Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 19 June 21 >

June 20[edit]

Category:Indian diaspora in America[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 Category:Indian diaspora in America to Category:Indian diaspora in the United States - jc37 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian diaspora in America to Category:Indian diaspora in the United States
Nominator's rationale: United States of America standardly refered to as 'the United States' and not 'America' in category page naming on wikip. Mayumashu (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per naming convention in WP Hmains (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to follow naming convention. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I assume that the population are all in USA, and any in Canada are categrised for that country. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 22 June 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.

Category:Cork[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 Category:People from Cork to Category:People from Cork (city) - jc37 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming/merging
Nominator's rationale: 'Cork' may refer to either the county or city; matches similar Category:People from Dublin (city) and article page Cork (city) Mayumashu (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both given that the article is Cork (city). (First is actually a merge.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This reminded me of this discussion which had no opposition. So I updated the speedy criteria, and both of these would meet the new criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both, per nom, to follow naming convention. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename - but some one must check that the first contains no members of "People from County Cork" (other than from the city. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 22 June 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.

Category:Sexy babes![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 delete per CSD G3: Vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sexy babes! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Proposal: Deletion.
Nominator's rationale: Kinda... superflous, to say the least, isn't it? Vianello (talk) 06:47, 20 June 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.

Category:Port cities on the Caribbean Sea[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/Merge Category:Port cities on the Caribbean Sea to Category:Port cities in the Caribbean - I also checked WP:NCCAT, and "Cities in a geographic region" would also seem to be correct (as nominated). - jc37 10:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Port cities on the Caribbean Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Alice sitcom characters[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 Category:Alice sitcom characters to Category:Alice (TV series) characters - jc37 10:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alice sitcom characters to Category:Alice (TV series) characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although I have my doubts that these characters are independently notable enough to sustain fictional biography articles, they at the moment exist so the category should be named in line with the main article Alice (TV series) and other similar characters articles. If this CFD inspires someone to go through the articles and merge them into a list, so much the better. Otto4711 (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, sharing nom's views re possible merge; and awaiting inspiration. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 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.

Categories:Australians by ethnicity or national 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: rename all. BencherliteTalk 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging

(all pages tagged)

Nominator's rationale: as a continuation of a recently asserted convention for naming subcategory pages for subcategory pages of 'Category:People by ethnic or national origin' to avoid confusion thay may occur with using Fooian(-)Booians, where is it unclear whether Fooian is meant to be the citizenship or ethnicity/national origin indicator, or that individuals linked are of dual citizenship (of any ethnicity) or of a particular dual ethnicity or any citizenship. (Besides debate over whether to include the hyphen is put to rest.) The recent renamings have been for subcat pages for most notably (in terms of number of links) Category:Argentine people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Brazilian people by ethnic or national origin, Category:British people by ethnic or national origin, Category:French people by ethnic or national origin, and Category:German people by ethnic or national origin. Mayumashu (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose!

there s nothing inherent in 'Fooian-Booian' that limits descent to an arbitrary number of generations that I can gather. A number of articles such as American Australian describe an Australian American as an em/immigrant or a descendant of a anglophone North Ameican as Austr-Amer. without specifying a number of generations. Secondly, if one takes what is said on American Australian presently, wrt to the number of generations, as erroneous, then who decides the number ofgenerations that does validly describe an American Australian (and not an Australian of American descent). Is it one? two? three? Thirdly, concerns that just any white Australian named 'Smith' or 'Johnson' will be named as Australian of British descent is limited severely by the burden of contributors to supply a source for any assertion. Mayumashu (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that for example Category:Irish Australians and Category:Australians of Irish descent already both exist - that is because they mean two different things. American Australian is not a good example - 2 newish countries - the Irish or Huguenot examples are stronger at drawing the distinction. Sources for genealogy are easy. I have for example concerns already at the list at Irish Australian#List of notable Irish Australians and currently tackling an approach - the first is to facilitate an opportunity to put the Irish and Australian connetion in the list to make explicit the claims. I would say Simon Crean whose grandfather was of Irish descent shouldn't be thought of as an Irish Australian but clearly is an Australian of Irish descent. --Matilda talk 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is a difference, I m the first one to acknowledge that. I happen to agree with you too that someone who is a quarter of an ancestry is Fooian of Booian descent and not Booian-Fooian. But what of 1/2? or 100% ethnicity but third or fourth generation? It is far too much an exercise in arbitrariness, and this presents three problems, it becomes original research (I m quite sure no reputable source would 'state' that someone of 1/2 is Fooian-Booian and s.o. of 1/4 is not); it would result in an endless editing battle based on personal interpretations of contributors as to what is to be meant by Fooian-Booian; thirdly, it would be hell to monitor, assuming contributors could agree on an arbitrary working definition, for infrequent contributors would not take the trouble to sort figure out the 'correct' links. and I disagree that reliable genealogically sources are easy to come by. lets see this renaming through, provide a self-evidently semantically clear naming and let the burden of providing sources naturally limit the number of links. Mayumashu (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support - I am for consistency. I don't want two tiers of cats and argument about which applies - in other words I would want only want Category:Australians of Irish descent and thus the broader cat applies. The arguments about categorisation will depend on sources and notability of the link. While Simon Crean can be reliably sourced as being of Irish descent, the challenge I would mount is to whether that is important as having a significant influence. I would care less about categorisation so much as to whether he was a notable Irish Australian - I would say notable but not as an Irish Australian - there is no assertion in his biography that his heritage has been of significance. So I think there is further work to set up some guidelines on ethnicity, when it should give rise to somebody being in a category and when ethnicity should be regarded as strong enough for somebody to be included in a list of notable Booean Fooians - the One-drop rule is not one I think is worth adopting. --Matilda talk 06:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with qualification - I'd like all such categories to be split into "Foo-born Australians" and "Australians of Foo descent". Peter Ballard (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I d support this iniative. I d like this to replace the Category:Immigrants to Australia umbrella, as not all immigrants become citizens (something I didn t realize when I started up a lot of the Category:Immigrants subcat pages) I d like to see Category:Foo-born Australians link to Category:Emigrants and Category:Immigrants purged of their naturalised citizens (which would be listed until Foo-born Booians) and then merged into Category:Expatriates, a lot of work admittedly, an eventual target Mayumashu (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per previous similar cfds and per very good Mayumashu/Matilda exchange above. ('Foo-born/natives of foo' categories tend to get deleted as non-defining.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - "Australians of Fooian descent" is a far more accurate and less ambiguous description than "Fooian Australians" and less subject to the "categoriser" using WP:OR in making his or her decision to categorise. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose change to Support, i believe that the individual page should be edited. Many newer australians do not consider themselves as Australians nor are all of them citizens. Many plan on returning to their homeland. Also many organisations are for the "italian-australian" community or "greek-australian" community, they dont have societies for the "Australians of Italian descent". Also by having "people of ABCian descent" it automatically refers to people, while just "ABCian Australians" can refer to organisations or settlement or something else from the ethnic group. PMK1 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are already subcats of Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin so the non-Australians and organisations to which you refer are miscategorised and should be removed. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, non-Australian citizens should be listed under the presently underpopulated Category:Expatriates in Australia. A tie-up could be done with a Fooian diaspora in Australia with two subcats - Category:Australians of Fooian descent and Category:Fooian expats in Australia. There is already Category:Indian diaspora by country. It s a tough one to settle because evidently many immigrants, be they citizens of their new country or not, identify with hyphenated identity, yet category listing on English wikip is biased towards legal status, that is by nationality(=citizenship), which, I'd hazard to guess, is anglosphere bias and something that 'older stock' people of the anglosphere identify with Mayumashu (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alrite it has my support as long as the article names stay as Fooian-Australian etc. PMK1 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support according to much recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "descent" goes all the way back thus making the cat over-inclusive and undefining. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But that's exactly how the categories are used at the moment. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose .. neither of the naming conventions are sufficiently unambigious or precise to serve a truly reliable, verifiable, and certain encyclopaedic function .. yet:
1. x-Australians should be kept, as Australia does allow dual citizenship, and there will therefore still be people with dual citizenship(excepting for those X's that do not allow dual citizenship)
2. Australians of x descent is largely meaningless without some self-identifying 'ethnic' limit .. effectively inviting editors/contributors to simply keep adding each and every notable Australian citizen/ permanent residents to (potentially) 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 different articles as records are found tracing descent back through parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents .. particularly as DNA generated geneaeological links and data arise out of foundations like the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation ..
Perhaps some new ethnic group naming conventions are in order .. such as British Australian (citizenship), and/or Irish Australian (identity) .. or something better still?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:54, 27 June 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.

People by city in Alberta[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 as they are. BencherliteTalk 11:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These 2 Alberta city categories are propsing for renaming. For Leduc, Alberta, The Category and the Main Article is titled Leduc, Alberta and it does not have the word city in brackets. For Camrose, Alberta, the Main Article is titled Camrose, Alberta and it also does not have brackets. These 2 propsed rename categories without the brackets are still located in the category titled Category:People by city in Alberta. These 2 categories have to be renamed to match both main articles. Steam5 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the normal way to disambiguate a city in a category name when there is a district or county of the same name. Since Leduc County, Alberta and Camrose County, Alberta both exist, the categories as they stand now are actually less ambiguous than they would be if renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a category and main article titled Leduc, Alberta, without using the brackets and Camrose, Alberta is also titled without the brackets. The titles Leduc County and Camrose County doesn't need the word county in brackets, these categories has to be renamed. Steam5 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I understood that from your initial nomination comments. Sometimes the naming formats of categories diverges slightly from the main article. In the case of cities and districts or counties with the same name, it's not uncommon to use "(city)" in brackets for disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Good Ol'factory. Having 'city' is in parenthesis is appropriate - it reflects that the disambiguate is of a secondary nature, not necessary for most people who when using 'Camrose' or 'Leduc' are refering to the city and not the county (and when refering to the county say 'Camrose County'), but in place as a means for having explicit clarity. I support having cat page names more explicity, self-evidently and less colloquially named then article pages and get the feeling that the majority of regular contributors (to WP:Cat pages for discussion at least) feel the same way. Mayumashu (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What did I tell you, opposing users, there is a category and main article titled Leduc, Alberta and it does not need the word (city) in brackets for an example check the category Category:Leduc, Alberta and the main article Leduc, Alberta these are the two sampled titles, and read my comments above and way above, but still, these categories are proposing for renaming. Steam5 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not missing the point and do not support to rename Category:Leduc (city), Alberta in the future, I have already make correct comments from above and way above. Steam5 (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I wasn't sure because you kept responding to others' comments, repeating what you said initially. You only need to say it once in the nomination, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Goodolf et al and recent precedence, as possible confusion here is obvious. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Roundhouse0, I already make correct comments about the brackets would not used. Read my correct comments above and the nominator's rationale. Steam5 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_20&oldid=1145614164"