Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18[edit]

Category:Natural Descendants of Louis XIV[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: listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Natural Descendants of Louis XIV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This article is very similar to Category:Descendants of Queen Victoria. It serves no encyclopedic purpose that cannot be explained in the articles which are contained in it and it is inaccurate. Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, Duke of Maine, for instance, was legitimized and therefore is not a bastard, rather a non-dynastic son, of the French king. This seems to be categorization for the sake of categorization. Charles 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, if there isn't one, and then delete. The distinction between those legitimised & not is I think adequately bridged by "natural". Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, if sourced, important figure and probably had many notable offspring/descendents. Which of course leads to the question, how do know that any male-line descendents are really descendents of their purported fathers? WP just stakes out our OR that illegitimacy only occurs to include descendents, not exclude them. How nice of us to care. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per above. This just cries out for references/citations. - jc37 05:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add names in a small chapter to Louis XIV. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in view of the number of French aristocrats executed during the terror, I presume this is not a very large list. The word "natural" is probably unnecessary, unless it is intended to contrast with legitimate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 25 May 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:Television stations in Bend[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 per nom. Doczilla STOMP! 07:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Bend to Category:Television stations in Bend, Oregon
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Medford to Category:Television stations in Medford, Oregon
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Eugene to Category:Television stations in Eugene, Oregon
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match settlement's parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 18 May 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:Fooian-Germans to Germans of Fooian 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. I've changed "Germans of Bosnian descent" to "Germans of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent" per Darwinek (and Category:People of Bosnian descent). –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging
Nominator's rationale: as per alike nominations recently, propose here renaming for greater clarity, that listed are German citizens of a particular ethnicity or national origin/descent, and not being of any nationality with Fooian-German ancestry, nor people of Booian nationality and German ancestry, nor (necessarily) dual citizens of German and Fooian nationalities, nor that the person's Fooian ethnicity/national origin is (necessarily) of equal "importance" with their German nationality (which the hyphen use may suggest). (not to mention this naming style evades the question of whether to use the hyphen or not) Mayumashu (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. "descent" is too vague and overinclusive. If I go back far enough in my family tree I will find that I "descend" from all of the foregoing cats (not that there ever will be an article about me on Wikipedia, but just in case). The hyphenated term has far more contemporaneous overtones, and hopefully they will be limited to people that have citizenship or have lived in either country - which is the only way the cat is defining. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we re talking that can be supported with sources - that limits a lot of what can be done with these despite their inclusiveness Mayumashu (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - there is a decrease in ambiguity and no change in vagueness - limits on 'Armenian Germans' and 'Germans of Armenian descent' can be identical. It has been pointed out that there is no requirement for African Americans to have any recent connection with Africa. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - try Irish American then ('citizens of the United States who can claim ancestry originating in the north west European island of Ireland'). No recent connection with the Emerald Isle required. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, that is the way it is used. But for categorization purposes that can't be the rule. Categories must be defining. If someone's greatgrandmother was half-Irish they can go around calling themselves Irish-American, but it doesn't define them in any way. On the other hand if someone has lived there, or has any other strong connection to Ireland, that person a product of Irish culture and therefore justifiably part of the category:Irish-American. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we can t determine what is defining or not, we can only draw an arbitrary line on this issue which is not at all satisfying. And Americans do not restrict use of "Irish-American" to Irish immigrants or any other kind of direct experience, that all it takes to qualify is that one grandparent, so the term is problematic for use here. Let the few with distant and "thin" lineage belong - they still need to be supported with adequate sourcing, which is hard to come byMayumashu (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitraty line should be "having lived there of having an otherwise strong connection" notwithstanding people refering to Irish-Americans as people with Irish descent. People's usage of a term does not trump Wikipedia's category requirement - that cats should be defining. And let's not kid ourselves, the vast majority of bios in Category:Irish Americans don't have legit sources backing up the claim, but there just left there because the person's name is McWhatever and it's not negative. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse, the vast majority of ALL bios in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin don't have legit sources backing up the claim. Category:Irish-Americans includes more than 1000 people, most of them unsourced, I guess. Or just listed there because of their surnames (so every American Schneider, Meier, Muller is German, every O'Brian, MacCarthy or MacGowan is Irish and so on). --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wulf: I'm not sure what you're getting at. My argument was that "descent" exacerbates the plaster-the-article-with-a-cat-although-it's-unsourced problem. It sounds like you agree, yet you support rename. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that comment was a bit off-topic. I agreed with you about the mass of unsourced articles in those categories, which is a huge problem and yes, could probably get worse if we use the "Booians of Fooians descent" format. Nevertheless, I think the phrase is clearer than the hyphenated term. More important than the name of the category is a clear description, who should be in it. And who not. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. The "Fooian Booian" formatting is an abomination. This is much clearer, but equally as vague, as pointed out above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnic categories. All Germans are of African descent; see Out of Africa theory; not meaningful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - And I'd probably say the same about all intersections of ethnicity and nationality. (So I'll likely ignore cries of WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) This is just too vague. How far back do we go for someone to qualify for inclusion? Is this really that different than, for example, "Irish football players"? And does this mean that such cats will grow to include every possible intersection? Do we really wish to see such categories as: British-Swahili-Macedonian-Bosnian-Jews? Really. Look at this list. And this is just those from Germany! (Or is it German descent? Ugh at the vagueness.) So to me this is just an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. - jc37 05:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename for all, according to frequent recent precedents. With a well establihsed precedent can these no now be done by a "speedy" process? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think speedy doesn't apply here, e.g. such rename wouldn't be possible for similar cats of Eastern European countries where ethnic minorities are quite different in their nature. - Darwinek (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom with one exception, it should be Germans of Bosnian descent. - -Darwinek (talk) 09:03, 28 May 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:Sugarland (band) members[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. Doczilla STOMP! 07:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sugarland (band) members to Category:Sugarland (duo) members
Propose renaming Category:Sugarland (band) albums to Category:Sugarland (duo) albums
Propose renaming Category:Sugarland (band) songs to Category:Sugarland (duo) songs
Nominator's rationale: Okay, I don't know how to bundle CfDs but here goes. I boldly moved Sugarland (band) to Sugarland (duo), since a duo is not a band. (Note that we also have The Gordons (duo) and The Wrights (country duo), so I don't think this violates naming conventions.) Now the categories need to match. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I just had these moved from Category:Sugarland foo to Category:Sugarland (band) foo a couple months ago. Stupid me. And I don't know how to tag the other two categories as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:44, 18 May 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:Radio stations in Medford[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:Radio stations in Medford, Oregon. Doczilla STOMP! 02:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Radio stations in Medford to Category:Radio stations in Oregon
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Misnamed, too-specific, and undersized category with navigation much more precisely handled by extant template {{Medford-Ashland Radio}}. Dravecky (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Undersized category, best merged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are we suggesting that this is not a logical sub category for Category:Medford, Oregon? When exactly is a city sub category too small? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a subcat it's misnamed (should be "Radio stations in Medford, Oregon" to match parent), as a division of Category:Radio stations in Oregon it's too small and too arbitrary, and the handful of articles could very easily be tagged with Category:Medford, Oregon so they would show up under both categories in an appropriate way. - Dravecky (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since a category can be as small as 1 or 2 aticles, you are avoiding that question. The issue of the wrong name can be addressed by a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Radio stations in Medford, Oregon. Clearly the category is not too small. I will note that there is a related discussion starting on the TV wikiproject about how to use the media categories. I think letting the media projects decide how to use the categories is the better way to reach consensus. So rename for uniformity and leave the other issues to the projects. This includes the discussion about the overlap of templates with categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Radio stations in Medford, Oregon per nom. Seven articles is enough to justify a distinct category. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:38, 24 May 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:United States government corporations[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: Upmerge. Doczilla STOMP! 07:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:United States government corporations to Category:Government-owned companies in the United States
Nominator's rationale: The proposed deleted category is a subcat and the only entry of the proposed "merge to" category. The proposed "merge to" category is less ambiguously named. See category talk page at Category_talk:United States government corporations for more discussion. Novasource (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete This category is ambiguous, as a corporation may be wholly owned by the U.S. government, private with some oversight or private with a now honorary charter. Create sister categories if and only if needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:10, 21 May 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:American-Irish 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: delete. Wizardman 02:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American-Irish people to Category:Irish people of American descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity of meaning and to match naming of alike category pages Mayumashu (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . "descent" is too vague and overinclusive. The hyphenated term has far more contemporaneous overtones, and hopefully they will be limited to people that have citizenship or have lived in either country - which is the only way the cat is defining.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - the hyphenated term is ambiguous, as Brewcrewer demonstrates. Fooian-American (with or without a hyphen) is well-established but the other Fooian-Booians are not. E.g. a British Asian is a British person of Asian heritage. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, usually, to a Briton of South Asian descent, if I m not mistaken - colloquial use can be really problematic Mayumashu (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: British Asian gives a fuller account (Indian sub-continent). (It is an official term used in the UK census.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB - the category under discussion is now empty of people (I think it was populated yesterday). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not meaningful race/ethnic/national origin category. What is American descent? Are Americans sufficiently homogenous that we stand out in Ireland like a sore thumb. Do German-American Irish people stand out the same as French-American Irish people, or do whatever distinguishes these two groups magically disappear when they step on the Emerald Isle? Aer Lingus must have an interesting in-flight program(programme) to cause this; more research needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - And I'd probably say the same about all intersections of ethnicity and nationality. (So I'll likely ignore cries of WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) This is just too vague. How far back do we go for someone to qualify for inclusion? Is this really that different than, for example, "Irish football players"? And does this mean that such cats will grow to include every possible intersection? Do we really wish to see such categories as: British-Swahili-Macedonian-Bosnian-Jews? Consider other such category intersection possibilities. (The German one on this page, for example.) So to me this is just an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. - jc37 05:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, precedent, and jc37. Doczilla STOMP! 11:18, 25 May 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:Radio stations in Minot, North Dakota[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. Doczilla STOMP! 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Radio stations in Minot, North Dakota to Category:Radio stations in North Dakota
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Too-specific undersized category with navigation much more precisely handled by extant template {{Minot radio}}. Dravecky (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current list of includeable stations is 19 if I counted correctly. This is well outside of the range of what would be considered a small category. Also if the proposed merge were to happen, the stations would no longer be included in Category:Minot, North Dakota. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The stations are already tagged with the navbox template and nothing is preventing an editor from adding Category:Minot, North Dakota to any article where it would be appropriate. - Dravecky (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding the category is only necessary if this is deleted. Since it is clearly not too small there is no reason to delete so there is no reason to worry about what to do if it is deleted. Templates and categories have different purposes and they can both be used on an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vegaswikian. The individual radio station articles should not be added directly to Category:Minot, North Dakota as that would unnecessarily clutter the main category. 13 articles is more than enough to justify a distinct category. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 24 May 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:Radio stations in Dickinson, North Dakota[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: Close - no consensus. If no discussion, no consensus. Doczilla STOMP! 08:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Radio stations in Dickinson, North Dakota to Category:Radio stations in North Dakota
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Too-specific undersized category with navigation much more precisely handled by extant template {{Dickinson radio}}. Dravecky (talk) 11:21, 18 May 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:Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame inductees[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. Doczilla STOMP! 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by fairly minor award. The award/hall has only existed since 2000. Making of a list may be an appropriate option for the article Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not overcategorization (I'm not even sure what that means). The Consumer Electronics Association is one of, if not THE, premier association(s) dealing with consumer electronics. The fact that their Hall of Fame is a relatively recent creation doesn't suggest non-notability. I can't see how creating a list is better than the category as a category is much easier to keep up-to-date. The actual list of people in the hall of fame is substantial and would obscenely bloat the Hall of Fame article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but leaning towards Delete - The source list is fairly compact and could be made more so by using more columns. This would also make verification of the list against the source easier and would allow people to spot inductees that do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I went ahead with adding the list to the Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame article.
Initially I had said delete but changed Neutral/Delete as I remembered working a while ago on the Astronaut Hall of Fame article which is similar to this one in that there is an article supported by a category meaning there is "prior art" for this method on Wikipedia. Also similar to this list was that there was an initial burst of names and now a few more get added each year. However, a key difference is that the source list for the astronauts is in alphabetical order and not broken down by year meaning it's easy to verify against a category and also would be cumbersome to maintain as a wiki table. Hence, I'm leaning towards keeping the Consumer Electronics HOF list in the article and the only reason to keep the category is that it provides a link from each of the inductee articles back to the HOF category and then article. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization by minor award. A list in the article, which is how we deal with these sorts of minor awards, is sufficient and contrary to the above statement is easier to maintain than a category because the article can be watchlisted for changes where the category can't be. Otto4711 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 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:Story[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 both without merging text as article has been deleted.Doczilla STOMP! 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge text in Category:Story and Category:Characters to pre-existing article Lazarus (Comics), and delete categories
Nominator's rationale: Proposing that the text in these categories be merged with the article Lazarus (Comics). A user seems to have used categories as links at the bottom of the page to link to separate pages that discuss the "story" and "characters" of the Lazarus comic strip; i.e., the separate "subarticles" are these categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and then afd the resulting very slight article. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The target article has been speedily deleted. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete of both, which are articles in category space. Since the target article has gone (presumably as WP:V, these must go the same way. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 25 May 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:Fiji Islander swimmers[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. Flowerparty☀ 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fiji Islander swimmers to Category:Fijian swimmers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use standard adjective for people from Fiji per Category:Fijian people and Category:Fijian sportspeople and their subcategories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replying as creator of that category. I created it before noticing that the other categories use "Fijian" instead of "Fiji Islander". If it makes things simpler, feel free to rename it. However, I should point out that the correct term for the nationality of a person from Fiji is "Fiji Islander", not "Fijian". The word "Fijian" refers to ethnicity, not nationality. (Cf. Fijian people.) At least, that's the usage of those words in Fiji itself. Aridd (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, yes. It would be "Fiji Islands", though, not "Fiji Island". ;) There are several islands in Fiji, and the country's full name is the Republic of the Fiji Islands. Or, if you want to keep it simple, how about "Fiji swimmmers", and so on? Aridd (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly as the article is at Fiji. Endorse Category:Fiji swimmers. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such a change would be a massive CFD if consistency for all categories was desired; i.e., well beyond the scope of this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aridd, you seem to be confusing naoun-form demonyms and adjectival demonyms; Roundhouse0, you seem to misunderstand the use of the term "New Zealand". "New Zealand" it is the correct adjectival demonym for the country, much like "British" is for Great Britain and "Fijian" is for Fiji. Fijian people come from Fiji; New Zealand people come from New Zealand; British people come from Great Britain. Those people - using the noun-form demonyms - are Fijians (or Fiji Islanders), New Zealanders, and Britons (or British people), respecively. As such, Category:Fijian swimmers is the correct term for this category. "Fiji Islander" is one possible noun-form demonym, along with "Fijian", but to use that here would be as incorrect as having a category for "Briton swimmers". Grutness...wha? 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't supported "Fiji Islander swimmers"; and Aridd has explained the difficulties with Fijian. In some cases we are using the name of the country rather than attempting an adjective - examples are: Trinidad and Tobago people, Dominica people (a current cfd). (I am British myself but would never use 'Briton' - they left with the Picts as I recall but do seem to be making a comeback in the press.) We could of course use 'Swimmers from Fiji'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). Honestly, I'm not quite sure why this discussion is being had. A cursory glance at Category:Fijian people will reveal at least 51 categories that use "Fijian" to describe people from Fiji. The term is not limited to people of "Fijian ethnicity". For instance, let's assume I move to India and get citizenship there. I can rightly be described as an "Indian", even though I am not of "Indian ethnicity". Similar dual-use terms are common for a variety of nationalities/ethnicities, including "Tongan", "Samoan", "Japanese", "Vietnamese", "Turkish", and a phalanx of others. It's ridiculous to suddenly get concerned that "Fijian" is inherently limited to one ethnicity. Or are we going to start calling swimmers from Japan "Japan swimmers" because there may be some of Japanese nationality that aren't of Japanese ethnicity? Because there is a country called "Fiji" as the shortened name, "Fijian" is a nationality and is commonly used as such in all sources I can immediately refer to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Ol’factory, no offence intended, but your flawed comparisons suggest that you're not aware of the nature of this issue in Fiji. Now, as I've said, I don't really care what you all decide to do. But for the sake of accuracy, I should point out that the use of "Fijian" as an adjective of nationality is, at best, controversial and disputed in Fiji. I'm not saying it's never used as such, but it's not the official term. In Fiji, when people say "Fijian", they mean "indigenous Fijian". Look at the Constitution of Fiji, or at the population census, or at any law in Fiji dealing with inter-ethnic issues. They all distinguish between "Fijian", "Indian" and "Other". Citizens of Fiji who are not indigenous are Fiji Islanders, but they are not considered "Fijian". That is the official use of the terms, as enshrined in law and in government practice. Note also that the European Union's official list of demonyms states that "Fijian" should not be used as an adjective of nationality (adjective, Grutness; see, I do know what I'm talking about), because it refers to an ethnicity, not to a nationality. [1] As I recall, the country was actually renamed "Fiji Islands" (in 1997, I think) specifically so that non-Fijian citizens of Fiji would be able to refer to themselves with a term associating them with Fiji. Some people may use "Fijian" for non-Fijian citizens of Fiji, but such practice runs contrary to both the common and official usage in Fiji. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should strive to be accurate. Aridd (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that, in English, the EU uses "of Fiji" as the "adjectival" form, since it can't use "Fijian" (which refers to ethnicity). Grutness, you seem to be correct in so far as they do not use "Fiji Islander" as an adjectival form (they cite it as the noun form); however, you're incorrect in using "Fijian" as the adjectival form. [2] Note also that the currency of Fiji is the Fiji dollar, which suggests that "Fiji swimmers" might be conceivable. Still, the most accurate phrasing would seem to be "Swimmers of Fiji". Aridd (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand the debate completely, I just think it's relatively irrelevant when it comes to choosing a nationality adjective. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the similar debates and discussion that have taken place in Turkey, Japan, and other countries. These haven't stopped us from using "Turkish" and "Japanese" as adjectives for the nationality, because they are widely accepted as such. If Fijians (as a nationality) don't like being called "Fijians", they should change the short name of their country. Until then, it will likely continue to be widely accepted as an adjective for the nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can't; there would be an uproar from the indigenous population. More to the point, there's no reason for them to. And besides, that's why they changed the long name of their country: so that Fijian and non-Fijian citizens of Fiji alike could call themselves Fiji Islanders. Just to finish on this, in case anyone doubts what I've been saying, a few quotes from the Constitution:
in those negotiations, the paramountcy of Fijian interests as a protective principle continues to apply, so as to ensure that the interests of the Fijian community are not subordinated to the interests of other communities
and:
affirmative action and social justice programs to secure effective equality of access to opportunities, amenities or services for the Fijian and Rotuman people, as well as for other communities
and:
The 71 members are elected as follows: (a) 46 are elected by voters registered on one of 4 separate electoral rolls, namely: (i) a roll of voters who are registered as Fijians; (ii) a roll of voters who are registered as Indians, (iii) a roll of voters who are registered as Rotumans; and (iv) a roll of voters who are registered otherwise than as Fijians, Indians or Rotumans
And so on. The word "Fijian" in Fiji refers to an ethnicity. One difference between Turkey, Japan and Fiji is that English is an official language of Fiji, and that they've explicitly established the usage of the term "Fijian" in English. Also, I don't know the details of the debate in Japan and Turkey, but have those countries come up with specific terms for nationality, distinct from their terms for ethnicity? Fiji has. What is "widely accepted" is not the same as what is correct. For example, here in France, the media have an annoying habit of saying "England" when they mean "United Kingdom". As a result, many French people genuinely do not know that there's a difference. Widespread misuse of the word "England" doesn't make it synonymous with "United Kingdom". Aridd (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - though arguing from such a small sample is fraught with problems, I have to add that the Fijian (so self-described) that I know best has the surname Singh. He states clearly that, being born in Fiji, he is a Fijian, as are all "Fijian Indians", a term used mainly by Fijians of Pacific island descent as an attempt to further split the two main communities on the islands. The word Fijian in Fiji does refer to an ethnicity - when used by half the people of the islands (the half which is largely responsible for creating documents such as the constitution). The other half use the term to describe the country as a whole - in exactly the same way that people in other countries do. Having said that, I do bow to your greater knowledge of the islands where (IIRC) you live, and realise that - given the potentially politically ambiguous use of the term "Fijian" it would perhaps be advisable to look for some alternative acceptable name. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find multiple sources which say "Fijian" is an acceptable adjective for the nationality of people from the country of Fiji. The "right/wrong" issue you are intent on pushing appears to be limited to a defined sphere of people/organisations. The govt of Burma says their country is called "Myanmar", but we still use Category:Burma and Category:Burmese people because they are in common use and widely regarded as correct and acceptable. The same principles apply here. I restate again: There are over 50 categories that currently use "Fijian" as a nationality adjective. Your argument therefore suggests the need for a much broader CFD, well beyond the scope of this one rename proposal, which is for the sake of consistency. In other words, you have an argument to make, but in order to have a proper debate about it in a way that will maximise user input, all 50+ categories would need to be nominated for renaming using a revised scheme. I don't think it would be wise to try to find an overall consensus for 50+ categories in a CFD that involves one very new category with only 3 articles in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlossuarez46, I have to admit I don't understand what you're trying to say. (Particularly since I have no idea what ethnic electoral roll these three swimmers happen to be signed up on!) Grutness, Good Olfactory, just to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that nobody uses "Fijian" to denote nationality. Fiji Islanders of Indian ethnic origin are perfectly entitled to call themselves whatever they want. Some call themselves only "Indians", some call themselves "Indo-Fijians" (which makes some indigenous nationalists grumble), and so on. Anyway, I suppose the issue is whether we want to go by official usage or not. Officially, the word "Fijian" refers to ethnicity - though, as you've pointed out, these definitions were officialised by indigenous-dominated governments. (Fiji's politics in relation to ethnicity are very complicated, so I'm not going to get into that now. Suffice to say that the government at the time when the 1997 Constitution was implemented was still led by Sitiveni Rabuka, albeit a Rabuka who had publicly renounced his past calls for "Indians" to be kept out of government.) I recognise that renaming dozens of categories would be impractical, and I have no fundamental objection to using "Fijian swimmers". In an ideal world, it would be great if all inhabitants of Fiji could call themselves "Fijian" without it causing controversy, and frowns from the likes of Qarase. I simply wanted everyone here to be aware of the complications that surround usage of the word "Fijian", and of the fact that the term "Fiji Islander" exists to describe nationality. So, up to you. :) Aridd (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Whatever the semantic arguments, Fijian is the common term used worldwide to refer to all people from Fiji. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. gidonb (talk) 12:25, 25 May 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:Lead actors in Paul Verhoeven films[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. Consensus is clearcut. Doczilla STOMP! 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lead actors in Paul Verhoeven films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We have a long policy of not categorizing actors by project. Examples include "Guest stars in The Simpsons" and "Star Trek actors". Dismas|(talk) 04:34, 18 May 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:Songs written by Gary Burr[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. Nominator withdrew his nomination. Cgingold (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Gary Burr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Creator used category space to create a list of songs Burr wrote, which is not how categories work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note/Keep This is/was closed is it not (by TPH)? Category seems populated & ok now & tag removed. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 19 May 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_May_18&oldid=1141484780"