< May 1	May 3 >

May 2

Category:African-American women poets

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:African-American women poets to Category:African-American poets, Category:American women poets

Nominator's rationale: Last rung of the ladder - merge per WP:EGRS. African-American poets is not diffusable, so this category tends to isolate the women. We don't need it. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Although I am not entirely convinced we have enough even to justify keeping Category:American women poets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as above - I would also upmerge Category:American women poets. Neutrality^talk 05:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the hoped for category intersection, which will eliminate all these discussions. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. While the availability of category intersection would be nice, it is more likely that wikidata will provide the solution first. So lets get ready for wikidata and this is appropriate cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup is usually done after something is fixed. Wikidata isn't here yet, which means removing this category removes a significant locus of study, anthologies, and so forth, with no replacement. --Lquilter (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could easily add a category intersection at the top of the poets/american women poets pages - since we don't have recursion, we could even use an inwiki category intersection search, for anyone who wants this. One problem I forsee deleting this category is that we may be critiqued for having African american poets and women poets but not the combination (even if those cats don't exclude african american women poets).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

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

Category:American experimental novelists

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American experimental novelists

Nominator's rationale: Not clear on definition of this - and not sure we want to categorize all of our novelists by various avant-garde movements. I'd say we just delete this one. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some people who in their articles it says they wrote "experimental novels". So that has been how I have populated it, based on explicitly stateing that was what the person did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently both articles in this category are in Category:20th-century American novelists, so we probably do not want to actually upmerge it, since they are already in an acceptable child cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then changing nom to delete. I realize they may have written experimental novels, I'm just not sure this is a grouping worth maintaining in the long run. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have an article on Experimental literature but no category corresponding to it. We don't really cover it as a genre. Is a nationality category necessary? Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the boundaries of what constitutes an 'experimental' novel are too vague to be useful in such a categorization. Dialectric (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we don't "cover it as a genre" we certainly should. --Lquilter (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a workable category on further consideration. Experimental literature is too closely defined by being at the cutting edge, but what the edge is changes, so it does not have an actual coherent nature that makes it one body.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Category:Women writers from Alabama

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Women writers from Alabama to Category:Writers from Alabama, Category:American women writers

Nominator's rationale: Another classic bottom-rung-of-the-ladder case. Writers from Alabama will likely never diffuse on anything else, so this category will serve to shunt off women and isn't needed - they can be placed in one of the women writers parent cats. This is a test nomination, depending on the outcome I will nominate the remaining states. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we get rid of this category we will not categorize them as women from Alabama at all. I am not sure that is a bad thing, but I know we have Category:Women writers from Kentucky because people wanted to group large numbers of women from Kentucky, but they were doing it in ways that were even more problematic than this category. I am not going to weigh in on its validity, but I think we need to consider that issue. Specifically they were massively filling the Kentucky Women's History cat with biographical articles, which had all sorts of problematic issues. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. After further thought I decided this is a good move. There is nothing stopping someone from creating a well researched and sourced article Women writers from Alabama or Women writers in Alabama, if they feel the topic needs encyclopedic coverage. THere are some things that are best not covered with categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as above and apply to all states. Neutrality^talk 05:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the hoped for category intersection, which will eliminate all these discussions. Someone may well look for it, and it does no harm. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This part of the wider tree Category:American women writers by state and I see no reason to single out Alabama foe deletion. Some of these categories are underdeveloped, but California and New York seem to be decently sized with over 100 articles each. Dimadick (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this is a test nomination. If this passes, I will nominate the other states and the head cat. This is a bottom-rung-of-the-ladder issue - the guidance is quite clear, you can read it at WP:EGRS, last paragraph. If people want to find these women, they can use category intersection to look at Category:American women writers and Category:Writers from Alabama. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - addressing solely the matter of numbers: I'm sure there are many more articles that could be categorized into these subcategories. As I have gone about recategorizing articles into these subcats, I've found that many of them were never categorized by state in the first place. I add what I can when I can, but I can't go checking every article about a writer to ensure that it slots into the category tree, unfortunately. As for the gender-specific nature of things, I have no opinion. I did not create the first of the categories; I merely created the rest of the set so that all states would be represented equally. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to clarify - now I read this back and see I never really wrapped it up well - I support categories like this less because I like the gender-designation, and more because I think it's another way to winnow down some oversized categories. Enough of the writer-by-state cats are large enough that this should be an option considered, I think.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ser Amantio - however, as noted in WP:EGRS, such categories should never be created if they are the 'last rung' on the ladder - in other words, if the parent can't be otherwise diffused, we should not diffuse *only* on gender. If we do, that creates the impression of ghettoization that got wikipedia in the news for a week. As such, these cats IMHO are in violation of our guidance - in spite of whether they are "too large", we need to find other ways to diffuse them, or leave them as is. I welcome your good faith efforts and what you did is logical (to extend to other states), it's just, in this case, I think these cats don't work and go against the guidance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the only reason we can justifiably keep Category:American women writers is because all writers can be diffused to the subcats beneath, including the by-state categories. An intersection of Category:American women writers + Category:Writers from Alabama can give the answer if someone wants it - see Category:Singaporean poets for an example of how this might work. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment example of why these sorts of categories are bad: women writers from Kentucky who aren't in writers from Kentucky - there are 33 out of 34 bios that are in the women cat, but not in the parent. These sort of gender divisions within small categories seem to often have this result, which is why they are disallowed under our guidance. The parent needs to be fully diffusing - otherwise, the cats should not exist. Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Altairisfar (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Ultratop 50

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ultratop 50 Singles number-one singles to Category:Ultratop 50 Singles (Flanders) number-one singles
Propose renaming Category:Ultratop 40 Singles number-one singles to Category:Ultratop 50 Singles (Wallonia) number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The two singles charts in Belgium were previously distinguished by one being a 40-position chart and the other being 50. Per the Ultratop website, both are now called Ultratop 50 Singles, so it seems best to use a disambiguator to indicate the difference for these categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Category:Cuisine of Lancaster, Pennsylvania

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cuisine of Lancaster, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After cleanup and moving articles into the child Category:Pennsylvania Dutch cuisine nothing is left. Following the Cuisine of Cleveland and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania discussions, do we need to discuss each one of these after cleanup or can we follow this will a group nomination? Note that the US geographic categories probably need to also be looked at for the contents. It was interesting to see something categorized as cuisine of Lancaster and southern! Also a good amount of what was removed was company articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has achild category that is not actually limited to this locale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Note we also have an article on the cuisine of the Pennsylvania Dutch. Neutrality^talk 05:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is the creator of all these *city* cuisine categories possibly thinking of the local food culture? i.e., restaurants, farmers' markets, CSAs, etc.? I keep trying to figure it out. --Lquilter (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I have seen, it appears to be items that are food related and of cultural interest and classifying them as cuisine. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be the case, yes. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, maybe a Category:Food culture by place tree would be helpful, covering those kinds of things. I'll look into it. Shouldn't play into this particular series of categories but if it's useful maybe it will meet the need that the "Cuisine of FOO" creators are trying to fulfill. --Lquilter (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every city has a food culture (food markets, restaurants, etc.), but that's not the same thing as having its own cuisine. I suggested a few test questions in the Pittsburgh discussion to assess the distinction between a food culture and a cuisine — could you travel elsewhere in the world and look for a "Lancaster restaurant", could you publish a cookbook of recipes that are distinctively unique to Lancaster, are there food items that get promoted as specifically "Lancaster-style", etc. — and as near as I can tell the answer to all of those seems to be no. To be fair, though, I think the fuzzification between "food culture" and "cuisine" has been committed by a lot of people over the years, because many of these categories have been lurking around since 2006 if you trace their edit histories. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American women poets

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Native American women poets to Category:Native American poets and Category:American women poets

Nominator's rationale: Last-rung-of-the ladder issue. Per guidelines, this category should not exist, since the parent cat cannot be further diffused. Merge up. (redacted) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ghettoization" is a very strong term. Intents as well as appearances are important in these debates. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, redacted. I know that you had your heart in the right place when these cats were created - but according to our guidance, these last-rung cats can lead to that impression. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does creating a gender-specific category amount to "ghettoization"? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write these rules, I'm just trying to follow them - see WP:EGRS. If the parent cat isn't fully diffusable, then these sub-cats can serve the purpose of shunting off women away from men for example. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:EGRS. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, I was going to suggest Category:American women poets as another target, but then I remembered that at least in theory we have articles on non-American Native Americans (whether Hayley Atwell is Native American enough that if she wrote poetry she would fit in Category:Native American poets is a tough question, my guess is no, but Clarence L. Tinker shows these can be tough questions, on the other hand Tinker though only an eight Native American (or really two sixteenths, it is from two lines) participated in alotment, grew up on the reservation, and was somewhat fluent in Osage, so he had strong cultural connections, even if people did not sense this about him quickly).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as above. Neutrality^talk 05:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the hoped for category intersection, which will eliminate all these discussions. For all such categories, sSomeone may well look for it, and it does no harm. It's only Ghettoization if you think that women , or Native Americans, are inferior. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's ghettoization if they are removed from the parent category. Apparently the great American women writers imbroglio of 2013 was done without ill-thought towards women writers, but it had the effect of ghettoization anyway. --Lquilter (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Temne descent

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete as redundant to Category:Temne people. A proposal to delete all the "People of X descent"—while legitimate—is well beyond the scope of this limited nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People of Temne descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Temne people, and only two pp in cat, so prob OCAT p b p 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not redundant; the parent category is "people" in the sense of "the Temne are a people who live in Africa", while the subcategory is "people" in the sense of "I saw a few Temne people at the store yesterday". Note that there are numerous biographies in "Temne people", so this could easily have many more entries. Whether we need separate categories is a different question, and I don't have an opinion on it. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What next, will we be told Category:People of Cherokee descent is redundant? There are clearly people who are of a given ethnicity, and then there are other people who are not of that ethnicity who have ancestors who were. I see no reason that does not apply here when it clealry applies with Cherokee, Choctaw and many other Native American groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "People of Fooian descent" =/= "Fooian people"; not OC per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "People of X descent" categories. The inclusion is arbitrary and subjective. And where is the cut off? 8 generations? 20? And who decides where the cutoff is? Some celebrity out there who claims descent from Alexander the Great? If all you need do is say you are of a certain ethnicity or descent, I propose Category:People descended from deities, to include such people as Julius Ceasar, among many, many others. - jc37 21:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per jc37. Also, few of the articles in categories like Category:Canadian people of Ulster-Scottish descent mention the ancestry in the lead and many don't mention it in the article at all so it's hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Listify if necessary. DexDor (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Category:People of Mende descent

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete as redundant to Category:Mende people. A proposal to delete all the "People of X descent" is well beyond the scope of this limited nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People of Mende descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Mende people p b p 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not redundant; the parent category is "people" in the sense of "the Mende are a people who live in Africa", while the subcategory is "people" in the sense of "I saw a few Mende people at the store yesterday". Whether we need separate categories for such a small number of people is a different question, and I don't have an opinion on it. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Coretta Scott King evidently had Mande ancestry, but she clearly was not ethnicly Mande. This is needed for the same reason that we have Category:People of Cherokee descent. That is, there are people who without question have such ancestry, but they are also without question not part of the involved ethnic group. Mrs. King was not Mande, only of Mande descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "People of Fooian descent" =/= "Fooian people". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "People of X descent" categories. The inclusion is arbitrary and subjective. And where is the cut off? 8 generations? 20? And who decides where the cutoff is? Some celebrity out there who claims descent from Alexander the Great? If all you need do is say you are of a certain ethnicity or descent, I propose Category:People descended from deities, to include such people as Julius Ceasar, among many, many others. - jc37 21:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "People of X descent" categories. Categorization should be used for WP:DEFINING characteristics. For example "Evidence suggests that Angelou was partially descended from the Mende people of West Africa" does not make a defining characteristic. Listify if necessary. DexDor (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Category:Ukrainian Armenians

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The parent categories are Category:Ethnic Armenian people by country of citizenship and Category:People of Armenian descent respectively, and the intended difference is explained on the latter page:

This category contains people who are notably of partial Armenian ethnicity or national origin ... For individuals who are fully Armenian but citizens of countries other than Armenia, see Category:Ethnic Armenian people by country of citizenship.

Although I just edited that page myself, I believe I merely clarified what was already there since 2008, apart from adding "notably" in accordance with WP:DEFINING.

It would only be fair to merge the nominated categories if the whole hierarchy of Category:People by ethnic or national descent was being abolished, as suggested by Jc37, but that would require a wider discussion. Meanwhile it will be a matter of judgment about defining characteristics in each case. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ukrainian Armenians to Category:Ukrainian people of Armenian descent

Nominator's rationale: The current use of the Category is not in line with Wikipedian standards; Category:Ukrainian Armenians contains people and Category:Ukrainian American, Category:Mexican American and Category:Greek American all do *not* contain any people (they are merely container categories, to group together things including people, but also culture, history, etc.). Plus no neutral rules and verifiable rules are known how to establish if someone considers herself/himself "Ukrainian Armenians" or "Ukrainian of Armenian descent" (we can't categorize people unless some source calls them this - and any source you care to find would not differentiate between "Greek American" and "Americans of Greek descent")
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know it is not the most WP:CIVIL to do this request so soon after a previous one that looked a bit like this one closed on 27 April 2013 but I have become a WikiOgre and I was afraid I would forget to put it up for discussion a few months later. Besides I would have done that anyway... So I might as well do it now per WP:BOLD & WP:NORULES (I do not know of any "wait a few months before putting it up for discussion rule" anyway + this request is different then the previous one). I am not trying to be an abrasive and inconsiderate person with my above request; I apologize for if it appears to you that I do come across so. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. We don't need two categories here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons that Armenianism is a strong ethnicity closly akin to being Jewish. The nomination is odd since it ignores the closest sister cats like Category:French Armenians which is chalk full of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not know that "Armenianism is a strong ethnicity closly akin to being Jewish"; and I assume most people don't know this (Armenia never makes the news and I am (like most people) not an anthropologist...). I did not know that Category:French Armenians existed... Thanks for overestimating my knowledge of Wikipedia...

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It probably helps that I live in the north suburbs of Detroit where we have many "Armenians" who are immigrants from Lebanon and Syria, some of whom have ancestors displaced by the Armenian Genocide and some of whom have ancestors who had lived in modern Syrian and Lebanon for millenia, but virtually none of whom can track their ancestors to having lived in modern Armenia in the last 1000 years. However we did bring these issues up at the last discussion, Armenianism is an ethno-religious designation. The Armenians are a distict religious group, not only in the Middle East, but also in Ukraine, where they are an Oriental Orthodox outlier group in a population that are Eastern Orthodox Christians, however much Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox sound the same to westerners, they have in reality deeper divides than those between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Leave as it is for the same reasons that I have stated in the previous discussion of April 27.Hovhannesk (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support current category name is overly ambiguous, could be Ukrainians who are Armenian or Armenians who are Ukrainian. (either ethnically, or nationals, or some other combination) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. All Category:Ukrainian Armenians are also Category:Ukrainian people of Armenian descent. We don't need two categories for this. Who decides where the cutoff is between being "Armenian" and being "of Armenian descent". It's ridiculous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "People of X descent" categories. The inclusion is arbitrary and subjective. And where is the cut off? 8 generations? 20? And who decides where the cutoff is? Some celebrity out there who claims descent from Alexander the Great? If all you need do is say you are of a certain ethnicity or descent, I propose Category:People descended from deities, to include such people as Julius Ceasar, among many, many others. - jc37 21:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York City FC

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:New York City FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a non-existent soccer team which is rumored to start in 2014 or later, but only bits of news are out with no named sources. 199.244.214.109 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation: a) Only page in category, b) no official team announcement, so crystal ball p b p 18:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cuisine of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cuisine of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: For the record, by the rationale given in the above archived discussion about Cuisine of Cleveland, the category for Cuisine of Pittsburgh (and Cuisine of Chicago for that matter) should be deleted as well. Yes, there are items in both those categories, but hardly enough to warrant categories -- we aren't talking about France or Italy, these are cities, and both already have sufficient articles (Pittsburgh is lumped in with Pennsylvania... and Chip-chopped ham is available elsewhere as is the Big Mac). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination was incorrectly added to the April 23 datelist earlier today by the nominator, as a direct adjunct to a related discussion which has already been closed. Accordingly, I'm moving it to the correct venue, i.e. the datelist for the day it was actually listed. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of these things aren't unique to Pittsburgh, which doesn't have its own unique dishes (as a four-year resident of the area, the only distinctive foods to me were things that simply aren't eaten elsewhere I've lived, like pierogis), and the rest of them are restaurants and related articles that are about places with cuisine, but not about the cuisine itself. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I have to agree with Nyttend here; of the nine articles in this category at present, five of them are restaurants and the remainder are things that aren't at all unique to Pittsburgh. Accordingly, Category:Restaurants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania would be an appropriate replacement category for the restaurants, if desired, but this category isn't necessary as currently constituted — while obviously they're related concepts, the term "cuisine" is not strictly interchangeable with all food-related content whatsoever, such that every city would have its own unique cuisine just by virtue of having some restaurants and some food items that might be more popular locally than in other areas but are not unique to that locality. For just one example, while Pittsburgh is mentioned in city chicken as one place where the stuff can be found, it's neither the only one — and the article isn't filed in "Cuisine of City" categories for any of the other places that are also mentioned — nor is Pittsburgh named as the originator of the concept. For another, cookie table is described as a regional concept whose article doesn't mention Pittsburgh at all — meaning that it's not sufficiently distinctive to Pittsburgh to warrant being categorized as "Cuisine of Pittsburgh". (Not to mention that what's regionally distinctive about it is the table, not the cookies, so it's not really "cuisine" at all.) I'm generally inclined to believe that "Cuisine of Individual City" categories are somewhere between rarely and never warranted — though I grant that there might be occasional exceptions, it's certainly not needed comprehensively as a subcategory system that all cities are entitled to partake in. Restaurants in the city should be catted as restaurants rather than "cuisine", food items that are uniquely characteristic of that city's culture should usually be catted as "Culture of City" and "Nationality cuisine" rather than "Cuisine of City", and only cities which can be properly demonstrated to have their own genuinely distinctive cuisines (which is not the same thing as merely having food) should have their own separate subcategories. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not really enough of a unique "cuisine" of Pittsburgh to merit a head article much less a category. "Food culture" is perhaps what the editor who created this was getting at, by including restaurants and food. But that's not quite what we mean by "cuisine", so at this point we should "delete". --Lquilter (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we categorize the Big Mac everywhere it is cuisine. Per the comments above and the last discussion. Can a fast food sandwich be cuisine? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Big Mac was invented in Pittsburgh, and that's why it's in that category.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not necessarily useful to categorize generic, internationally distributed fast food items by where they happen to have been invented, if they aren't distinctively characteristic of the place in a uniquely place-specific way. The Whopper, the McChicken, the Quarter Pounder and the Bacon Deluxe aren't filed in any "Cuisine of Specific City" categories at all, to name just four very equivalent examples out of many, and they were all invented somewhere too. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's an official McDonald's Big Mac Museum in suburban Pittsburgh to celebrate its creation in Pittsburgh. Surely that's enough of a justification to make it Pittsburgh cuisine. See Big_Mac#Museum.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What you're missing here is that there's a lot more to cuisine than just "food culture". Every city, town or village on earth has food and restaurants and local food traditions — but that does not mean that every city, town or village has its own distinctive cuisine, because cuisine is about a hell of a lot more than just the mere fact of having food. Very few cities on earth actually have their own distinctively local cuisines, rather than simply being part of a regional or national one. Would you realistically expect to go to Paris or Mumbai and be able to look for a "Pittsburgh restaurant", in the same way you can walk through Pittsburgh looking for a French or Indian restaurant? Does McDonald's internationally promote the Big Mac as a distinctively Pittsburgh-style burger right on its menu and/or in its advertising? Could you compile and publish an entire "Pittsburgh cookbook" of recipes that are so unique to Pittsburgh that they would be novelties in Youngstown or Steubenville or Philadelphia, let alone Paris or Mumbai? Those are the kinds of questions you have to ask yourself in these matters — if you can't answer yes to any of them, then Pittsburgh's food culture does not meet the rarefied standard necessary to count as a cuisine instead of just a food culture. The existence of a Big Mac museum in Pittsburgh certainly makes it part of Pittsburgh's food culture, I won't (and never did) argue with that — but food culture is not the same thing as cuisine. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nondefining. These thigns generally aren't unique to the city. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legitimate category for a defining characteristic that is supported by an article.-GrapedApe (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What article is it supported by? Sure can't seem to find one. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-defining, better suited to an article (Cuisine of Pittsburgh perhaps). Neutrality^talk 05:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, create an article for Cuisine of Pittsburgh. It can even be simply a "list of dishes unique to or originating in Pittsburgh". Then I'll support restoring this cat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that being in a list does not establish it as being defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Balšić

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:House of Balšić to Category:Balšić noble family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This medieval noble family's name was Balšić, and no sources call it "House of Balsic". Zoupan 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law review people

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Category:Alberta Law Review people

Category:Columbia Law Review people

Category:Cornell Law Review people

Category:Duke Law Journal people

Category:Fordham Law Review people

Category:Georgetown Law Journal people

Category:Harvard Law Review people

Category:McGill Law Journal people

Category:Michigan Law Review people

Category:New York University Law Review people

Category:Northwestern University Law Review people

Category:Notre Dame Law Review people

Category:Stanford Law Review people

Category:Texas Law Review people

Category:UCLA Law Review people

Category:University of Chicago Law Review people

Category:University of Pennsylvania Law Review people

Category:University of Pittsburgh Law Review people

Category:University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review people

Category:Virginia Law Review people

Category:Yale Law Journal people

Category:California Law Review people Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 1#Category:California Law Review people

Category:Vanderbilt Law Review people Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 1#Category:Vanderbilt Law Review people

Nominator's rationale These are all WP:OVERCAT and should be deleted.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not particularly helpful, and it's only two biographies; I removed it from Alberta Law Review, since this is a category for people, not a category for publications. Even if we moved it to Category:Alberta Law Review, it would be too tiny, and it wouldn't particularly help with navigation either, because categorising people by every place they've worked is generally unhelpful, and categorising them by one or some workplace(s) and not the rest is downright confusing. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was written when Alberta Law Review was the only nominated article. The issue of being too small doesn't apply to most of the other categories, but the unhelpfulness issue ("because categorising" and everything after it) is quite relevant. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is an overly specific set of categories. We categorize people by law school, there is no reason to subdivide them beytond faculty, alumni and similar position caegories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is true then all college team categories should be deleted as well. There is no difference between being a member of a college athletic team and being a member of a law review--both are defining characteristics of what one has achieved or done at a particular school. Stating that athletics is important enough for a category and the chief student academic collaboration at a school is biased. Just as a sports team could appear on national television, so too does the work of the law review member distributed internationally in a high profile, academic manner.Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization by association and/or award (depending on one thinks of Law Review membership); law-review participation is non-defining. See earlier discussions for my (too-) lengthy comments as to exactly why law-review participation should not be considered a "defining" attribute. --Lquilter (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I notified the contributing editor, User:Jeremy112233, who had a lot to say about these categories in yesterday's CFD discussions. -- lquilter
Keep: I disagree that law review membership does not define how the world views a person's law school career. If you look at the written biographies of many people who went to law school, it absolutely ranks as the defining aspect of their law school careers. You have said before that law review membership defines members to their peers in law school, but then state this defining stops at the end of law school--which is made up largely by their peers or people from similar backgrounds. But finally, let's take a look at OVERCAT. It dissuades categories that are a) small with no potential for growth (not relevant here, as can be seen by the more than 440 members of various law review categories); b) not defining, meaning something that articles about a person would not repeatedly claim about said person OR that something is not appropriate for a lead (when a full feature on a lawyer or politician is done, regarding their full career, law review membership will likely appear; and in a proper lead for a long article, it would absolutely be appropriate to have law review membership); c) items with only a narrow intersection (not relevant here); and so forth. None are relevant here. If we are only talking about the defining issue here, then we have to go by the book. Either law review membership is something that would go into the leads of pages, or it isn't, and I have not seen any evidence that it is not something that could go into a lead. Either it is something that would appear on a full feature of a lawyer's career or it isn't, and I haven't seen anything that shows that law review membership isn't something that is part of a person's career highlights in such features. That is rule, and the rule is not broken by these categories. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as an example, of law review membership is defining enough to be in the lead of the Barack Obama page, with all of the achievements in that person's life, we have precedent that law review membership is appropriate for a lead paragraph and therefore the OVERCAT for "non-defining" characteristics argument is not valid. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for inclusion in the lede paragraphs of the Barack Obama entry, let me just say this is not a good example for your case for a few reasons. First, sadly, the pages of certain celebrities are often not representative of the best policymaking, since they are more subject to, shall we say, celebrity-related effects. Second, there are differences here that may make it more appropriate: He was "president", not just an editor; and his academic achievements pertain to specific controversies that have been ginned up around him, like whether he was a good student, etc. So really not a good example. It would be better to pull out a representative sampling of attorney/ jurist/ law professor articles. --Lquilter (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Barack Obama article is a heavily edited and monitored page, and is a feature article, which should absolutely be seen as a good example for what can go into a lead. In addition, the term "President" is equivalent to "editor" in the context of a law review. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you just including the presidents of the LRs and not all members of LR? Because all members describe themselves as "editors". Elsewhere you said that "thousands" of people were eligible for the Vandy LR, which sounds more like "members" of LR than "presidents". --Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I said thousands for the entire LR category, which was not being discussed at the time. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Jeremy112233 is referencing me when stating "You have said before that law review membership defines members to their peers in law school". That is a misstatement of what I said. I said "MIGHT". "Law review membership might define the person's time or define them to their peers during law school, but it's not going to define them to their peers once outside of law school, nor to the rest of the world." As for "not defining" and "overcat", Jeremy112233 takes a very narrow view of "not defining". But even taking Jeremy112233's view, I would not ordinarily include law review membership in the ledes of articles. In those instances where it is included, I would take it to be effectively a type of award/honor, and we simply do not categorize by the vast majority of awards/honors -- even when we mention them in the introductory material of an article. We also do not categorize by the vast majority of affiliations with organizations. Nor do we categorize by most workplaces. All of those are examples of overcategorizations. --Lquilter (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using the "Award recipients" section of OVERCAT does not work, because LR membership is not an award and not an honor. It is a selection to be a part of a group that represents the school and its role in international legal publishing. This is more similar to being selected for a sports team, and all sports teams are indeed often used as categories. An award or honor is something you receive for having done work, LR membership is something you have to actually do after being selected. The idea is that if we say that a college sports team is a valid category, saying LRs are not valid categories does not follow precedent. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - LR is absolutely considered an honor at most schools, and admittance to LR may be based on a variety of qualifications / write-on exams, school-dependent. If you are arguing that it is not an honor, then you are undercutting your own argument, because it makes it much less notable for people. Most law schools have a variety of journals, including a name Law Review; the LR is a competitive process (typically) to join, and is viewed as an honor; while other journals may not be competitive sign-ons. So if you are treating LR as not an "honor", then there is no conceivable rationale for excluding all the other journals on which one might work. Out of Berkeley (formerly Boalt Hall) a lot of us IT/IP folks worked on BTLJ and headline that on our resumes. Environmental folks similarly might post the environment-specific journals, and so forth. The only real argument for distinguishing LR from all the other journals one might work on is that LR is an honor. If you take that away then you open the door to all sorts of affiliations by scholarly editors. --Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your misdefining the idea of something being considered an honor, in terms of being considered for something generally (where someone "feels honored"), and honor, being an award of some kind. That does not undercut anything. Being a member of a sports team isn't an honor either, it's a personal achievement, not something flimsy bestowed for grades. But obviously the bias a) against academics and b) against LR membership by non-LR former students is the real issue here. Just saying :) By the way, why on earth would the BTLJ be mistaken as notable enough for inclusion in this apparently doomed category? I don't think anyone is that naive and I'm pretty sure we can have more specific definitions for what counts. But if you really think the fact that the fact that topic-delimited journals have popped up on the backs of significant, globally significant journals is enough to extinguish the defining factor of having been chosen for one of the top LRs in the world is enough to eliminate all LR categories, well, show your evidence beyond a fault slippery slope form of argumentation. Whether or not anyone reading this understands it, there is extreme bias in the decision to eliminate this set of categories. But it is only Wikipedia that will suffer, no one else will remember the argument 3 days from now.Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me add that I fully understand that niche journals are independent, and not attached to the significant reviews of a school. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        All your personal comments about me aside, my point remains. The only argument for categorizing by journal affiliation is that LR-membership is over-and-above the ordinary type of journal editor affiliation, i.e., that it is an honor. We have numerous honors that are not awards, per se, that are nonetheless not considered to be sufficiently "defining" of an individual to be a category. --Lquilter (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What personal comments? Funny I've been called Mar. Grammdarr sercastocallie but others are claiming they've been insuulted, lol. Cause we all need another fight over comas, sorry I meant commas :) Can anybody here focus on responding to policy statements I've risen; you know, in terms of how OVERCAT does not apply here? Or are we just suddenly switching from OVERCAT definability (sic) to OVERCAT awards? If you are taking the arguments personally because you are a lawyer, I truly apologize, why would I assault my own kind? I would never go out of my way to offend a member of the legal profession, I'm simply marking out the extreme difference between one of the world's top LRs and a niche journal (both of which are respectable), as one could be seen as definable and one I agree would not be. The feature article nomination process on Wikipedia is a better authority on what should go into the lead? Or have you abandoned that argument, for the insistence that an LR membership is equivalent to a gold medal? One is equivalent to a college sports team and not an award, and an award such as a gold medal, of course, is not appropriate to add. I'm mostly talking for the deletion appeal here of course, as the only people who have voted here are serial voters in CAT decisions, none of whom have shown an ability to respond to my concerns about their OVERCAT claims... of course, as we all know, this is not life or death. Wikipedians love to kick over sandcastles, but sandcastles at the end of the day are merely illusions of grandeur in many cases if you think they're more than bits and bites and a few fleeting hours of extra-curricular effort :) Don't take yourself so seriously ;) We're all here for the same purpose. At the end of the day, you have no evidence that LR membership is merely an honor/award, and not a definable part of someone's law school career, while I have shown how policy and precedent allows for such a new category as you wish deleted :) Ho hum. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) Awards are non-defining; that's the core of overcategorization. It's not two separate arguments; awards are a special instance of the larger argument (non-defining). Awards are specially listed in the policy because they come up frequently and people often raise arguments (like yours) around honors & awards. It has been explained numerous times that law review membership is not a defining attribute of someone. Please note that from under "Non-defining characteristics": "[I]f the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining." Okay? Awards are a non-defining attribute. (2) The first definition under "Non-defining characteristics" is: "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject." To take your example, I don't believe that anybody would describe President Obama as a "Barack Obama, a law review editor, went on to achieve some notoriety in elected office." He is notable because he is the president, the first African American president, and a senator before that. He is certainly not notable because of his affiliation with a law review. Nobody is notable because of their affiliation with a law review, so it is difficult to see how somebody could possibly be "defined" by that affiliation. The fact itself is notable enough to include in articles, and lists can be made. But the fact that law students pay a lot of attention to law review membership, and that people list it on the resumes and brief biographies along with other achievements, does not make it "defining". Repeated assertions that it is defining are not going to make it so. --Lquilter (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        1) LR membership is not an award, so you cannot use that part of OVERCAT. You are simply saying "it is an award because it is an award", but are not defining an award effectively. An award is something you are given, which comes with no responsibility. Is be elected to public office "an honor and award"? No it is not, and neither is anything where you are selected in order to live up to certain responsibilities. You seem to believe that you get an LR membership, and that's it, nothing happens after that--that it is "just an honor", which is not true. 2) In terms of your discussion of Barack Obama, that's not a valid argument. Obama has dozens of categories on his page, few of which would be the second item in his lead sentence. It is about what can appear in the lead generally, and it does, in that feature article. I'm going by the book on what Wikipedia says defining is. One can be defined by many things, and the defining characteristics of part of ones life are not shed in the future as that would conflict with WP:Recentism. If it can appear in the lead, and it is commonly associated with people in full spread biographies (and the state of what someone did in law school would, LR membership being foremost in any such description), then that is why I state it is definable. You are saying that only extremely definiable attributes should have categories, but that is not the policy. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "You seem to believe that you get an LR membership, and that's it, nothing happens after that--that it is "just an honor", which is not true." No, I don't, and I have said elsewhere that it's defining to the person during their law school career. As for Obama, I think you've made your point very clearly that (1) Obama has it in the lede; (2) therefore it is defining for Obama; (3) therefore it is appropriate to have a category for every person who has been on LR. Got it. I don't buy it, but I've got the argument. --Lquilter (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You are conflating your arguments for OVERCAT between two reasons for using it--something just being an honor, or defining. Let's try and deal with each argument separately. Regardless, I did not say that every LR is notable enough for a category and every LR membership is definable, and actually stated so clearly above. I am saying that there is precedent on feature articles for including LR membership in the lede, and that OVERCAT defines definability as something that could appear in the lede of an article. If the best articles here show that it belongs in the lede, then the definability argument for OVERCAT doesn't work. There is an argument that some of the LRs for which categories may not be useful, but there is no argument here that no category for a single LR is the best way to go. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, I and numerous people here have argued that law review membership is per se non-defining, and therefore not suited for WP's category system. Call it multiple reasons or one, but most everyone agrees it's non-defining (a) because it's an award; (b) because it's a membership affiliation (a transient one at that); (c) non-defining because it's akin to the other things even though it's not exactly like them. I really don't think law review membership is so completely sui generis that we need to have a separate category on WP:OCAT to cover it. Most people can reason by analogy and type and see that other things that are sort of like law review membership, and are considered non-defining, would put LR membership in a similar "non-defining" class. --Lquilter (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unhelpful, undefined, not consistently defining overcategorization by association. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an argument, it is a badly formed sentence with no support.Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And your sentence is a comma splice, Mr. Grammar.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not defining. We already have categories for alumni by law school. Overly specific. Neutrality^talk
Delete all As explained by many different editors above, not defining, overly specific, etc. etc. Also: misnamed. At this point, if it turns out that the janitor of the Harvard Law Review was involved in the Boston bombings and therefore would be notable, then logic would dictate that he'd be "Harvard Law Review people". For academic journals we only list editors other than the editor-in-chief if there is a specific reason with explicit sources (see the journal article writing guide; cf. also WP:PROF, where being EIC -but not "editor" of a notable journal is one of the criteria that confer notability on a person). Articles on law reviews are an exception to this in that we list notable former editors (not just EICs), but here, too, we don't list all editors either. Former EICs of law journals can be categorized in the "Academic journal editors" category, like those of other journals, for the moment that cat is not so large that we need to diffuse it. --Randykitty (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid argument. The likelihood of such anomalous situation is very, very low. In addition, the HLR doesn't have any janitors on its staff... so it's not even possible. But that's beside the point. If a professor becomes very well known for mentoring a journal, they can be added. If an admin staff person becomes notable enough to be on Wikipedia, they could be included as well. Why does that matter? We are not talking about conferring notability on someone here, so WP:PROF is not precedent, we are talking about how to categorize people in a way that users find helpful. This was never about diffusing the academic editors category, but about creating a new category for the unique position of LR editor, which is very different than editing for a journal in a different field. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a subcat of "academic journal editors". We don't find, for example, membership of an editorial board important enough to list it in journal articles (and many editors, like DGG advocate to remove it even from biographies. Yes, board memberships usually last many years, often decades, not just one or at most a few years as is the case for law journals. You are making an elephant out of a mosquito... (And I'd like to add that despite the huge walls of text that you are dumping here, you seem to be the only one viewing things this way...) --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I subcategorized law review editors under academic journal editors merely because that felt like a good place to put it, not because I felt we needed to diffuse the academic journal editors category. The category could have just as easily been placed alongside the academic journal editors category itself in its parent category--that may actually solve some of the issues here, and may have been a better initial decision considering some of the conflicting precedents that exist for the academic journal editors category. Perhaps we should move it up to avoid future confusion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not sure the situation is exactly analogous. Membership on an academic journal editorial board is a honor that is in most cases diffused very widely to anyone of any reputation at all, and normally leads to nothing in particular, and is not a particularly important step in a career. For a notable lawyer, membership on a law review is an important honor in the progression to a notable career; there's no really exact equivalent in any profession. More generally, it's not clear what we includes about people's student career. We of course give the degrees and the dates--many bios include whether they get honors, which is certainly relevant in the UK but not of much moment in the US. (my practice is to remove it if the overall impression is puffery, & to leave it otherwise, but I don't ad it if it isn't there already) Many bios include Phi Beta Kappa & professional honor societies -- see List of Phi Beta Kappa members by year of admission which is probably very incomplete. Many bios include fraternity and sorority memberships, which I suppose for some people might in fact be significant. Many include members on an athletic team even when it isn't at all relevant to the eventual career--again, it may be important socially in some cases. If we include these, we can include law review membership also.

To a considerable extent it depends on the importance of the person. If someone is famous, rather than just notable, the details of all the stages of their life is significant content, because people have a personal interest and identification with famous individuals, & want to understand what leads to such distinction.

But having included these in some cases, should we create categories for them? Should we create lists? After all, they are searchable if anyone wants to know. But should we when the persons are famous? It's rather like the problem of including ethnic categories for those people where its defining, which leads to endless disputation. My own view is that it does little harm;. personally, I really dislike the entire category system and the sooner wikidata gets us out of it, the more effort we can spend on things that matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Thank you DGG, this is all I've been trying to say; that there is precedent for such categories and that they can be helpful :) If the ultimate decision is to eliminate them I would of course bow to the overall will of the community, I just want to make sure the full range of discussions about this issue are had because I feel that LR membership is a unique situation. I of course agree with you on all points. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that every experienced editor who works with categories thinks we need a much better, more flexible solution. Hopefully wikidata will work. WP:Category intersection might help in the meantime. ... All that said, DGG, while I agree with much of what you said, I come down on the other side of "no harm" from extra categories. For two main reasons: (1) The system display of categories at the bottom is just in a big lump, so the more that are there, the more unreadable the lump is. Obama's page categories are basically not readable, for example. (2) Policing inclusion/exclusion from categories is very, very difficult; much more difficult than watching an individual page. So "policing" a category is practically impossible except in the aggregate. And with the relative lack of knowledge of how to use categories it's basically just a lost cause. --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Type sites

The result of the discussion was: keep but rename to Category:Archaeological type sites. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Type sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm the creator and sole editor, but the category's been around since 2010 and others have added pages to it, so I don't think it a suitable G7 candidate. When I created this category, I figured that type sites would be rare and unusual enough that this would be a useful way of separating articles about them from articles about other archaeological sites. Since then, I've realised that it's nowhere near as helpful: yes, type sites are rare compared to other archaeological sites, but most non-type sites aren't notable, while a very large percentage of type sites are notable — sites don't generally get enough coverage to be notable unless they're types for something, so this category could justifiably include almost all of our archaeological site articles. For example, this category includes the Fisher Farm Site (type site for a few local village sites) and the Spring Creek Site (type site for one kind of pottery produced by one group of people). Should they really be categorised with Jericho (one of the world's premier archaeological sites) or with Blackwater Draw (one of North America's premier sites)? Basically, this category is too broad (and not refinable) and has the potential of confusing users by making it seem as if sites that really aren't very significant should be put on par with the world's greatest sites. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

improve the list? I'm not well enough versed to evaluate the statements here about notability. It does seem to me, though, that a tabular structure in the type site article itself which at least gave which culture/whatever they are the type for would work better than the category. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, as long as we restrict it to the most important type sites (e.g. just ones for major cultures), because again we'd overwhelm the article if we attempted to include all type sites. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (adding), but rename to Category:Archaeological type sites per Lquilter below - maybe split by continent. I can't really see the problem; there are only 47 entries, though some world-class sites are missing. Very American-biased but a sub-cat would mitigate that. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that nobody's found it useful: I've added almost all of the entries to it. It's American-biased because of my method of adding the category to sites: I went through WhatLinksHere for type site and added the category to all appropriate pages, and then I added it to sites I knew about that weren't in the category, and since I only know about US sites, I couldn't add it to any others. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know how many find it useful, do you? It seems to get 3-4 views per day, which isn't nothing. It isn't quite as bad (on bias) as I thought - of the 2 that I missed at once La Tene culture isn't really a site article, & Abri de la Madeleine was there but sorted on "A" (changed). I wouldn't really agree that "sites don't generally get enough coverage to be notable unless they're types for something" - not in European sites anyway. If there's nowhere else with the same sort of stuff, it isn't really a type site, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Not sure. Pretty much every archaeological culture, phase, etc. has a type site which helped to identify, categorize and more importantly define the culture and how it relates (and differs) to its predecessors, neighbors, and descendants. So yes, there should be hundreds (if not thousands) of them, some describing small relatively unknown groups (Kings Crossing Site or Marsden Mounds) and others describing large world historically important groups such as Hallstatt and La Tène. It might be nice to have a list (or grouped together as a cat) of all of them, but other than that, I'm not sure it's all that important. I think I've added a few to the cat over the years, but haven't been really kept up with it. He iro 05:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Yes there will be a lot, but the category is not yet big enough to need splitting. A site from which a culture or a type of artifact is named is clearly highly significant. However, inclusion should be reserved for articles on the type or site or artifact named, not merely on those on the place that gave the name. Stamford ware (pottery) - or the excavation where it was first identified - might go in but Stamford (the town) should not. Peterkingiron (talk)

Indeed - hence La Tene the settlement is not there. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept rename as ambiguous. When I first saw this, I assumed it had something to do with typography and type faces. Not very close to archeology. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I guess I would lean to delete per nominator/creator's comments, since it seems like the criteria are rather loose, and an article and accompanying list would be a better representation of "type sites". On the other hand, conceptually this strikes me as somewhat analogous to Category:Model organisms: A concept that's obvious for certain central members, but kind of fuzzy on the edges; but overall the utility of the category might outweigh some of its conceptual difficulties. ... But if kept, I would split it and rename it Category:Archaeological type sites and Category:Geological type sites, since the type site article refers to both geological type sites and archaeological type sites, and these seem quite different. That would also solve the any problems with typography. --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I think these are all archaeological; the other can be set up if needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I just added the cat to parent cat Category:Specific models, comparable to Category:Model organisms. If kept it should be there too! --Lquilter (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Category:Czechoslovak people of German descent

The result of the discussion was: WITHDRAWN BY REQUESTER RGloucester (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Czechoslovak people of German descent to Category:Czechoslovak people of German descent (1948–1992)

Nominator's rationale: Rename and take Category:Sudeten German people out. Or delete. This is a complicated situation here. This category is fairly new, and is rather confusingly set-up. While this is the standard format used for many other countries, the Czechoslovak Republic was a special case. For the pre-war Czechoslovak Republic, Category:Sudeten German people handles this group of people. Most of these Sudeten Germans would themselves be offended by being called "Czechslovak people" as they considered themselves their own nation, held against their will in a country who's name did not acknowledge their existence. A way to repurpose this category, however, is simple. After the majority of Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, the few remaining Germans, and many Czechs/Slovaks with mixed ancestry could be considered "Czechoslovak people of German descent", because the Sudeten German "nation" no longer existed, and the few remaining Germans were only allowed to remain because they were integrated. So, I hence propose the category be renamed to suit a proper purpose, to avoid confusion and offense. Category:Sudeten-German people should not be a subcategory, in accordance with my proposal. RGloucester (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (category creator). I don't see why a rename is necessary here. All the other subcategories of Category:Czechoslovak people include people from 1918–1992 Czechoslovakia. I realise that the situation with Germans is a unique case; but why not just remove Category:Sudeten German people as a subcategory, and include in the nominated category only articles of Czechoslovak people of German descent? People pre-1948 who competed for Czechoslovakia in the Olympics and are ethnic Germans (such as Walter Heinzl) can accurately be described as "Czechoslovak people of German descent", in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental difference between the pre-war and post-war "German-derived" populations in the Czechoslovak Republic. History gives us many good reasons not to classify the pre-war population as Czechslovak, and the enmity that existed should be reflected in the categories here. Furthermore, why would one duplicate the Sudeten Germans category? For any other ethnicity, your scheme would be fine. In this case, however, it is simply untenable. RGloucester (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were pre–World War II Czechoslovak people of German descent who were not Sudeten German people. For instance, people who emigrated from Germany to Czechoslovakia (outside Sudetenland) and took up Czechoslovak nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term Sudeten Germans does not only refer to the Sudetenland, but to Germans throughout the state. The Sudetenland was merely their "main area". There was a large German-speaking population in Prague, and they were also considered Sudeten Germans. Otherwise, they’d be called Germans Bohemians. Anyway, furthermore, most of the people you’ve placed in the category ARE Sudeten Germans, so, by your logic, should one not remove them? RGloucester (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on if Category:Sudeten-German people is or is not a subcategory. If it is not, the articles can stay. If it is, then they could be removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We do not time limit people by nation by ethnicity. One reason is that people live to long for that to be worthwhile. What next Category:Polish people of German descent (1945-1967) to group those who did not leave at the end of the war, but to recognize also the later 1960s popualtion exchanges. This is too fine a categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fundamentally, there was a change in the identity of the people in the country. Before the war, there were Sudeten Germans, who formed a third of the population of Bohemia and Moravia. They considered themselves a nation separate from the Czechs and Slovaks, and only got included in the country by a bizarre twist of fate. They were nationalists, resulting in the Munich Agreement. Great. These people are already covered by the Category:Sudeten-German people, which has existed for ages. That’s what they identified as, or if not, they would’ve used the older terms German Bohemian and German Moravian, and we have categories for those too. The few Germans left after expulsion were those that were not nationalists, who were married to Czechs and who were integrated with the population. The Sudeten German nation no longer existed, because it was expelled. Germans because a minuscule group of people in Czechoslovakia. These integrated people can be considered "Czechoslovak people of German descent" because they were integrated with the Czechoslovak population, unlike the Sudeten Germans. I don’t mind deleting this category, either if one doesn’t like the rename. I simply wanted to try and repurpose it if possible. Either way, the present situation makes no sense. The Sudeten German category covers pre-war Germans in Czechoslovakia. One doesn’t need this category for that time period, as it is merely a duplication. RGloucester (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What justification is there for this category to exist in its present state? Why do we need another category for a group of people that are already covered (pre-war population)? And furthermore, those people would be offended by the term "Czechoslovak". For the post-war population, arguments can be made. That’s why I chose to rename. But if a deletion is preferable to others, that can happen as well. Either way, the present situation doesn’t make sense. RGloucester (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Czechoslovak is a term we use for any and all citizens of Czechoslovakia. We generally use nationality terms for all nationals of a country, including those who are actively revolutionaries seeking to destroy it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were to accept that reasoning, that still does not explain why one should duplicate a category, the Sudeten German category, which has existed for longer and is the common name the pre-war German population of what was Czechoslovakia. An argument may be made for the minuscule post-war population, which did not use the term "Sudeten German", but not for the pre-war population. Why should one need this contrived scheme, when one already has a pre-existing one? RGloucester (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable if it should be described as "contrived". The nominated cat is part of a scheme with standard naming patterns. In that sense, it too is part of a pre-existing, overall scheme. Anyway, as I said above, to rename or delete the category would be to suggest that there were absolutely no pre-1948 Czechoslovak people of German descent outside of Sudeten Germans, which of course is not the case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case, though. First of all, immigration was not substantial, and a trickle at best. In most cases, it was Sudeten Germans going the other way around. Even if Germans did move to the Czechoslovak Republic, they’d probably be integrated with the German population, and not with the Czech. "Standard naming patterns" don’t always work, and it doesn’t make sense to use a broad brush. It is absolutely ridiculous to label ethnic Germans as "Czechoslovak people". Ask a Czech or a Slovak whether they considered Germans "Czechoslovaks". The state was multi-ethnic, and it recognized many minorities, like Carpathian Ruthenians, Hungarians and Germans. It did not consider them "Czechoslovak", a term which arose from ethnic nationalism, and which applied only to Czechs and Slovaks. This is a special case, where the minorities that existed in Czechoslovakia were considered "separate nationalities" and not Czechoslovaks, under any circumstances. The people you have presently placed in the category, how do you justify them as "Czechoslovak"? Most, if not all, of them are Sudeten Germans. Why are they in the category? Categories must reflect the historical situation. This is pure over-categorization to start with, not to mention pure misinformation. RGloucester (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone in 1935 in Czechoslovakia had German ancestry does not mean they in any way identified as being connected with the Sudenten land. I am sure there were some people in Slovakia who identified as having at least some German ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the article Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) makes it clear there were lots of Germans in Czechoslovakia in this time that were not Sudenten Germans. It mentions 150,000 between Slovakia and Ruthinia, it mentions urbanized Germans and Jews who identified as being Germans, none of whome were Sudenten Germans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ethnic Germans from Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia are called Carpathian Germans. I would suggest a separate category for them. The bit about urbanized Jews in Bohemia is not actually correct, and unreferenced. They often spoke High German instead of Yiddish, but did not consider themselves "German". I’ve challenged that before, but the progenitor of that page is tough. RGloucester (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sudeten German" does not necessarily mean "connected with Sudetenland". The concept was loose, and generally means an ethnic German from the Czech lands. Sudetenland itself is a poorly defined, contrived term used for nationalist purposes. Take a look at it, and it makes very little sense geographically, as most of it is nowhere near the Sudetes. And yes, it is true, not all identified as "Sudeten German". Some preferred the older terms "German Bohemian" and "German Moravian", because they did not have nationalist political connotations. But none identified as "Czechoslovak". RGloucester (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol—but if we create a category for Carpathian Germans and we have a category for Sudeten Germans, then we are placed in the situation where we could have a container parent category to hold both of them named—wait for it—Category:Czechoslovak people of German descent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The container is Category:Ethnic German people. This is not the difficult to figure out. Calling them Czechoslovak, mixing post-war and pre-war populations, would not be supported by any academic, or any of these very Germans. RGloucester (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you really want another "container category" for some reason, though I would find it superfluous, one could use the model of Category:Ethnic German groups in Romania, which accomplishes that goal without stupidly lumping people together. I, however, don’t see this as necessary. Most of the groups in the ethnic German people category are standalone, as it should be. There is no need to create a container category, because the titles Sudeten Germans and Carpathian Germans instantly explain where they are from.RGloucester (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEW PROPOSAL - Okay, so, I'm considering what other people are saying, and I thought of a new scheme. If I've appeared militant, don't take it that way. I have a tendency to become quickly "impassioned". Here is what I propose. Let us create a category that is titled "Ethnic German groups in Czechoslovakia". Perhaps we can simply use this one under discussion, and rename it. Then, one shall place Sudeten Germans, Carpathian Germans, expatriates, &c. in that category. This broad new category can be a subcategory of Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin. That way, everyone is categorized correctly, and no one is accidentally mislabeled. This scheme is used for the various groups of ethnic Germans in Romania, and I think it could also work well here. It addresses my concerns, and hopefully, also addresses the concerns of others here. If others find this acceptable, I will change my nomination to this. RGloucester (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]