be an OK category for MLK. If he was either not black or not a civil rights activist his notability would likely be affected. A lot of the authors in this category just happen to be black. There "blackness" has nothing to do with their notability. Categorizing peopole by race when their race isn't pertinent to their notability is a very very very very very bad idea. Very bad idea. NickCT (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply - This misses the entire point of the argument. "Black British" is the name of an ethnic group as listed at Lists of ethnic groups. That the name used for this ethnic group in reliable sources happens to be made up of the words 'black' and 'british' seems to be confusing many people. If someone were black, British, and a writer, we would NOT categorise them by that intersection, because we do not categorise by race - the same reason why Martin Luther King is in no categories mentioning 'black' but half a dozen 'African American' ones. Splitting up the words as you have would be equivalent to, in your example, arguing that MLK would have to be all of 'civil, right, and and activist' (he was, I suppose, but that is not how the category works). Or that he shouldn't be categorised as 'African American' as he wasn't from Africa. --Qetuth (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not well-named. Is there a word Afro-British? How about "Authors who are Afro-British." I don't like my wording either, but authors should be first. Original sounds media-catchy, which is why someone is getting "hits" on it, but it's not encyclopedic, which is why we should merely "copy" the media. Student7 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Afro-British and such variations are not significantly used in the British context. There are innumerable literary and academic studies on the content/practitioners of Black British literature (e.g. http://udini.proquest.com/view/diaspora-consciousness-in-black-goid:305184713/), as well as many writers who categorize themselves as Black-British. Itbeso (talk)
keep as a perfectly legitimate category with 80+ correctly categorized articles in it. Editors here should take the time to read the category purpose and the link contained therein. Editors should also look at the parent categories to see how this exactly fits into them. Categories' purpose is to help readers navigate to sets of related articles and this category serves that valid purpose. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an absolutely legitimate category and to remove it would be counter-productive in terms of helpfulness to users of Wikipedia. Proscribe (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons explicated above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate category and subject of study. --Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a widespread and well-established category in literary criticism, theory and anthologies. Lorelei (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a necessary and useful category, for all the reasons already cited. Pensativa (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is well established category in scholarly writing, and informative to readers.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (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.
Category:People from Tatum Texas
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:speedy rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per C2A, C2C, and C2D. --Qetuth (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC
Speedy Rename. I am the editor who created the category. What happened is I accidentally left the comma out....William 13:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy per above. - jc37 00:26, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Newspapers by Winston Churchill
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:Merge. Small category with no chance of expansion, and not part of a category tree newspapers by editor. Tim! (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - jc37 00:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one article refers to a newspaper produced during the 1926 general strike. Churchill may have edited it. I doubt that he wrote much of it himself. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:People in history by country
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, conditionally. This is an extremely ill-advised scheme. People are correctly categorized by where they're from and what they do, but the mere association with a nation's history is quite spongy. However, none of the subcategories are nominated, so I have to complete this nomination before proceeding. I'm abating the deletion of this category for a week, so that I can put up the subcategories for deletion in a series of nominations. After a week, I'm closing all of those nominations based on the consensus in each. Assuming I don't see a flood of support for those, I'll finish the deletion of the category and its subcategories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:People in history by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a hopelessly vague categorization scheme. What constitutes being "in the history" of England? If this is deleted, then I propose that the national subcats. would be speedy deletions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What exactly is the purpose of this categorization? Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Feb 2007 deletion of Category:Canadian historical figures. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The subcategories should have been umbrella nominated. If deleted, speedy deletion does not mean you can remove the subcategories from each article yourself and request deletion per C1. There is a speedy deletion process. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all contents. To say people are in the "history" or a country always ends up being arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without such a category, the "History of Foo Country" categories become a hopeless mess of 90% biographies, obscuring the actual historical events. Further, when you have someone like, say, a British general who fought major campaigns in India, he can't go in "Indian people" because he's not Indian, despite him being prominent in the history of the country. So you can just chuck him into the "History" or "Military history of India" cat, but again, this results in "History of Foo Country" being a ton of bios crowding out the actual historical events which should be the main attraction of the cat. If y'all delete these cats, 91 biographies get dumped into "History of Pakistan", which isn't really helpful for cleaning up that cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to. We can just logically refuse to put any biographical articles in such categories. The British general in question would go into Category:People of British India, and maybe a subcategory for military. There is no reason to put people in history categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These kinds of things come up every time we get into categorising by the broad term "history". Everyone has a "history". So essentially, this becomes a duplicate of Category:People by country. Such duplication just makes navigation more difficult. - jc37 00:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do agree with the "everything/one has a history", as I'm often annoyed by towns being added to "History of [location]" articles, since clearly every town is part of "history" in that place. That said, do we have any policy somewhere saying that bios shouldn't go directly into a "History of [location]" category? They really make those cats a huge cluttered mess in every country cat I've seen. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This has a number of national categories, with many subcategories and articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Musicals by librettist templates
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are navboxes only, and are about the people, not the musicals.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of many useful subcats and subsubcats of Category:Works by author.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 28 November 2012 (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.
Category:Bisexual Asian-Americans
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:Bisexual Asian Americans to Category:American people of Asian descent and Category:Bisexual people. Merge Category:Bisexual African Americans to Category:Bisexual people and Category:LGBT African Americans. Merge Category:Bisexual American people of Cuban descent to Category:Bisexual people and Category:LGBT American people of Cuban descent. All of the target categories existed at the time this nomination was closed. I have my doubts that some of them will be around much longer. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Bisexual African Americans to Category:Bisexual people and Category:LGBT African-Americans
Merge Category:Bisexual American people of Cuban descent to Category:Bisexual people and Category:LGBT American people of Cuban descent
Nominator's rationale The basic problem, which was overlooked when one of these categories was previously discussed, is we do not have Category:Bisexual Americans. We have not divided Category:Bisexual people by nationality, it makes even less sense to divide it by ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, why make it harder for people to find this information? Often people want to find the bisexual, transgender, lesbian and gay subgroups within the larger umbrella of LGBT. We should make it easier not more difficult. Insomesia (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do not split by nationality, why are we splitting by sub-groupings of nationality?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per nom. Too fine a distinction to make given the category trees that are in place at present. Mayumashu (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not sure why the combination of being homosexual and of any descent is noteworthy. Nymfhideliho! 10:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Would that other projects be as active as the LGBT one! But at least we don't have to take up a lot of time thwarting un-useful categories of Physics or Geography. Student7 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2012 (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.
Category:Bisexual American people of Ecuadorian descent
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 to Category:LGBT American people of Ecuadorian descent. The sole article is also in Category:Bisexual Hispanic and Latino American people, so I have not merged to Category:Bisexual people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:Bisexual American people of Ecuadorian descent to Category:Bisexual American people and Category:LGBT American people of Ecuadorian descent
Nominator's rationale Oh wait, the first one does not exist, because we have not created a schema to divide Category:Bisexual people by nationality. There is even less reason to them subdivide the nationalities by ethnicity or ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per nom. Too fine a distinction to make given the category trees that are in place at present. Mayumashu (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why the combination of being homosexual and of any descent is noteworthy. Nymfhideliho! 10:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But yes, a standard method of subdividing groups should be followed. Why not "Ecuadorian-Americans who are Bisexual?" Or right-handed? Or who exceed a certain threshold of Twitter subscribers? Student7 (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2012 (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.
Category:Asian-American women
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 This will make the categories match the parent category Cateogry:American people of Asian descent and most of the other categories within that tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Let's remove from the naming of these categories the matter of whether is there is or not an 'Asian-American' ethnicity, as the matter seems to be all but one agreed upon. Mayumashu (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom. Mayumashu did great work a couple of years ago in doing mass-renaming of bual ethnic categories to the format Booian of Fooian descent. It is perhpas a pity that he did not get as far as tackling the USA ones, which curently remain an exception to the norm used for all other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Asian-Americans by state
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. It puzzles me why Asian-American is hyphenated and Chinese American isn't, but we can resolve that another time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale These categories all sound like they are for biographical aritcles but they are actually for articles related to the cultures. We have never agreed to divide people by ancestry by state, only to divide cultural institutions related to certain ethnicities by state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. and its rationale. Mayumashu (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominated Category:Czech Americans by state and a few other similar categories for renaming. I did not get through the whole list, but maybe half.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Republic of the Congo people
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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale First off, using nouns directly as adjectives is grammatically weird. Secondly, most people by country categoreis that have republic in them use the of form, such as Category:People of the French Third Republic, Category:People of the Republic of Venice, Category:People of the Weimar Republic. The goal seems to be a much better way to descibe the contents of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added Bosnia and Herzegovina. That one does not have the oddity of "Republic" in the name, but it is a truly difficult formation, so the new name seems better. Maybe I should have made that a seperate nom, but on the other hand, these renames are probably better off with as few seperate nominations as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This standard was adopted over the work of several years, and it should not be lightly discarded in a piecemeal fashion. The standard is "FOOian people", with "FOO people" being the default when there is no acceptable FOOian form. This format conforms to the naming conventions at WP:NCCAT. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Good Olfactory. There is nothing semantically vague about the present meaning that the suggested one would improve. I wouldn't mind if all were named 'people of fooian' (ultimately), but the naming convention itself and as a whole needs to be discussed. Mayumashu (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose There is no good reason at this time to change this category which has been good enough for some period of time. This is the way we currently handle names where FOOian is not an option. Hmains (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is unsatisfacotry to use a noun (especiually a compound noun) as if it was an adjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion of Bosnia and Herzegovinia people in this discussion, as has been done. That is a totally different discussion, this discussion was meant to focus specifically on place names which had the complicating issue of including the term "Republic".John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2012 (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.
Category:Inca Empire people
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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale This makes sense with the nature of Empires subjegating many people who are only loosely connected with the term. In the case of the Inca Empire, Inca was a designation for the rulers. The proposed form just makes the connection more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This standard was adopted over the work of several years, and it should not be lightly discarded in a piecemeal fashion. The standard is "FOOian people", with "FOO people" being the default when there is no acceptable FOOian form. This format conforms to the naming conventions at WP:NCCAT. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Good Olfactory. Mayumashu (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is; this is our current standard alternative when FOOian does not work. Hmains (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Imperial Russian people
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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Imperial Russian Jews to Category:Jews of the Russian Empire
Rename Category:Imperial Russian Muslims to Category:Muslims of the Russian Empire
Nominator's rationale These are some of very few categories that use this form. The much more common form is seen with Category:People of the German Empire, Category:People of the Mughal Empire, Category:People of the Mongol Empire, Category:People of the Ottoman Empire. This is partly because by their very nature most empires have many subjects who are never really descibed using the ethnonym of the empire. Thus many of the subjects of the Russian Empire were not at all Russian, many of the subjects of the Mughal Empire were not at all Mughals, and so forth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This standard was adopted over the work of several years, and it should not be lightly discarded in a piecemeal fashion. The standard is "FOOian people", with "FOO people" being the default when there is no acceptable FOOian form. This format conforms to the naming conventions at WP:NCCAT. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is Imperial Russia the standard when no other empire switches to Imperial in this way. This is clearly an outlier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FOOian form of people from the Empire of Russia is "Imperial Russian". As I mentioned above, the standard is to use "FOOian people". See the naming conventions. Just because you can find some categories that don't follow the naming conventions doesn't mean that it is not a valid naming convention. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Good Olfactory. Mayumashu (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is; this is our current standard alternative when FOOian does not work. Hmains (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no need for separate categories for pre-1917 Russia and post-1989 Russia. People from either country are still Russian pbp 04:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More consistent with other category names. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2012 (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.
Category:Austrian Empire people
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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Austrian Empire people to Category:People of the Austrian Empire
Strong oppose. This standard was adopted over the work of several years, and it should not be lightly discarded in a piecemeal fashion. The standard is "FOOian people", with "FOO people" being the default when there is no acceptable FOOian form. This format conforms to the naming conventions at WP:NCCAT. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Good Olfactory. Mayumashu (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is; this is our current standard alternative when FOOian does not work. Hmains (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:University Professors of the University of the Philippines
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.
Propose merging Category:University Professors of the University of the Philippines to Category:University of the Philippines faculty
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge I think it's a bad idea to split professors of an institution by academic rank as it makes it harder to find the articles. Readers looking for a particular biography are likely to know the institution at which an individual is employed but very unlikely to know their academic rank. Pichpich (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. This is an especially bad idea because many faculty will change academic rank over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but note that this does not appear to just be a regular academic rank, perhaps a list is justified. --Qetuth (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Professor does not have universal definition/meaning. - jc37 00:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I presume that the Phillipines, as a former US colony uses "professor" in the US sense, where the person does not necessarily hold a chair in his subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Started
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:Delete This doesn't really fit any of the speedy deletion criteria but the hatnote is "This page was created and maintained by two friends named NidhinNidhin And Sanal KrishnanSanal" so this is clearly not an acceptable use of the category system. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no inclusion criteria at all evident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good find Pichpich. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to see here. --Qetuth (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (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.
Category:Person of Interest
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:Delete Not enough content currently to warrant a category. If the category is kept it should at least be renamed to Category:Person of Interest (TV series). Pichpich (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to have a category that only has the article on the TV series it is named for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A main article and a list of episodes, which clearly link to each other, do not warrant a category. --Qetuth (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation should more articles necessitate it. though in that case, Rename as per User:Andrewaskew. - jc37 00:44, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Wikipedians named Jethro
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.
Delete per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I could weakly see this as a way to foster collaboration, shared names in user categorisation is actually less useful than Wikipedians who eat éclairs. Not to mention, imagine if we had a category for every Wikipedia username.... - jc37 00:44, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:New author
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.
Delete Does not fit any accepted categorizing schema.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No benefit to the wiki. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have Category:New Wikipedians. - jc37 00:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—All authors are new once, so this is a "current" category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2012 (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.
Category:Hong Kong television
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.
Rename per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hong Kong isn't a country, I think? I just looked at Category:Television in China, and I also see Category:Macau television. I'm not opposing this necessarily, but we should be consistent. - jc37 00:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just didn't get that far in alphabet yet. country or not, both would seem to take style of "television in foo"--96.232.126.27 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:People by city or town in Palestine
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.
Rename this category is meant to be limited to the Palestinian Territories. Palestine can be used in many senses, and until there is the formation of a country officially recognized with that name, we should use the Paletinian Territories form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2012 (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.
UN–HABITAT
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2012 (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.
Category:Orientale Province
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rivers of Orientale (province) to Category:Rivers of Orientale Province
Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Orientale (province) to Category:Populated places in Orientale Province
Propose renaming Category:People from Orientale (province) to Category:People from Orientale Province
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The article has been re-named Orientale Province; the categories should follow this renaming. This was proposed at WP:CFDS, but it was opposed on the basis that it could be confused with a region on the Moon. I don't find this convincing. Isn't it just called Mare Orientale? The Moon does not have "provinces", does it? Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object to speedy renaming. Both current names seem to be ambiguous, as can be confused with the lunar geologic province. The country name should be included as part of the category name. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Google, our article, and that articles sources, never seem to refer to Mare Orientale as a province. Objector makes a good argument against moving to Orientale (which appears to have been a factor in the article move), but not for Orientale Province. --Qetuth (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article. If that name is sufficiently unambiguous for the article it should work for the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2012 (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.
Category:Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
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: Overcategorization. Contains only two articles and 4 categories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it has four sub-cats, 2 articles and a template would suggest the top-level category is justified. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 4 subcats is not 'only'. (Reminds me of a time I asked a Nigerian how many tea-spoons of sugar he would like in his tea and he said 'Only 6'.) Oculi (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. I was in Sydney a few years ago, and an Australian guy I met said he'd offer me one of his beers, but he only had six left. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 19:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a top level cat of a major band. There is no real reason to delete this. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep When considering eponymous topic categories for musicians and musical groups, I don't look at anything beyond articles to determine whether there is "enough" in it. So in this case, I see subcategories for albums and band members. EPs are typically (with some debate) subcategorized under albums. At least there's discography page to give it something beyond established categorization schemes of albums and members. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful parent category. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 30ish items with a clear connection and inclusion criteria should be sufficient to make this useful. --Qetuth (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2012 (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.
Category:German Americans by city
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.
Rename Category:German Americans by city to Category:German culture by city in the United States
Nominator's rationale The current name makes this sound like a bio category. However it is not supposed to be a bio category, but to contain articles relating to "history or culture". I think we can headline everything under some meaning of "culture" and end the misleading nature of the cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (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.
Category:Place names of Czech origin in the United States
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.
Delete Category:Place names of Czech origin in the United States
Delete Category:Place names of Scottish origin in the United States
Delete Category:Place names of Dutch origin in the United States
Nominator's rationale In wikipedia we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. These categories are not much better than a category with a name like Category:Places named Glasgow, and in fact that is basically what the Scottish category degenerates into. There are a large variety of ways places get names, so this really tells us nothing about the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Question. Wasn't there a similar nomination about 12-18 months ago for other categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps CfD 2012/Jan/16 French origin or Cfd 2010/Sep/30 Swedish origin, though there are others. It's a real mess. There are dozens and dozens of place name categories that could be legitimate, but in fact are populated with articles about places and not about place names (e.g. Category:Place names of Native American origin in the United States, Category:Australian Aboriginal placenames)— not to mention dozens of categories of more questionable legitimacy such as Category:Non-Christian religious placenames in Britain, Category:Place names of Warwickshire origin in the United States, or Category:Entities with Scottish Gaelic names.- choster (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify a variation on cat by common name. No real navigational advantage. If it is encyclopedic, notable, verifiable etc then an interested author should be able to create an article on the topic. --Qetuth (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at this recent CFD discussion (see also: this earlier CFD). This recent trend for "picking on" a few categories which are part of a wider categorisation scheme ought to desist. Why on earth single out the Czech, Scottish and Dutch categories? What makes them different from all the others? --Mais oui! (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well we already deleted the French and Spanish categories. The fact of the matter is there are still about 30 sub-cats of the English names. The argument that this is by shared names holds throughout.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination a year ago failed largely because it started out as just focused on the Spanish names and people got really hung up early on the fact that only those had been nominated. Since we since deleted that category, I think there is even less reason to keep this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The ethnic origin of the name might point to the origin of the first settlers. On the other hand, it may refer to the surname of the founder, whose American roots were so old that the origin of his name are trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT by common name - like we did with eponymous cities long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with vigor. The few articles I have checked do not contain the information that one place was specifically named after another, therefore this is a category of "coincidence of name similarity" and can only be non-notable trivia. This is not to say a referenced list might not be a welcome addition to WP, but a category based on the ability of one or more editors to create a category of similar named places is not welcome. The first and main sentence of WP:CAT states, quite clearly and firmly, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." These categories don't even touch that -even if they are vaguely amusing and interesting.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. The background information on the names is useful to those who are interested in the cultural and ethnic history of the U.S. There already are lists for French, Spanish, and Czech-origin place-names. Shouldn't the Scottish and Dutch categories also be listified? Vis-a-visconti (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2012 (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.
Category:Books by writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas
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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale At present all of the contents of this category are books by Native Americans. It is currently within the tree of Category:American books. This currently sounds like an attempt to categorize by race, when we are only supposed to categorize by ethnicity. Since we can make it a more clearly ethnic (although whether Native American is ethnic as well as racial might be debated) category without changing any of its current contents we should. Since much of the category is sub-cats grouping books by specific author, the rename makes a lot of sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I don't agree with the nominator's rationale, however. 'Peoples indigenous to the Americas' can be a regional/national/ethnic, rather than racial, rubric. That said, the problem with the current category name is that it is too cumbersome, and all of the currently included members are Native American. If in the future there are articles about books by other authors, identified as being of First Nations or other non-Native American, indigenous ancestry, then the category can be re-created. Dezastru (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Is there really much to be gained by lumping in very different cultures together? Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Native American" is used virtually only in the United States. WP recognizes this by calling the name article for such people Indigenous peoples of the Americas which is NOT the same as Native Americans in the United States. I suggest instead Category:Books by Indigenous writers from the Americas or just Category:Books by Indigenous writers (which could also include Maori, native Hawaiians, etc. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a subsection of Category:American books so it is meant to be just for the US. Also the entire contents of the category are of people from the US. So that is what the category is, so I see no reason to give it a name that limits it to what it actually is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Kevlar. The current name is clunky but more precise. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is less precise, because it covers more things. The category only includes Native American things, and as I have already said twice is part of the American category. This category name is more inclusive, which is the exact opposite of being precise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point. But inclusion and precision are not direct opposites. One can very precisely define a large number of things, or vaguely list a small number. (Category:Every human being who has ever lived within 32.76 miles of a body of water versus Category:Some guy.) --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical category. Would we have Category:Books by writers from peoples indigenous to the Holy Land and put all Jewish authors in there (and Palestinian ones to boot). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This might be appropriate as a container category for the First Nations of Canada; Inuit; Native Americans (of USA); etc, but that is not how it is being used: these are disparate peoples, each with theri own culture and merely linked by not being imigrants fromn Europe or elsewhere. Several people advocating deletion are putting forward false comparisons, becasue there is no clear disticntion in most old world countries between natives and immigrants. The present title is a mouthful and I would prefer something better, but I am not sure what. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one person, not several, have advocated deletion. It would be nice if people looked over the actual contents of the category before making claims it is an acceptable trans-national category, when in reality it is all related to the US and to people who are without doubt Native American, at least as opposed to belonging to some other indigenous group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Books by Indigenous writers from the Americas per Kevlar. While the contents are currently only North American, the category inclusion notes are clearly meant to cover Central and South America as well. It needs re-parenting rather than deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just rename this category to what it actually is at present, and if people want to create a larger parent category nothing is stopping them from doing it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; there's more than one way to skin a cat. I was just indicating that the user's suggested could work. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (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.
Category:Wisconsin educators
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There are three reasons to do this. First off it will then match all the other by state categories for educators. Secondly the general trend with most things is x from state name. Thirdly the headnote on the category says "this category is for educators from Wisconsin".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per convention of Category:American people by occupation by state. --Qetuth (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2012 (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.
Category:Hawaiian Kingdom judges
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 to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii judges.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale to begin with this is a subcat of Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Secondly the current name is especially odd, since it is not clear that what it means, the easiest explanation of the current name is that it is for "Kingdom judges" that are Hawaiian, which does not make sense, but we still should go for a clear name that makes it clear what is being indicated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii judges. The standard format is "FOOian judges", so we should keep as close to that format as possible. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment however since the parent is Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii I think we should follow this form throughout. The basic problem is that "Kingdom of Hawaii" is not FOOian but a bare foo. It makes more grammatical sense when we can not turn the word easily into an adjective to use of to connect the two things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are an equal number of ones that have the word "Empire" in its name and yet use the other format, as in Category:Inca Empire people. And several of the ones that use "People of FOO Empire" were named that way via out-of-process moves. The point is that overall, across all categories, "FOOian people" (and "FOO people" when that does not work) is the overwhelmingly implemented convention. You are making efforts to reverse this, but I am in favour of the current convention, and I support the naming conventions for categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Kingdom of Hawaii judges. That is certainly an inprovement over the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2012 (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.
Category:LGBT entertainer sub-categories
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:no consensus. The categories contain too many articles which will go uncategorized in the "(X) people by occupation" trees. If categories for television presenters, dancers, and a couple other professions are created, we can revisit this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Transgender and transsexual entertainers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete all. Each of these is a container category for various occupational sub-categories. All of those occupational sub-categories are already in the parent container, Category:LGBT entertainers so this is an unnecessary layer. There are some individual articles in the containers but each of them appears to be in at least one gay occupational or LGBT occupational category, in most cases more than one. Deletion will not remove any articles from the tree. Buck Winston (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, why make it harder for people to find this information? Often people want to find the bisexual, transgender, lesbian and gay subgroups within the larger umbrella of LGBT. We should make it easier not more difficult. Insomesia (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the occupation-specific sub-categories would still exist within the LGBT container. Buck Winston (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How? It seems like they are being deleted here. Insomesia (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the specific G, L, B or T occupational sub-categories are nominated for deletion? None of them. Just the generic "entertainers" container categories. The sub-category contents of the "entertainers" container categories will still exist. Buck Winston (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misstated my concern. If you delete Category:Bisexual entertainers where is someone seeking Wikipedia's coverage of bisexual entertainers to find those entertainers categorized. It's disingenuous to posit that anyone but determined and experienced Wikipedians will figure out how to navigate categories to find which people fit into these categories. Do you really suggest that out of the hundreds of people in each of the LGBT categories someone can figure out which ones are entertainers? Or doctors? Or some other profession? I think not. Insomesia (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They will look in Category:Bisexual musicians for the musicians and Category:Bisexual actors for the actors, which will be housed directly in Category:LGBT entertainers without having to click through the added layer of category. The sole person in Category:Bisexual entertainers, Duncan James, is already in both of the occupation-specific categories and I would have removed him from this third category but didn't want to give the appearance of emptying the category ahead of the discussion. Regarding other professions, per WP:CATGRS they should only be broken down either into "LGBT" or a sub-division of it if the intersection of the profession and their sexuality/gender identity is relevant. For most professions it's not, and correspondingly very few professions are broken down thus and fewer of them still are further sub-divided. Buck Winston (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your reasoning but still disagree. I think there are still examples where someone is in an entertainer category and no easy fit currently exists so they are just removed and that aspect of there humness is gone from the categories. There does seem to be an exerted campaign to wipe these out so i guess I can't stop the tide. Insomesia (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Upmerge for the time being (per my rationale below), and then CFD the parent cat. Nymfhideliho! 15:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion; neutral on upmerger. Deleting these categories will leave their contents outside of their respective parent categories, which breaks the category tree. I am neutral on whether these categories should exist, but they are to be removed then they should be upmerged rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is an entertainer anyway? Do we include actors, musicians, clowns, magicians, singers, comedians or even circus artists in these categories? It is too broad. I believe we should delete Category:LGBT entertainers, Category:LGBT entertainers from the United States etc as well, which were all created by the socks of User:MaybeMaybeMaybe as part of some POV pushing campaign. Nymfhideliho! 15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with them as container categories, but for anything else they are too broad. I intend to CFD Category:LGBT entertainers by nationality and all the entertainer subcats created by User:MaybeMaybeMaybe's socks as soon as this discussion is closed. Nymfhideliho! 15:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The contents will not be taken out of the structures because they are all in Category:LGBT entertainers through another sub-category. For instance Category:Bisexual musicians is in LGBT entertainers via Category:LGBT musicians and the same is true for the rest of the sub-categories. Concern for removing the contents from the structure is not a reason for keeping. Buck Winston (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my !vote. I did not argue for keeping the categories (I'm neutral on that point); I argued that if they are removed, this should be done by upmerger rather than by deletion. It is not correct that they are all in LGBT entertainers: for example Clare Balding is in Category:Lesbian entertainers, and no other subcat of Category:LGBT entertainers. However, the more I look at this, the more I am inclined to switch my vote to "keep", because I can see no navigational benefit from removing these categories. Their removal reduces the numbers of paths to other categories, which is unhelpful, and it also removes some articles from this section of the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Balding is in several LGBT categories, all of which more specifically categorize her better than the nebulous "entertainer" category does. I have no idea based on her article why Balding would be classed as an "entertainer" in the first place. Her presence is an argument against "entertainer" categories at all because she shows how squishy the definition is. Buck Winston (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2012 (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.
Category:Governors of Illinois convicted of crimes
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.
Upmerge the fact that we do not yet even have Category:Illinois politicians convicted of crimes indicates there is no reason to have this specific of a category. In general categories that subdivide the holders of a specific office are heavily discouraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment 'No growth potential'? Writer must not know too much about Illinois politics. The potential is always endless Hmains (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that too. And that potential leads one to believe that this is not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2012 (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.
Category:Unusual Places
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dezastru (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only article is already in the more appropriately named parent. --Qetuth (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "unusual" is subjective. - jc37 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- depends on POV of editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2012 (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.
Current Singaporean politicians
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. With categories, we do not separate politicians into current and former positions. These can simply be upmerged to the "timeless" parent categories, which are named correctly. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Current categories for people are never a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This otherwise becomes a huge burden to keep up-to-date. Dezastru (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom....William 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- we do not allow a current/former distinction, probably due to the difficulty of ensuring maintenance occurs when there is a change. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose -- On Second thoughts, while we normally do not allow "current" categories, UK MPs are categorised as to the Parliament(s) in which they sit. The current Parliament is the 11th (see List of Singapore MPs) so that the appropriate name is Category:Members of the 11th Parliament of Singapore. I suspect that there is an equivalent for the cabinet, but I do not know enough of Singapore politics to be sure. This will produce a slight change in the purpose of the category, in that a MP who dies in post will remain in the category, whereas, he would be removed from the present one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. To address Peterkingirons suggestion, by the list you linked around 3/4 of the 11th parliament would also be in the 10th, and many Singapore MPs have been in 5 or 6 of the 11 parliaments. This may be a good way to split the otherwise enourmous UK category, but with barely 100 articles I think this would be overkill for Singapore at this point. I notice some UK MPs have quite a lot of category clutter as a result of this. --Qetuth (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2012 (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.
Category:Hatred
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: Category is vague. Categorization is dependent on some person's determination of "hatred." Not very encyclopedic. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the argument that all of the stuff in this category call be described as "hate" is shaky at best. The use of the term "hate group" as basically a smear on ones political opponants, and a recent incident of a shooting being carried out against people at an institution that had been designated a "hate group" suggest that attempts to define "hate" are iffy at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Hate groups" categories have been deleted for the reasons you state, but that is a red herring; the category is about the concept of hatred, not things or people deemed to be hateful. Cleanup may be in order, as it is arguable that not all racism, etc. is driven by hate, but a category is still useful for linking hatred with articles like hate studies or self-hatred— just as Category:Happiness is not intended for forms or examples of happiness and Category:Suffering is not for people who suffer.- choster (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Hate to match Category:Love, seems we have categories based on human emotion; why not hate? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has often been pointed out in these debates, we are not bound by the main article's title: Hate sums it up more succinctly than "hatred". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not bound by the main article's title if there is a very good reason. I see no reason at all, much less a very good one.- choster (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Hatred is a useful tag for researching various manifestations of hatred, ranging from misanthropy to self-hatred to antisemitism. If there are cases in which the category tag is being inappropriately applied to individual articles, then the tag should be removed from them (with discussion of the inappopriate use, where indicated). Dezastru (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem is that there is no empirical standard by which one can determine appropriate use of this category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but neither do we have such for Category:Love or Category:Humour, perhaps we should delete them all? Or are we biased against "negative" things? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is no vaguer than any of the other subcategories of Category:Emotions. It could probably do with a synopsis on the category page describing the limits of the category though. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep or rename to Category:Hate and then rename the main article as well. This is part of the Category:Emotions and in fact a part of human life. WP would be curiously incomplete without it. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many high level categories are such words. as long as all the articles, and thus their associated subcategories, contained sourced statements defining and using this emotion, then it works. if enough sources say Hatred is the same as Love, then we could add love as a subcat of hate. its appears to be a very useful category between all these fairly obviously hate-related articles and categories, and Category:Emotions, which i know can be sourced quite scientifically (hormones and the limbic system, etc). I will note that this was previously named Hate, and was moved. i dont yet have an opinion on whether to move it back.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename -- High level categories are inevitably slightly vague. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category was nominated for deletion back on the 11th of April for much the same reasons. That discussion resulted in "no consensus." However it was renamed from Hate to Hatred. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2012 (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.