Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 28

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< November 27 November 29 >

November 28

edit

Category:Black British writers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose either deletion or splitting of category. Racial categories were discouraged in this earlier Cfd discussion on the since deleted Category:British people of Black African descent parent cat. Also, no comparable Category:White British writers exists. Alternatively, recommend parsing existing pages into Category:Afro-Caribbean writers and constituent Sub-Saharan African writer categories (e.g. Category:Nigerian writers). Also note that WP:CATEGRS disallows such racial categories: "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This is one of the subcategories of Category:Black British people by occupation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a ridiculous idea. I have googled the term 'Black British writers' and it brought back over 1 million results. The category has nothing to do with 'white british writers', which is entirely irrelevant. Black British writing and writers are established subjects of academic and journalistic thought. For example, this in this Guardian article [[1]] Catherine Johnson writes "There is clearly no shortage of talented black writers – Courttia Newland, Malorie Blackman and Andrea Levy, to name a few" At this BBC History page, [[2]] Onyekachi Wambu writes "Black British literature, or that literature written in English by Caribbean, Asian, African, and other people who originated from the ex-British Empire, has an ancient pedigree, as ancient as the Empire itself." Goldsmiths College offers an M.A. in Black British Writing [[3]]. If Wikipedia were to delete this category it would make the entire website seem lacking in intellectual rigour. The social category 'black' cannot be reduced to either 'Afro-Caribbean', nor to 'Sub-Saharan African', nor to 'Nigerian'. It is not dependent on Carlton Coon's bizarre theories of race but has emerged in many societies, for many reasons and in many ways.Ackees (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"White British writers" similarly brings back almost 1 million results, but yet that category doesn't exist. This brings us to the crux of the problem with this category and all similar ones: they require editors to make a subjective judgement call as to which individuals racially "belong" in that category. Consequently, WP:CATEGRS discourages such categories (see above). Middayexpress (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Black British' is a very well recognised social identity not a pseudo-scientific 'racial bloc'. That is not to say that 'race' and 'racism' as social constructs are irrelevant to black identity. Writers in the UK, who identify as black, such as Rageh Omar, are not making grand statements about 'racial genetic' theories, they are talking about a sense of belonging to what is ultimately a series of socio-political identity groups - black people. I appreciate that this is a subtle theory and not easy to grasp, but bruv, there it is. Black identity in the UK is not primarly determined by US, or Caribbean, or African 'race relations' - it is a fluid and developing concept that occurs in the UK.Ackees (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Key word: fluid. In other terms, who is and who isn't "Black British" is entirely at the discretion of the Wikipedian, like I wrote. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Black British" arose in the 1980s to emphasize the political relationship between all ethnic minorities in Britain. It is now mainly used to refer to British nationals descended from first-generation Afro-Caribbean migrants, though the term is sometimes also extended on a political basis to all African or Caribbean immigrants [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I got 1,080,000 hits for "black British writers" with the quotes and 46 when I changed 'black' to 'white'. It is evidently a valid intersection of 'Black British people' and 'writers', as is Category:African-American writers. Oculi (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a disallowed categorization by race. The "do not categorize by race" rules make it pretty obvious we should not be categorizing people by race in this manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no rule or convention which states "do not categorize by race". There has been consensus in the past that we do not categorize by mere skin colour. However, "Black British" is a well-recognised ethnicity and goes well beyond merely categorising by skin colour or "race", and Black British culture is a subject of academic study, of which writing is a subgroup. Ultimately, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to pick off this one category for deletion given the extensive nature of the subcategories within Category:Black British people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under the guidelines on categorizing by ethnicity and other things it says "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." That is a very specific directive to not categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such a statement is meaningless unless you can explain by what you mean by "race" and how the definition differs from "ethnicity". Since the concept of "race" is so slippery, some would refer to an ethnicity as a "race", as you apparently have done, since you have taken the "Black British" ethnicity and referred to it as a racial classification. That confusion of the two concepts makes the guideline you refer to non-sensical. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. 'Black' is much too non-specific and is currently non-defined on the page and I would suggest it is pointless to try and come up with a satisfactory definition in the context of British writers. Googling is no guide at all to informing sensible knowledge management at WP. Many of the people currently listed in the cat in fact of mixed parentage such as Jackie Kay, Andrea Levy, Zadie Smith, George Lamming, Mary Seacole and Malcolm Gladwell. 'Black' is not a 'race' in any definable way, nor to do with nationality or ethnicity. We should not categorise by melanin skin content, which is what this comes down to; unless you're planning to use the cat as catch all for 'people who are not white'. Nice. Span (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons:
  1. None of the other subcategories of Category:Black British people are nominated for deletion. There is nothing in the intersection of Black British and writers that makes this category special.
  2. Black British is on the Lists of ethnic groups that WP:CATEGRS discusses as acceptable.
--Andrewaskew (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GO; Black British writing is widely recognised as a distinct literary category, just like its US equivalent. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Black British is the established name to refer to a specific ethnic group, as used on census, and some seeing it as being a less politically correct name than other ethnic group names is not our concern. Black British writers as a topic has received academic scrutiny. I can't see why this would be deleted without also deleting both the entire Black British tree and half the Writers by ethnicity tree.--Qetuth (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wikipedia:CATEGRS#Ethnicity_and_race: "Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group.. See Lists of ethnic groups for groups that are typically considered ethnic groups rather than races." Black British is listed. So in this case it would pass. This is an esoteric side of Wikipedia rules but it does support categorization by Black British. (props to Andrewaskew for finding it). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed on that page because someone added it, though it shouldn't be according to the definition of an ethnic group. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The longer more involved answer has to do with cultural differences that are similar to the differences between American and British English discussed on MOS:SPELL. In American cultural contexts Black operates as a somewhat inulting adjectival race descriptor; the proper ethnographic term is, I believe, African American (to the extent that I have heard American people use the term "Australian African American"). In British cultural contexts Black is more neutral, and is operating less as an adjective and more as part of an ethnographic compound noun (though not literally). The term is more like Blackbritish than Black... British.
If editors are still opposed to the term, then that is less a problem for Cfd, and more something to be discussed on Talk:Black British with WikiProject Ethnic groups and it's descendent WikiProject African diaspora. Though I believe you would have quite a fight on your hands, make sure you know your policies and sources. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Black British and WP:EGRS. While the current situation with ethnicity-related cats is argueably still in flux, if we follow the current reading of WP:EGRS, then this can arguably be kept. Not a strong keep by any means. For one thing, there is no assertion that what all these black british writers are writing meets the criteria of EGRS. So some are being categorised merely because some others meet the criteria. Seems odd to me. But then, that's apparently the current situation of WP:EGRS-related categorisation. - jc37 00:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "Black British" is a reasonably well-understood category, covering both direct Africans and West Indian descent. We do not have Afro-British (as an equivalent of Afro-American). Furthermore, there has bene a lot of imigration direct from Africa to UK, mostly from former colonies. This is a significant difference from USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete racial segregationist category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists. The only way this would be a legitimate category is if the folks in the category were notable for being British AND a writer AND black, but aren't notable exclusive of any of those traits. Example : Martin Luther King's being Black AND a civil rights activist are pertinent to his notability; hence "Black Civil Rights Activists" would be an OK category for MLK. If he was either not black or not a civil rights activist his notability would likely be affected. A lot of the authors in this category just happen to be black. There "blackness" has nothing to do with their notability. Categorizing peopole by race when their race isn't pertinent to their notability is a very very very very very bad idea. Very bad idea. NickCT (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply - This misses the entire point of the argument. "Black British" is the name of an ethnic group as listed at Lists of ethnic groups. That the name used for this ethnic group in reliable sources happens to be made up of the words 'black' and 'british' seems to be confusing many people. If someone were black, British, and a writer, we would NOT categorise them by that intersection, because we do not categorise by race - the same reason why Martin Luther King is in no categories mentioning 'black' but half a dozen 'African American' ones. Splitting up the words as you have would be equivalent to, in your example, arguing that MLK would have to be all of 'civil, right, and and activist' (he was, I suppose, but that is not how the category works). Or that he shouldn't be categorised as 'African American' as he wasn't from Africa. --Qetuth (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Tatum Texas

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Need the comma between city, state. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Newspapers by Winston Churchill

edit
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. The sole contents was British Gazette, if users are interested in continuing the discussion as to whether the article belongs in Category:Works by Winston Churchill. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with no chance of expansion, and not part of a category tree newspapers by editor. Tim! (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People in history by country

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, conditionally. This is an extremely ill-advised scheme. People are correctly categorized by where they're from and what they do, but the mere association with a nation's history is quite spongy. However, none of the subcategories are nominated, so I have to complete this nomination before proceeding. I'm abating the deletion of this category for a week, so that I can put up the subcategories for deletion in a series of nominations. After a week, I'm closing all of those nominations based on the consensus in each. Assuming I don't see a flood of support for those, I'll finish the deletion of the category and its subcategories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a hopelessly vague categorization scheme. What constitutes being "in the history" of England? If this is deleted, then I propose that the national subcats. would be speedy deletions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What exactly is the purpose of this categorization? Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Feb 2007 deletion of Category:Canadian historical figures. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The subcategories should have been umbrella nominated. If deleted, speedy deletion does not mean you can remove the subcategories from each article yourself and request deletion per C1. There is a speedy deletion process. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all contents. To say people are in the "history" or a country always ends up being arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Without such a category, the "History of Foo Country" categories become a hopeless mess of 90% biographies, obscuring the actual historical events. Further, when you have someone like, say, a British general who fought major campaigns in India, he can't go in "Indian people" because he's not Indian, despite him being prominent in the history of the country. So you can just chuck him into the "History" or "Military history of India" cat, but again, this results in "History of Foo Country" being a ton of bios crowding out the actual historical events which should be the main attraction of the cat. If y'all delete these cats, 91 biographies get dumped into "History of Pakistan", which isn't really helpful for cleaning up that cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These kinds of things come up every time we get into categorising by the broad term "history". Everyone has a "history". So essentially, this becomes a duplicate of Category:People by country. Such duplication just makes navigation more difficult. - jc37 00:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do agree with the "everything/one has a history", as I'm often annoyed by towns being added to "History of [___location]" articles, since clearly every town is part of "history" in that place. That said, do we have any policy somewhere saying that bios shouldn't go directly into a "History of [___location]" category? They really make those cats a huge cluttered mess in every country cat I've seen. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musicals by librettist templates

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are navboxes only, and are about the people, not the musicals.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bisexual Asian-Americans

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Bisexual Asian Americans to Category:American people of Asian descent and Category:Bisexual people. Merge Category:Bisexual African Americans to Category:Bisexual people and Category:LGBT African Americans. Merge Category:Bisexual American people of Cuban descent to Category:Bisexual people and Category:LGBT American people of Cuban descent. All of the target categories existed at the time this nomination was closed. I have my doubts that some of them will be around much longer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bisexual American people of Ecuadorian descent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:LGBT American people of Ecuadorian descent. The sole article is also in Category:Bisexual Hispanic and Latino American people, so I have not merged to Category:Bisexual people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian-American women

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian-Americans by state

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. It puzzles me why Asian-American is hyphenated and Chinese American isn't, but we can resolve that another time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Republic of the Congo people

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Inca Empire people

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Imperial Russian people

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Austrian Empire people

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:University Professors of the University of the Philippines

edit
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) 01:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge I think it's a bad idea to split professors of an institution by academic rank as it makes it harder to find the articles. Readers looking for a particular biography are likely to know the institution at which an individual is employed but very unlikely to know their academic rank. Pichpich (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Started

edit
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) 01:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This doesn't really fit any of the speedy deletion criteria but the hatnote is "This page was created and maintained by two friends named NidhinNidhin And Sanal KrishnanSanal" so this is clearly not an acceptable use of the category system. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Person of Interest

edit
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) 01:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not enough content currently to warrant a category. If the category is kept it should at least be renamed to Category:Person of Interest (TV series). Pichpich (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians named Jethro

edit
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) 01:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete User category with no potential use for collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New author

edit
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) 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete created to include a spammish user page of an Indian writer. The article on his novel was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Life with a Soul. Pichpich (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hong Kong television

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: align styling ("television in foo") with other members of Category:Television by country--96.232.126.27 (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just didn't get that far in alphabet yet. country or not, both would seem to take style of "television in foo"--96.232.126.27 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
have now added rename nomination for Category:Macau television to Category:Television in Macau at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 30#Category:Macau television--96.232.126.27 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by city or town in Palestine

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the rest of Wikipedia which has titles like Economy of the Palestinian territories, and Category:Economy of the Palestinian territories, Demographics of the Palestinian territories, and Education in the Palestinian territories not "X of Palestine". This template is about cites in the Palestinian territories, not cities in Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this category is meant to be limited to the Palestinian Territories. Palestine can be used in many senses, and until there is the formation of a country officially recognized with that name, we should use the Paletinian Territories form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

UN–HABITAT

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALLCAT Armbrust The Homonculus 09:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orientale Province

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article has been re-named Orientale Province; the categories should follow this renaming. This was proposed at WP:CFDS, but it was opposed on the basis that it could be confused with a region on the Moon. I don't find this convincing. Isn't it just called Mare Orientale? The Moon does not have "provinces", does it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Me First and the Gimme Gimmes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Contains only two articles and 4 categories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. I was in Sydney a few years ago, and an Australian guy I met said he'd offer me one of his beers, but he only had six left. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German Americans by city

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:German-American culture by city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Place names of Czech origin in the United States

edit
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) 04:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Books by writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point. But inclusion and precision are not direct opposites. One can very precisely define a large number of things, or vaguely list a small number. (Category:Every human being who has ever lived within 32.76 miles of a body of water versus Category:Some guy.) --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wisconsin educators

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per convention of Category:American people by occupation by state. --Qetuth (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hawaiian Kingdom judges

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii judges.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT entertainer sub-categories

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The categories contain too many articles which will go uncategorized in the "(X) people by occupation" trees. If categories for television presenters, dancers, and a couple other professions are created, we can revisit this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Each of these is a container category for various occupational sub-categories. All of those occupational sub-categories are already in the parent container, Category:LGBT entertainers so this is an unnecessary layer. There are some individual articles in the containers but each of them appears to be in at least one gay occupational or LGBT occupational category, in most cases more than one. Deletion will not remove any articles from the tree. Buck Winston (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, why make it harder for people to find this information? Often people want to find the bisexual, transgender, lesbian and gay subgroups within the larger umbrella of LGBT. We should make it easier not more difficult. Insomesia (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the specific G, L, B or T occupational sub-categories are nominated for deletion? None of them. Just the generic "entertainers" container categories. The sub-category contents of the "entertainers" container categories will still exist. Buck Winston (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I misstated my concern. If you delete Category:Bisexual entertainers where is someone seeking Wikipedia's coverage of bisexual entertainers to find those entertainers categorized. It's disingenuous to posit that anyone but determined and experienced Wikipedians will figure out how to navigate categories to find which people fit into these categories. Do you really suggest that out of the hundreds of people in each of the LGBT categories someone can figure out which ones are entertainers? Or doctors? Or some other profession? I think not. Insomesia (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your reasoning but still disagree. I think there are still examples where someone is in an entertainer category and no easy fit currently exists so they are just removed and that aspect of there humness is gone from the categories. There does seem to be an exerted campaign to wipe these out so i guess I can't stop the tide. Insomesia (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read my !vote. I did not argue for keeping the categories (I'm neutral on that point); I argued that if they are removed, this should be done by upmerger rather than by deletion.
    It is not correct that they are all in LGBT entertainers: for example Clare Balding is in Category:Lesbian entertainers, and no other subcat of Category:LGBT entertainers.
    However, the more I look at this, the more I am inclined to switch my vote to "keep", because I can see no navigational benefit from removing these categories. Their removal reduces the numbers of paths to other categories, which is unhelpful, and it also removes some articles from this section of the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms Balding is in several LGBT categories, all of which more specifically categorize her better than the nebulous "entertainer" category does. I have no idea based on her article why Balding would be classed as an "entertainer" in the first place. Her presence is an argument against "entertainer" categories at all because she shows how squishy the definition is. Buck Winston (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Governors of Illinois convicted of crimes

edit
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. All contents are in Category:Governors of Illinois.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with no foreseeable growth potential. Buck Winston (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unusual Places

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective; not needed given the existence of Category:Lists of things considered unusual. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only article is already in the more appropriately named parent. --Qetuth (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Current Singaporean politicians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. With categories, we do not separate politicians into current and former positions. These can simply be upmerged to the "timeless" parent categories, which are named correctly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hatred

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is vague. Categorization is dependent on some person's determination of "hatred." Not very encyclopedic. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Hatred is a useful tag for researching various manifestations of hatred, ranging from misanthropy to self-hatred to antisemitism. If there are cases in which the category tag is being inappropriately applied to individual articles, then the tag should be removed from them (with discussion of the inappopriate use, where indicated). Dezastru (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem is that there is no empirical standard by which one can determine appropriate use of this category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but neither do we have such for Category:Love or Category:Humour, perhaps we should delete them all? Or are we biased against "negative" things? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_28&oldid=1138397172"