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 Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people after converting to a List of notable Scottish Gaelic-speaking people, which in effect "containerises" it by reducing it to the existing container category Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations; and merge Category:Welsh-speaking people into Category:Welsh-language occupations. Although there is a strong disagreement here, those arguing for deletion have backed their case much more strongly by references to Wikipedia guidelines, in particular WP:OCAT. In closing this discussion with a decisive outcome rather than "no consensus", I rely on the guidance at WP:CONSENSUS that Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Editors who disagree with WP:OCAT should propose changes on its talk page; this decision is being implemented according to current guidance. Those editors wishing to keep these categories have stated that they are useful; well, a list can be more useful, by stating the significance of each person's support or activity concerning the language; and navigation from e.g. language activist biographies can be achieved by adding a link to the list. In making this close I am particularly mindful of a recent deletion per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 10#Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople which was endorsed at DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 20). – Fayenatic London 12:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (renomination)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete or at least containerize (as with the Welsh equivalent of this category, which I think should also be deleted [update: and which I've added to the nomination]). It would be good to delete these outright, as they are overcategorization by skill, similar to a "Category:People who can play trombone" or "Category:People who know how to swing dance". What we really want (and already have) are Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations, Category:Welsh-language occupations, etc., and people categorized under them for occupationally notable use of the language: Category:Scottish Gaelic poets, etc. The existence of categories like Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people, Category:Welsh-speaking people, etc., is leading inevitably to the creation of trivial-intersection categories like Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople, which is at CfD here. See also the related ongoing CfD for Category:Cornish-speaking people, here. It's noteworthy that this seems to be a Celtic language activism thing; I don't see things like Category:Spanish-speaking people, Category:Navajo-speaking people, Category:Japanese-speaking people, etc., etc. PS: I say that as a bit of a Celtic language activist myself (member of Celtic League, American Branch since the 1990s), and someone whose focus in a linguistics minor at university was Celtic languages. One's interest in, even passion for, such things does not translate into a necessity for categorization schemes that do not work well here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain: This is an important category and it should by no means be deleted. Furthermore, to containerize this category would mean that several notable Scottish-Gaelic speakers would be unnecessarily excluded as it would, no doubt, be deemed that they do not 'fit' into any category. This category, along with Category:Welsh-speaking people, and Category:Cornish-speaking people are of much interest to speakers of those languages, speakers of other minority languages and linguists. I would also argue that these types of categories are of much general interest. Where else could you find such a list? Would deleting this category therefore not be denying people an important educational resource? User:SMcCandlish states that possible other categories such as Category:Navajo-speaking people do not currently exist, and uses this fact as an argument to support the removal of the nominated category. This is clearly a ridiculous way of thinking. If everybody took this attitude, then there would be no new categories formed at all. The lack of similar categories does not justify the deletion of any given category. Indeed, we should instead be actively encouraging the formation of categories such as Category:Navajo-speaking people and similar categories for other minority languages such as Irish, Amharic, Māori, Catala, Cherokee and Breton, to name just seven!Haul~cywiki (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A person's language is an intrinsic part of a their culture and identity. To try and supress this or 'containerize' its speakers by into artificial groups is characteristic of an imperialistic mindset. To provide a category for speakers of any given language, especially a minority language or an endangered language, serves to illustrate that that language is alive, and is being actively spoken. To deny such a category is to deny the speakers their voice. We should celebrate the languages of the world, and Wikipedia should be at the forefront of doing so, instead of effectively suppressing people's cultures in this way.Haul~cywiki (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:SMcCandlish With respect, you may have had the 'focus your linguistics minor at university as Celtic languages', but unless you have first-hand experience of the reality of living with the daily threat of losing a minority language either as a native speaker {or perhaps as a learner}, then you'll never understand what it means to people personally. How sad it is to read about the fate of certain languages such as Nyulnyul language. There are countless others of course, but there are also millions of speakers of minority languages around the world, many of them notable in Western culture and hence some of those are listed on Wikipedia. These people's culture and identity should not be suppressed by the formation of restrictive categories that do not allow them to be acknowledged as a speaker of a minority language because they don't happen to be an actor or a poet, or something similar. Language is more than a means of communication; and there is certainly more to life than the English language and other dominant languages such as Spanish. It is the people who speak their language who keep that language alive, and there should be a stand-alone, non-containerized category for speakers of all languages of note - especially minority and endangered languages - on Wikipedia.Haul~cywiki (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but Wikipedia should reflect reality, not the limited world view of linguistic majorities. Deb (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of false antithesis is a common rhetorical device, but should be seen as such, and disregarded accordingly. The job of Wikipedia is to organize information in accordance with its established and published rules. They dictate that this category has no place. If you don't like that, the place for you to start is with the rules, not by trying to twist them on an article in order to promote your own pet interests. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "rules" do not "dictate" anything. Perhaps you should just check up on that fifth pillar of wikipedia. Maybe you could work on your grammar while you're at it.Deb (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough regarding my loose reference to "rules"! There are, however, policies and guidelines which should, absent good reason to the contrary, be followed. I have just re-read Wikipedia:Categorization and Overcategorization - Non-defining characteristics and remain of the view that this category does not meet the recommended criteria for inclusion. The following quotation seems particularly to the point: "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." There will be few, if any, persons whose notability is defined by the language(s) they speak; where their language is intricately bound up with their notability, in the case for example of Welsh language poets, use of a suitably precise category would be appropriate. For those who want a directory of Welsh speakers, the creation of an article, List of Welsh speaking people, would, subject to the challenge of entries being verifiable, be an acceptable alternative, and be consistent with the fact that Wikipedia has, for example, a List of redheads, but not a category (as per below). --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerize There certainly can be some professions/aspects of this language with linguists, activists, poets, etc. Speaking a language is not in and of itself defining though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there can be. But that's an argument for keeping (in containerized form) Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations, not for keeping or containerizing Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerize as with Welsh. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you have a counter-argument for the rationale above that I present also against the retention and containerization of Category:Welsh-speaking people (vs. Category:Welsh-language occupations, which should be retained as a container cat.)? "Containerize as with Welsh" isn't responsive to the idea to get rid of both the Scottish Gaelic and Welsh '-speaking people' categories in favor of their '-language occupations' equivalents.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My initial reaction was too brief indeed. The reason for preferring to keep and containerize the category is that it will also allow a language activists child category, like we have with Welsh. However this may be a merely theoretical consideration for the Scottish nomination, since we don't have an activists' child category for Scottish-Gaelic yet. So I'm happy to support your nomination for Scottish-Gaelic if the containerization alternative doesn't get support. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This reminds me that you never did answer my question on my talk page. What occupational category does the present Prince of Wales belong in? His ability to speak Welsh is clearly defining in the context of his role, but he is the first of his kind to take the trouble to learn and use it.Deb (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerize or delete and replace by Category:People in Scottish Gaelic-language occupations for people who are notable as a writer, translater etc in that language. DexDor ^(talk) 06:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need a separate "People in ..." version; each of the occupational categories is itself a container for people to go in them. Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations → Category:Scottish Gaelic poets and other more specific subcats. → Iain Lom and all the other bio articles that belong there. Category:People in Scottish Gaelic-language occupations would be an exact duplicate of Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations, just with a longer name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer the names of these categories to make clear that they are categories for articles about people (rather than for articles about occupations), but Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations would be acceptable. DexDor ^(talk) 19:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerize as per the Welsh, which SHOULD NOT have been reopened immediately after the last close. McCandlish, your footling around is frankly becoming nuisance. Why don't you do something USEFUL like writing articles, which you are well able to do. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, so because I'm suggesting something you disagree with, it's okay for you to be personally insulting? How is that "USEFUL"? Last I looked we considered it actually useful to have a sensible categorization system, that didn't have pointless overlaps, and did not spark the generation of unencyclopedic waste categories for, say, what languages a football player speaks, or what hair color some musician has, or whatever other trivial intersection someone will come up with next.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must concur. You can be a wonderful contributor to Wikipedia and never create articles. Please don't get personal. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerize with a possible name change to or a merge with Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations . The discussion of the Welsh one serves as clear rationale for this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion, particularly on the farcical arguments that these languages are in any way comparable to Spanish, Japanese ...or playing the trombone! These are endangered native languages of the British Isles which have required political campaigns and laws to protect and promote them. Even Welsh speakers are still in a small minority within their own country. I've notified the relevant Scotland and Wales project of this because, again, participants at CfD seem content to steam-roller these decisions through without inviting input from editors who are expert in the field. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "These are endangered native languages of the British Isles which have required political campaigns and laws to protect and promote them. Even Welsh speakers are still in a small minority within their own country." All of this may be true, but isn't at all relevant to the debate. The function of Wikipedia is not to partake in campaigns to protect or promote anything; indeed it is the policy of Wikipedia to be strictly neutral and not promotional. The question under discussion is how the Wikipedia categorization system is being used. It is a clear principle that we do not categorize people by their skills (be they in languages - common, rare or endangered - musical instruments etc) UNLESS that skill is a component part of their notability. For most people the language they speak is not the reason why they are notable; if they happen to speak a rare language, then it may well be worth a mention in their article, but it does not justify a category. If you want a list of Welsh speakers - you refer elsewhere to a desire for a list but conflate it with a category - then by all means create an article List of Welsh speakers that can happily live alongside other articles such as List of redheads, where we have a list article but deemed categorization to be inappropriate. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion - I have found the Welsh category useful in my researches (within and beyond Wikipedia) and don't think there is a sound case for deletion on the basis of the arguments put forward so far. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for both cats - per Haul~cywiki and Sionk. A lot of the deletion rationale here is about what might happen in the future. If people want to add minutia and subdivide it too much, that can be stopped if someone attempts it. There are a lot of language-preservation workers, artists and musicians in the Gaelic category and we shouldn't lose it. I'm not attached to the containerize issue either way, as long as the speakers' cats are kept. - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to point out (again) that we can't check someone's language skills in sources unless he/she is using the language in some notable public activity (e.g. speaking the language while exercising an occupation, or being a language-activist). Everything else is OR. Therefore: containerize! Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a much less clear case than Cornish-speaking people. Gaelic is minority language in Scotland confined to the highlands and islands. For many centuries the main language of Scotland has been Scots, a dialect of English. Welsh has regained some stature in Wales, because it is now taught in all Welsh schools. In some parts of Wales, speaking Welsh is common, though almost everyone also speaks English. I would suggest that the Welsh category should be limited to those who speak it regularly. There are parts of Wales, where it would be unusual to speak it regularly. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteWe should not categorize people by languages they can speak. Biographical articles should be categorized based on things defining to the individuals. For most of these people being able to speak this language is not defining to them, so we do not need the category. Creating more of these categories will just create more of a nightmare. For the Navajo speaking category did Jacob Hamblin or Chief Tuba speak Navajo? If the above arguments held water, we should create a category Hawaiian-speaking people. George Q. Cannon would go in there as a translator of the Book of Mormon to Hawaiian, and Joseph F. Smith would go as well. However I am not sure Joseph Ah Quin (whose article was deleted last December without giving notice of the proceedings to the article creator), but although he worked within the Hawaiian culture as a musician, he was creating his work in English. Language ability is not defining to these people. THere are some people who are fluent in dozens of languages. Allowing a proliferation of such categories will lead to category clutter. I would also point out that some of the arguments above suffer from presentist bias. Besides being hard to verrify, is it defining if a 10th-century figure in Wales knew Welsh?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As with the containerization debate, some of those in favour of removing this category are continually revealing an ignorance of the issues relating to minority languages which, frankly, make those contributors unqualified to participate in this discussion. "Besides being hard to verify, is it defining if a 10th-century figure in Wales knew Welsh?" No, it's not hard to verify, and yes, it is defining." Deb (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowledge, or ignorance, of "the issues relating to minority languages" is of no relevance to this debate, which is about the application of the principles of Wikipedia to the way its information is organized. Those who are versed in those principles, but have no knowledge of or interest in Welsh or Gaelic, are eminently qualified to participate in the discussion, in the way that those to whom the opposite applies are not.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion of both. It is not hard to verify if someone can speak the language. Saying that, I am Welsh, I am not a Welsh speaker, I do not support Welsh political or 'nationalist' parties. But I'll state it again, being female or male does not define people, being straight or gay does not define people. But Wikipedia has judged that these are categories to place people into. Now we state that languages do not count because there is no "People who speak Spanish" category. The non-existence of other categories does not mean we should delete others. I suggest you take your idea to its ultimate conclusion and remove male and female categories. Surely they do not define people. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC) FruitMonkey (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "It is not hard to verify if someone can speak the language" - actually it is; for a start you need to define what "speak the language" means. For example Leanne Wood (who was described in a BBC interview a few days ago as not being a Welsh speaker) has been placed in Category:Welsh-speaking politicians (presumably on the basis of the article saying "She is ... currently learning the language."). That illustrates how subjective this categorization is. Re male/female - that isn't (in all except possibly a very few cases) subjective and only adds one category tag to an article - whereas categorizing people by what skills/abilities they have could add dozens of category tags to some articles. DexDor ^(talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The idea of a "Hawaiian-speaking people" category, suggested above, is certainly a valid one, as it is another good example of an endangered language spoken in a country where English is dominant. But I'll hold off creating it until this debate is closed. Deb (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for both. These are useful categories, allowing readers to discover Welsh and Scottish Gaelic-speaking people of whom they would not otherwise be aware. In addition to browsing the list of pages in the category, seeing the category noted at the bottom of a biography page is a quick and easy way to discover this information on a subject. Also, please note that comparisons cannot be made with speakers of non-minority languages, such as Spanish or Japanese; speakers of minority languages are, by definition, reletively few, even among those of their own nationality. Furthermore, and along with several editors above, I favour re-instating Welsh-speaking people as a functioning category, rather than as a containerized shell. Daicaregos (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "seeing the category noted at the bottom of a biography page is a quick and easy way to discover this information on a subject" - the problem with that is that if an article contains, for example, 500 facts about a person then we would potentially have 500 categories listed at the bottom of the article (many more if categories for combinations of characteristics are included) - i.e. you're just reproducing the text of the article (where the material is referenced) in an unstructured pile of categories. If a particular fact about a person is so important that readers need to be able to find it without reading the text of the article then isn't that exactly what the infobox is for? Also note that many wikipedia readers (especially those on mobile devices) will see the infobox but not see the categories. DexDor ^(talk) 19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not advocate including a category for every fact presented in an article. Your implication that 500 categories may be listed at the bottom of an article if the Welsh and Scottish Gaelic-speaking people categories are not deleted is ludicrous. I mention it as I have found it useful. It is highly likely that many readers find the categories listed at the bottom of articles useful too. That they don't appear on mobiles is no reason to exclude them. That you don't find these categories useful is no reason to exclude them either; other readers do. And surely, that is the point. Daicaregos (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you "do not advocate including a category for every fact presented in an article" then how do you draw a distinction between those facts which you think should be used to categorize the article (being able to speak certain languages) and those that are not used to categorize the article (father's occupation, year of marriage, number of children, having a PPL ...) In other words, why do you think being able to speak a minority language is a more appropriate way to categorize, for example, a sportsperson than any of the other facts on the article that are neither the person's reason for notability nor basic biographical details (e.g. year of birth, nationality)? DexDor ^(talk) 07:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - for reasons outlined above. Also - we have Category:Bearded women, Category:List of redheads etc etc for physical appearences; language also differentiates us. It IS a category of human beings, and is therefore relevant. John Jones (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)— John Jones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  On the contrary, John is a very experienced wikipedian, who has been an active contributor to the Welsh-language wikipedia since 2011. Deb (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, User:Deb, but no—this account has a grand total of 21 edits, the earliest being on 16 July 2015. Perhaps you know the person behind this account, but this acount does indeed appear to be a single-purpose account of sorts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Wales is not that small that I know everyone in it. But as a bureaucrat on Welsh wikipedia, I do know that John Jones is an experienced contributor. The fact that he makes most of his contributions in the Welsh language shouldn't disqualify him from having an opinion, even though it differs from yours. Deb (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I can corroborate that John Jones has 2,906 edits on the Welsh Wikipedia to his 21 on the English, so the "single-purpose account" remark is unfair. Ham II (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the issue is not one of differentiation; it is one of defining - a different kettle of fish. Humans are defined by their innate attributes which, by and large, they are born with: gender, sexual orientation to name but two; having a beard when female is perhaps a sufficient deviation from the norm to merit categorization, although it's arguable; there is no category for redheads, only a list. Skills which one acquires are differentiators of one person versus another, but will rarely if ever be defining: language and "playing the trombone" are skills and shouldn't be the basis of a category. It seems to be accepted even by those who oppose deletion that speaking English or French is not worthy of a category; the argument seems to be predicated on the fact that the skill in question is rare or unusual. So where is the line to be drawn between those languages whose speakers merit a category and those who do not? And by analogy, which skills are sufficiently unusual to merit a category? And how skilled in a rare language, on the trombone, at the dartboard etc would one have to be to be included in an associated category? And what would be the objective measure of passing that test? By all means let's identify the people who use these languages as part of some other noteworthy, and verifiable, activity - Welsh language poets, for example - but not otherwise. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - without getting into the emotional or moral aspects of this debate, as a casual wikipedia user and as a Gaelic speaker/learner I find the category very useful because it is a good way of finding out whether certain people (e.g. celebrities, experts, politicians, historical characters, anyone named on wikipedia) have (or had) Gaelic. That probably sounds strange to people who don't have Gaelic or may have only studied the language a bit, but when you actually want to speak Gaelic to people (e.g. a notable politician like Johann Lamont MSP, former leader of the Scottish Labour Party) it's quite handy to have some kind of list of Gaels where you can easily find out, rather than having to personally approach them and ask "Gabhaidh mo leisgeul, a bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?"

I didn't really want to get into the "ethnicity" matter but, in general, the "Gaels" as an ethnic/ethno-linguistic group are most easily defined as people who speak Gaelic rather than ethnic composition/genetics etc. There are some Gaelic learners, like myself, who do not like to consider themselves "Gaels" (for fear of offending native speakers) so the category "Scottish Gaelic speaking people" probably works best for defining the little ethno-linguistic group that exists in modern Scotland, for whom the Gaelic facilities in the country currently serve. 194.35.219.99 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind "emotional or moral" aspects of the debate, you seem to be confusing the purposes of an encyclopaedia with a directory. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you are not confusing the purposes of a category with the purposes of an article? Deb (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No! The purpose of a category is not to act as a directory, any more than an article.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per those who have said that the categories are useful for research purposes. Ham II (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The only reason why we do not have such as categories for some other languages is that most of the members would be obvious. It could theoretically be done and be useful encyclopedic material; it would just be tedious adding 'Category:Japanese speakers' to all the articles about Japanese people and a few other articles about other people. I encourage the creation of similar categories. Munci (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are for navigation to/between pages - they are not just a badge-like decoration at the bottom of articles. Thus, we place articles in a category even (perhaps, especially) if it's obvious (e.g. from the article title) that it belongs in the category. E.g. we don't say "Foo School is obviously a school so it doesn't need to be in Category:Schools" - that simply isn't how Wp categorization works. DexDor ^(talk) 16:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe misunderstood what Munci was saying. I read it as "Scots Gaelic is not equivalent to widely spoken languages like Japanese" (other people have made similar points above). Sionk (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Munci's statement "The only reason why we do not ... is that most of the members would be obvious." - not categorizing something because it's "obvious" is totally at odds with the fundamentals of categorization. Re your Japanese example - (as other editors have pointed out previously in these discussions) that begs the question of how we decide what "widely spoken" means - for certain groups of people Scots Gaelic may be more widely spoken than Japanese and editors could argue that Japanese is not widely spoken (only a small proportion of the world population have that skill). DexDor ^(talk) 19:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I offered an explanation as to why a theoretical Category:Japanese speakers was not already created. In any case, I have nothing whatsoever against the creation of such a category. Munci (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then presumably we must also look forward to the creation of the Category:English speakers! There seems to be a lot of personal preference, or political agenda, informing the Keep Camp: they find the category "useful" or "have no objection" to it, or support it in connection with a furtherance of minority languages. Some discipline needs to be maintained; I refer again to Overcategorization - Non-defining characteristics and the statement therein: "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." If there is a need to assist people's research on who speaks Gaelic, then the correct approach would be to create an article List of Gaelic speakers (suitably sourced, of course), not to create a category that that fails the test of representing an attribute that is a defining characteristic of the subject matter of the article. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are good ideas. I would support the creation of Category:English speakers. The creation of List of Gaelic speakers would be another possibility. Munci (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As must have been obvious, Category:English speakers was posited as a reductio ad absurdum, not an idea to be taken up! I have no objection however to the use of a list article.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not in the least bit obvious to me. I find it totally appropriate to categorise people by language, as it is appropriate to categorise people by place of origin or other biographical information. As I say, the only downside I see is that it will a lot of work to implement. Munci (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - such are the dangers of employing irony! But if the subtlety (not very subtle) of "then presumably we must look forward to" escaped you, then the exclamation mark must surely have been a strong clue? And then there were all my subsequent remarks which made my position very clear. You say you find it "appropriate to categorize people by language". But why do you think it is appropriate to categorize people in complete disregard for WP's stated policy? Have you read Overcategorization - Non-defining characteristics? If you disagree with it, then the correct approach is to commence a discussion to change the policy rather than simply disregarding it.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - There are many reasons, outlined above. The main one is it's usefulness. In fact on wiki-cy we have 'Category:Authors by language' which would also be useful on wiki-en. I feel, once again, that the objections are politically motivated in order to project the idea that everyone speaks English. I agree with what has been said by Daicaregos, Deb and Haul~cywiki. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't having 'Category:Authors by language' on wiki-en just duplicate Category:Writers by language?

Just about any categorization scheme could, in theory, be useful for someone. For example, if I was looking for someone to be a patron of a charity I might be interested in finding a celebrity who has a child with a particular disease so would welcome categorization by that characteristic, someone looking to identify people to be invited on a particular TV discussion programme might be looking for a sportsperson who has been divorced, a politician who plays the trombone etc. On that basis we would categorize by every fact in an article (and I note that some of the proponents of these categories appear to also want to categorize by characteristics that aren't even mentioned in the article). See also WikiData.

Re the suggestion that "the objections are politically motivated" - I (and probably most other experienced wp categorizers) would equally !vote delete for any categorization of (for example) actors that have a PPL, politicians who play the trombone etc. DexDor ^(talk) 06:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Plea to Close: This debate is going nowhere as it is between two opposed, and probably irreconcilable, views of what is appropriate in an encyclopedia.

On the one side are what I shall call the Wikipedians, whose objective is to maintain consistent and logical standards of categorization in keeping with published principles and guidelines. Their agenda is simple and does not appear to have any "axe to grind" on the Welsh or any other language, although they are accused, inter alia, of suppression via categorization!

On the other side are what I shall call (with no offence intended to those who do not like the generalization) the Welsh Language Apologists, who wish to use Wikipedia as a tool for the preservation, and possibly promotion, of minority languages in general and Welsh in particular, and a convenient source of the identities of their speakers.

In my view the former should prevail as it is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that it should be neutral and not used as a vehicle of promotion. Another month of this debate is unlikely to advance it rather than rehashing oft stated positions. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an outrageous exageration of the debate and you should amend or withdraw it! I certainly consider myself an experienced Wikipedian with a valid, policy based, point of view to contribute. The earlier discussions on similar topics were characterised by an attempt to delete these categories by stealth, by not involving the wider Wikipedia community. The argument that Scottish Gaelic (or Welsh) is not comparable to Spanish or Japanese is a valid one, in my opinion (and others above). Sionk (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary. It is an objective summation of all the preceding. I stand by it. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the "Sage" in his wisdom fails to recognise is that the very existence of Celtic-language activism demonstrates the difference between these threatened languages and the majority languages of which he speaks one; this is the reason why they need a category like this whereas English, Italian, Japanese, etc, don't. One thing is absolutely clear - there is no consensus to delete the category. Therefore the debate should be closed and the category be left as is. Deb (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You prove my point for me. The basis for your support of the category is the "need" of these languages to have a category because they are "threatened" and require "activism" to keep them alive. This is not a valid reason within the confines of Wikipedia. Make no mistake: I applaud your enthusiasm and activism to preserve these languages - I am equally enthusiastic about dead languages (Latin and Ancient Greek) - but it has no place in a debate about categorization. There should be no special treatment for speakers of any language be they live and common, live but endangered or dead. Nor should the existence or not of a consensus be relevant to a debate which should be decided on a rational and dispassionate application of basic principles. Majorities are not necessarily right. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Re "the very existence of ... activism demonstrates ... why they need a category" - on that basis there could be a category for everything about which there's ever been activism for people involved with that thing (not necessarily as an activist). For example, there has been pro-cycling activism so Andrew Mitchell would be categorised as a person who can ride a bicycle. Similarly it could lead to categories such as "people who have smoked cannabis", "people who have had an abortion" etc (however WP:NON-DEFINING it is of each person). DexDor ^(talk) 07:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my Plea to Close - we are (as I said above) only restating existing, and irreconcilable, positions. We could carry on for another year to no good purpose. As those who wish to keep the categories have not advanced any good (in Wikipedia terms) arguments to support their position, (and indeed have in the most recent posting from Deb clearly demonstrated the argument for deletion), the categories should be deleted. There is, as I have also proposed, a solution which should satisfy both sides of the argument which is to create a list article; indeed this is the recommended approach as set out in the relevant guidance to deal with characteristics which may be notable ("speaking Welsh") but are inherently non defining. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather wait for an admin who has has the time and wisdom to consider the arguments carefully to close this (and possibly explain their reasoning) than for someone to close it in a rush - that's more likely to result in a No Consensus result that is unsatisfactory to everybody (and results in a new CFD being started...). I agree re list. DexDor ^(talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It may be of interest to participants in the current debate that this category was previously discussed for deletion along with categories for the speakers of several other languages. The discussion was pretty clear-cut, for reasons largely the same as being presented now, and the decision was to delete. The category was duly deleted, only (it would appear) to be re-opened on the same date by one of the proponents of keeping the category in the current debate! We should not assume that the decision of an administrator will resolve this!--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The decision was to delete all with certain exceptions, "Welsh-speaking people" being one. Had the decision been to delete the category, it would have been deleted at the time, but the closing administrator acknowledged his initial error. Deb (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the argument has been made already that lumping endangered languages in with major languages like English and Spanish is plainly mischievous. So the 2006 discussion was not helpful in this respect. Like should be compared with like. Secondly, Wikipedia consensus and policy changes over time. particularly over 9 years - to suggest all decisions at any point in WIkipedia's existence are inviolable just won't wash. At last (shame this didn't happen with Category:Welsh-speaking people) a wider discussion is taking place on the specific issue of endangered language speakers. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Plainly mischievous"? Nonsense. Those advocating deletion seem to me to be entirely dispassionate and neutral in their approach; to suggest malign intention is without foundation and (if I may use your own language) "you should amend or withdraw it". If anything is plain it is that many of those who wish to keep the categories are driven principally by their advocacy of a cause, which is clearly contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. Yes, consensus can change over time, but what is significant here is that the relevant policy is abundantly clear and dictates the same answer now as it did 9 years ago. It is thoroughly shocking that after a very clear-cut decision taken 9 years ago, the result was not accepted but blatantly disregarded by an immediate re-instatement after a proper deletion. So much for allowing the passage of time to allow a change in consensus to emerge!

In all of this debate, the proponents of keeping the categories have not engaged at all with the policy, and seem reluctant to do so. Nor has any "argument" been made (as you suggest) that "lumping" majority and endangered languages together is in any way relevant to the debate; it has been merely asserted by some that the endangered nature of certain languages means that the normal rules of categorization should not apply. Assertion is not argument. The preservation of endangered languages is indeed a noble cause; but that does not mean that a person who is notable for being, say, a footballer but who happens to speak Welsh should be categorized as a Welsh speaker any more than a footballer with any other minority or esoteric skill should be categorized as, say, a ukulele player. Within the context of Wikipedia the two are exactly analogous. The argument is very simple and clear-cut; all "arguments" to the contrary in this debate seem to be either politically motivated by cause advocates (which is unacceptable) or to be driven by a misguided wish that categories should be established for anything particular users find "useful", which is the road to chaos. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of the "oppose" comments have not engaged with existing policy. But equally, many of the "support" comments have shown no willingness to engage with existing facts. Being able to speak these threatened national languages is invariably verifiable and invariably defining (the Welsh language is one of the important things that defines 'Welshness' for example). Sionk (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the face of the policy, the facts, as you present them, are simply irrelevant. However, a little research shows that you have in any event misrepresented the "facts" in your most recent post. While speaking Welsh is certainly indicative of "Welshness" it is certainly not conclusive. According to the Welsh language WP article the Welsh language is also spoken by people in England and Argentina (well, I've learned something new today!), who may or may not be Welsh. But most significantly, it states that 73% of Welsh people speak no Welsh, so it clearly cannot be something which "defines Welshness", still less "one of the important things", and to say otherwise is disrespectful to the Welsh majority. As for being "invariably verifiable" I have just picked on two people in this category at random and, while the articles for each provide circumstantial evidence that they probably spoke Welsh, there is no sourced statement in either case to justify the allocated category.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that 73% of the population of Wales speak no Welsh shows exactly why it is a defining characteristic of those who do. Deb (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, even if speaking Welsh was a defining aspect of Welshness, which it clearly isn't, your argument (I'll humour you) would still fail as being Welsh does not constitute notability nor is speaking Welsh a basic biographical detail such as place or year of birth, occupation and other such prosaic details, which are the two bases for the categorization of individuals. Language(s) spoken are, I'm afraid, merely skills in the spectrum that embraces trombone playing, swing dancing etcetera and that is equally the case whether the language spoken is English, Japanese, Latin or Welsh. If you feel that the speaking of Welsh is sufficiently important to be represented on Wikipedia, you should create an article List of Welsh speakers, not try to distort the system of categorization. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one correct statement in the previous paragraph. It demonstrates an astonishing level of ignorance on the part of the self-styled "Sage". Deb (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Sage' seems to be unaware of the fact that - as I have noted previously - amongst Welsh-speakers, the ability to speak Welsh forms an important part of their Welsh identity. For further information please see:^[1] and ^[2]. In simple terms 'Sage', ask yourself the question: Does the ability of an English person to speak English not, at least in part, help define that person as an 'English' person? Would that same person honestly feel equally 'English' if they only spoke French, for example?Haul~cywiki (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - no sensible arguments have been advanced for retaining these 'categories', which in themselves open the way to even further cruft 'categories'. The 2006 decision applies, as noted by The Sage of Stamford, and I am startled that it has been transgressed.--Smerus (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Smerus Please define what constitutes a 'cruft category'. I feel that this is being used as a derogatory term. Please be mindful of the Wikipedia:Five pillarsHaul~cywiki (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Useful. Nothing to do with protecting endangered languages, just useful encyclopedic fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Personally I would find Category:People who keep cats both interesting and useful. But I don't advocate it. Where do you draw the line once utility becomes an acceptable criterion? As Smerus eloquently puts it, the door is then open to all manner of cruft categories--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Given that the 'Sage' feels that it is necessary to cast a vote twice on this matter (see 3 October above), I thought that I'd also re-affirm my opposition to the proposed deletion. @(User:The Sage of Stamford) given that you bizarrely appear to believe that the ability to speak Welsh or Gaelic is analogous to the ability to play a musical instrument, would you therefore also advocate the deletion of such categories as Category:English pianists?Haul~cywiki (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 'Sage', while you are at it, given your comment that 'Language(s) spoken are, I'm afraid, merely skills in the spectrum that embraces trombone playing, swing dancing', perhaps you could start a campaign for the deletion of Category:American swing dancers and Category:French classical trombonists as well?Haul~cywiki (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. These discussions have been open for nearly 12 weeks and have been listed three separate times, and we're just not getting participation. To change the names, we need a consensus to do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Two related discussions have been relisted here and grouped together for convenience. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rastafari movement[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Rastafari movement to Category:Rastafari
• Category:Performers of Rastafarian music to Category:Performers of Rastafari music
• Category:Converts to the Rastafari movement‎ to Category:Converts to Rastafari
• Category:Rastafarian texts to Category:Rastafari texts

Nominator's rationale: Main article moved from Rastafari Movement to Rastafari through discussion, but basically that title and other previous titles (like Rastafarian and Rastafarianism) are reductive titles created by non-adherents. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion rename Category:Rastafari movement to Category:Rastafari (religion) in order to distinguish from adherents (see below). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @JohnnyMrNinja: How do you like my suggestion? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rastafarians[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Rastafarians to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Similar to the above. This is complicated by the fact that the Religion Rastafari is also the term for the adherents in the singular or plural form. The term Rastafarian is considered reductive and offensive. My inclination is Category:Rastafari practitioners ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion rename to Category:Rastafari (adherents) in order to distinguish from the Rastafari topic (see above).

• @JohnnyMrNinja: How do you like my suggestion? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep As Is The Rastafari main article does say that "Rastafarianism" can be offensive because it's an "-ism". That same article uses "Rastafarian" liberally. Based on WP:COMMONNAME, I would leave this unless there is clearer evidence that the term is offensive. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Seafaring songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Another bunch of songs linked together without rhyme or reason. None of the articles suggests anything about the lyrics, so there is no significant commonality that means they should be linked. If the creator had intended a category of sea shanties, then none of these songs should be included. Richhoncho (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and because there's already Category:Sea shanties, so this category appears redundant in any case. DonIago (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yo ho ho! delete articles about seafaring aren't a genre - are notable awards given for them, for example? And this category suffers the same problems as all the "about" type categories: how much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion -- While not a genre per se, its existence is justified: First, because many more well-known songs have now been added to the category which clearly reveal their common connection by their titles. The themes of all others are clearly linked simply by a cursory view of their lyrics. Second, there is no duplication of songs between Category:Sea shanties and Category:Seafaring songs. -- JGabbard (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JGabbard. I checked the lyrics for Can't Get It Out of My Head and it mentions the shoreline and an ocean's wave, but for all we know it could be metaphors, parables, or a complete load rubbish put together because the words fitted well. Not that this matters, because for the category to exist there must be a verified statement in the article - NOT on a third party website where the reader may wrongly interpret the meaning of the lyrics - which kind of misses the whole purpose of Wikipedia by a mile.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- We have a lot of "songs about ...". Sea shanties is a particular genre, related to men hauling ropes, often on capstans. How about renaming it to Category:Songs about seafaring? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose that in general, but the current members of the category, as noted above, need to be reevaluated. This might be better as a list under the current circumstances. DonIago (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, Doniago. The whole 'categories about' are ridiculous in themselves. For instance, the creator of this category has added, since this nomination, Rock the Boat (Hues Corporation song), where the first two lines are "Our love is like a ship on the ocean / We've been sailing with a cargo full of, love and devotion." Another song added by another editor, Sail Away (David Gray song) has a similar theme (hint:both use metaphors extensively). Both articles are totally silent on the meaning of the the lyrics, so have been added because something "seafaring" i.e. "boat" and "sail" is in the title. For silliness, this is like adding Mountain (band) to Category:Mountains of New York because the band has "Mountain" as it's name and it came from NY. That is the problem with this category and the whole "Songs about" categories, they are repositories for WP:OR. Delete the lot. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here. Everything you just said factors into why I think this might be better as a list, where each item would need to be sourced. DonIago (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to comment on musical categories (other than classical), because I lack the requisite knowledge. I threw in a suggestion, in the hope that it would help, but it sounds as if this would need to be accompanied by a major purge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:VFL/AFL players born outside of Australia to Category:VFL/AFL players born outside Australia

Nominator's rationale: As per rationale on discussion below re Lebanese communities outside of Lebanon. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:SLASH we should not be using a slash here. The entire category tree should be using "and" instead of "/" ; it also makes the category tree appear to be part of CAT:VFL per common internet URL convention. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not necessarily opposed to a complete rework of many of these, but "VFL and AFL" implies a completely different thing to "VFL/AFL". Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • when nominating the change I was concerned only with the redundant "of". However, while we are about it we might as well make this an intelligible category; I had no idea what AFL or VFL meant until I looked it up just now! Clearly, we don't need both as the latter is merely the old name for the former - which could be dealt with if thought necessary by a separate empty category with a redirect. The abbreviation should be removed altogether. So I would now propose renaming as Category:Australian Football League players born outside Australia. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that probably 60-80% of the people in the category never played in the Australian Football League. I already cringe at having to place players who died before the Sydney Swans or Western Bulldogs were so-named into Category:Sydney Swans players or Category:Western Bulldogs players, not the more correct Category:South Melbourne Football Club players or Category:Footscray Football Club players, just because we don't allow populating category redirects or the use of piped names on categories like we can on links.

As a solution, should we just open up the scope a little bit and make it Category:Australian rules footballers born outside Australia? i doubt it would increase the size by that much, mainly because we don't have that many articles on players who never played in the VFL/AFL. The-Pope (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, pace User:Peterkingiron below in the discussion regarding Lebanese communities, what about Category:Australian rules footballers born abroad, which is simpler language? But I am really starting to wonder whether we need this at all when this category has a parent Category:Players of Australian rules football by nationality which then has sub-categories by country, so the non Australians can already be identified, and with more granularity than this "anyone outside Australia" dump. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. I assume that Australian rules football is not played elsewhere to any significant extent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why does it matter where these people were born? A person can be just as fully "Australian", born and bred, and still have been born outside Australia. Is the intent to capture players who are non-Australians? If so, this is not a very good way to do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the intent is what is says on the tin, to capture all players born outside Australia. Due to the nature of the league, it's a pretty niche (and interesting) subset that does get remarked upon by the media [1]. Jenks24 (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we have many categories that categorize by place of birth. This is a strange one indeed, since it essentially categorizes by where the person was not born. I'm tempted to think that Category:Players of Australian rules football by nationality, combined with VFL/AFL players with international backgrounds, is more than enough. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is I guess what I am suggesting per my comments above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, categories by country of birth is not a good categorizing scheme as it will overlap too much with nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not characterize people by birth, but by nationality. The category as such would include people born to 2 Australian parents who were abroad for any amount of time, no matter how short. Maybe the person was born during a one-day 1st wedding anniversary trip to Bali, but other than the first 2 days of their life has spent their entire life in Australia. The trivial fact of where they were born is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Bit ambivalent about this, but I will note we do have an article covering the topic, List of Australian Football League players born outside Australia (and that has refs showing significant coverage of the topic), which as I understand it does mean think it's OK to have a category covering it. Pinging Jevansen and IgnorantArmies as two contributors to that list who haven't commented here yet and might be interested. Jenks24 (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as no one seems too interested in keeping this, I guess I would be OK with deleting it. Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename for now, without prejudice to a nomination for a different name. Purging is also OK as needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lebanese communities outside of Lebanon to Category:Lebanese communities outside Lebanon

Nominator's rationale: The word "of" following "outside" is redundant. This is consistent with various existing redirects, for example:

• List of United States Senators born outside of the United States;
• Think outside of the box;
• List of Wales international footballers born outside of Wales.

The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a purge is in order; a number of the articles are "Arabs in ...<fooland>" types, where I looked at a number of those and they list prominent members of the communities as Palestinians, Moroccans, Iraqis, Syrians, and even lump Berbers, Kurds, and other ethnic groups in with Arabs because they come from an Arab-occupied country, like Kurdistan, etc. Because this is labeling people by ethnic origin, it needs to be done with care and not all the Arab articles are about Lebanese people, and not the Arab articles are even solely about Arabs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • a purge may well be in order, but that's a separate matter and should not distract in the first instance from getting rid of the redundant "of". --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but purge -- However I wonder if Category:Lebanese communities abroad, might be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Christian College Consortium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That, for example, George Fox University is a member of this consortium is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (it appears in the article as just one of a list of organizations that this university is a member of). For info: there is a list at Christian College Consortium. Example of similar previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_1#Category:Council_of_Independent_Colleges. DexDor ^(talk) 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GFU, to continue the given example, was formed in 1885, the Consortium in 1971, and there is no indication of when GFU joined the consortium. There is a list in the Christian College Consortium of its current members. The article could be improved a lot if the list was updated to include when the various institutions joined the consortium and to include any former members that either left, were expelled or no longer exist. I do not even know if any such institutions exist, but that is the sort of information the article could be improved by having. These member institutions define the consortium, the consortium does not define its members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Alabama
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Alaska
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Arizona
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: Delete per outcome of this discussion. This nomination will be extended to other countries if it gets consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is such a common cause of death that it doesn't seem defining. Obituaries often mention the cause of death, along with the location of the funeral, but that emphasis doesn't translate to more reliable biographies. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This form of categorization puts, for example, articles about musicians (e.g. Vernon Derrick) in Category:Human anatomy. WP:DNWAUC applies. If editors want to create a database storing the cause(s)-of-death of people then WikiData is may be the place to go. Note: If there are any articles actually about a cardiovascular disease death (i.e. an event) then they should be upmerged, but even Death of Elvis Presley is a redirect so it's unlikely there are any such articles. DexDor ^(talk) 21:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC) clarified DexDor ^(talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths while sitting on the toilet, anyone? The reason we don't have such an article is because that happened in 1977 and no one gives a shit anymore (see above, no pun intended). Obviously, Death of Bobbi Kristina Brown is a whole different matter and needs to be created posthaste to capitalize on all the Google hits it gets! Seriously, I believe I've edited both Death of Hank Williams and Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan (as well as The Day the Music Died, which covers a number of bases but is chiefly about the death of Buddy Holly) in the past, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "If there are any articles actually about a death". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my comment above. DexDor ^(talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't the whole tree being uprooted? from Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease on down? If there's really no conceptual difference between the subset of these which occur in Alabama, and those that don't, we ought to be discussing the lot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the nominator so I'm guessing but, it's really daunting to try and handle a larger nomination all at once and, if you start at the top, other editors will say that you're orphaning subcategories. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the editors who don't regularly participate in CFD or otherwise involve themselves in categorization matters. Many of these editors have to be scratching their heads over the deletion of such a large number of well-populated categories, while at the same time WP:SMALLCAT and other loopholes are vigorously exploited to create an unlimited number of categories which will never be well populated, many of which are so underpopulated that they're counterproductive to effective navigation between articles. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:RevelationDirect is entirely right. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete tree per Carlossuarez46. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fell the entire tree -- This is a NN cause of death: far too common. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too common to be defining. We categorize by place year of birth and year of death. We do not categorize by cause of birth. That is we do not divide out those who were born due to fertility treatments from those born due to natural sexual encounters. We don't even distinguish those born within the bonds of marriage to unmarried parents. While the translation to death categories is inperfect, Cardiovascular disease is such a high cause of death that to treat it as a defining cause to the general biography of the individual does not make sense. Other forms of death are different and so such treatment does make sense in some cases, so we have to review the cause of death categories on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2015 (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.