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 on original proposal, though it wasn't exactly the centre of the discussion. There seems to be some support for disambiguating the target category name to Category:Hastings, East Sussex; doing so would certainly be in line with recent precedents at CfD, but I think we need a new CfD specifically proposing that change so that the category can be appropriately tagged, etc. Once that issue is settled, I suggest that this proposal could be revived so we can reach a consensus on it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - though agreeing with this move, I'd suggest the article should be at Hastings, East Sussex and the category should match. Hastings is one of the bigger cities in New Zealand (with a population very similar to England's Hastings). I think that Hastings should be the site of the disambiguation page. I've mentioned this at Talk:Hastings). Grutness...wha? 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Hastings is the original and so does not need a disambiguator. It (or rather nearby) is also the site of the most famous battle in English history. However there is no reason why a capnote about Hastings, New Zealand should not be added to the article. On the underlying proposal, is there an identifiable boundary between Hastings itself and St Leonards-on-Sea? if not, a merge would appropriate, but if it is still possible to distinguish the two communities, they should be kept separate with Category:People from Hastings (district) as a parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hastings is the original and so does not need a disambiguator"...hmm. I take it you'd suggest moving Boston, Lincolnshire to Boston, and Washington, County Durham to Washington, then? As to being the site of the most famous battle in English history, yes it is - just as Gettysburg is the most famous battle in American history. And the article for that place survives rather nicely with Gettysburg being a disambiguation page. Two places of similar size, one a town in England and one a city in New Zealand (plus a third place in Michigan with almost as many Ghits as either)... I'd argue that disambiguation is definitely worth considering. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There isn't an 'identifiable boundary' between Hastings and St Leonards! St leonards is an area (possibly a suburb woud be another name?) of Hastings and has been like that for about 100 years! The current state seems to say that there ae to towns in the borough of Hastings, one called Hastings and one called St Leonards. It is not like that at all! St leonards is merely a part of Hastings (like Silverhill, Ore, Bulverhythe etc.) and it currntly makes no sense. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since it is not the primary use of the word. The NZ town has 73,000 inhabitants and the UK one 85,000, not a big difference. Then you need to consider the number of other uses. Being the original or first is not the same as being the primary use. I think we would be better served by a rename to Category:Hastings, East Sussex as kind of suggested by Grutness. We really need to address the large problems so maybe the best solution is to nominate Category:People from Hastings for a rename before we do this move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the renaming seems to be soundly opposed at Talk:Hastings, though I'm still not convinced that it isn't needed. Google suggests similar nombers of hits for the Hastingses in Sussex, Minnesota, and New Zealand (though working out exactly which hits belong to which is not easy) - and though whatlinkshere favours Sussex over the other two and also the one in Nebraska, it's not by a huge amount (approx 850 hits to 520 (MN), 320 (NE), and 270 (NZ)). Grutness...wha? 00:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus (see nomination directly above). Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: St Leonards is essentially part of Hastings and to keep these separate and under 'People from Hastings (district)', which I have also proposed for a merge, does not make sense; Hastings town and borough are (almost) the same as agreed on the HastingsTalk page. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see comment on Hastings above. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The parent category only has two articles in it, so this is unneeded. The articles should be upmerged into it. TTN (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I just did the merging. Consider attempting speedy deletion. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Goodraise took care of the merging. —Dinoguy1000 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to merge. (How is it possible that a category named Category:Sex only generated comments from one other user?)Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose merger into Category:Sexuality. There's no point in trying to maintain a distinction between male/femaleness vs. the general subject. (The biological act is actually Category:Mating.) There's too much explaining to do and the contents are so small I think it's easier navigation just to merge them. A ton of things were misfiled in both of these that really belonged in Category:Human sexuality or subcategory, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not picky about the name but "Sex" can be confusing - is it the act, the gender status, or the topic in general? "Sexuality" is clearly generalized. -- Beland (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The category hasn't been tagged for merging yet. Cgingold (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fits normal category name conventions to have the most general term at the top of the hierarchy; the answer to nom's question is "all of them", which works for "Sex" but not for "Sexuality". For example the sub-cat Category:Gender should certainly not be put under Category:Sexuality, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep the categories separate, what sorting criteria should we us to distinguish sex from sexuality, then? Sexuality is a disambiguation page, whereas Sex is an overview of reproduction, sex determination, and sexual dimorphism. What does "sexuality" mean that is narrower than "sex"? What is it that could be filed under one but never the other? -- Beland (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, "Gender" should not come under sexuality, but some of its sub-cats, like Category:Sexual slang certainly could, and no doubt much such shuffling could usefuylly be done - the main category needs a clear-out for a start. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Single entry category with limited growth potential at this time (might be 3 articles). Navigation is handled quite well in the main company article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Cowon Systems, which appears to be the full name of the company. Nevertheless, I am not sure we need articles on individual consumer electronics products. If we do, there is probably room for rather more than three articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was based on the number of products with articles linked by the main company article. Hence the category is not needed for navigation at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete In June 2006 there was a discussion to eliminate the category "Multiracial people". Thus, it's unfair that this "multiracial musicians" category gets to stay. Also, it lacks verifiability and could be borderline overcategorization. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This category should only be a parent category. sampling 3 or 4 of those listed suggested that it deals with American musicians who in accordance with the "melting pot" principle have a wide variety of ethnic ancestry. Non-American racial categories have recently been converted to the form "Booian people of fooian origin". The person who organised this has evidently balked at the complexities of tackling Americans. I think we have also tended to delete "Booian musicians of fooian origin" as overcategorisation, being a triple intersection, unless it has a substanial population. In other words, we do not normally allow categorisation of dual ethnicity by profession. If we did, this would be a useful parent category. The problem is of people with three or four ethnicities and this category. The whole tree needs major pruning. Note Category:Multiracial actors needs similar treatment. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PK is right I think, but at the moment the category has no sub-cats & a load of individual articles. I'm far from sure it's worth keeping if it remains like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for a red-linked deleted category Category:Multiracial people is remarkably well-populated, with 16 articles and 9 subcats (which are mostly of or about people who seem evidently multiracial). As Peterkingiron points out, the case against Category:Multiracial musicians is stronger than the case against Category:Multiracial people as we allow "Booian people of fooian origin" but not usually "Booian musicians of fooian origin". Occuli (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All these multiracial categories need to be emptied. One way of doing this may be to create the people category and have a CFD on all of them together (for deletion). The people that I sampled all seemed to have multiple ethnic backgrounds, and should be categorised according to their specific ethnicity (if significant - and it often is not). At present we have a case of articles appearing in what should be subcategories and parent categories in the same tree. This is not enocuraged. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and clean out the deleted multiracial people category. Categorizing by race and ethnicity is out of control and we are swiftly approaching the one-drop rule when it comes to such categorization. It's likely that everyone is multi-racial if their family histories are traced back far enough. Otto4711 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
