Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16[edit]

Category:American expatriates in Puerto Rico[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. — ξxplicit 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American expatriates in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I m not sure but I don t think it is possible for an American to be correctly described as expatriate in Puerto Rico Mayumashu (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Puerto Rican people and "American" people share American citizenship, and PR is part of the territory of the United States. An American in Puerto Rico is thus not an "expatriate". This is probably meant for American people who resided in Puerto Rico after having been born in another part of the United States. I don't see a need to categorize in this way, just as we don't categorize Americans who have moved from state to state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Broadly speaking, an expatriate is a person who is living outside their native place or homeland ("fatherland" if you look at the Latin derivation of "ex" and "patria"). A homeland can be defined in terms of legal citizenship or in terms of geography and culture. For most people, legal citizenship, geography, and culture coincide, but that's not always the case. A person from the 50 United States who relocates to Puerto Rico is clearly moving to a place that is geographically and culturally distinct, and I have a strong hunch that the majority of people in both "the states" and Puerto Rico would regard that person as an expatriate. Likewise, a Puerto Rican relocating to the 50 states is likely to feel that they have left their native land, even though they have legal citizenship in the new place. By the broad definition of "expatriate", the people in this category are "expatriates." --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow -- This is strictly an oxymoron, but the creator was no doubt trying to address the real issue that there is a differnece between those from the 50 states and the natives of Puerto Rico. I would suggest something like Category:Continental Americans in Puerto Rico, but I am a mere Englishman. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The "Continental Americans" suggestion is interesting, but it doesn't work for reasons that include (but are not limited to) the fact that not all of the 50 states are on the continent. Fundamentally, though, I believe that a strong case can be made that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but they aren't "Americans". For example, the website http://www.topuertorico.org/people.shtml (a personally published website, but it seems to have very solid content) says:
Puerto Ricans consider themselves American but are fiercely proud of their island and their culture. They don't usually call themselves Americans or "Americanos", but "Puertorriqueños" or "Boricuas". To most Puerto Ricans, "my country" means "Puerto Rico", not the United States. ... It is known that Puerto Rican descendants call themselves Puerto Ricans. "I am Puerto Rican, but I wasn't born there." The term "Nuyorican" is used to identify New Yorkers born in Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rican descent who live in or near New York City. The word Nuyorican derives from a combination of the words "New York" and "Puerto Rican".
Given that kind of statement (written by an articulate Puerto Rican who lives on the US mainland), I think it's safe to say that (notwithstanding the issues in defining the term rigorously) "American expatriates in Puerto Rico" would be widely (almost universally) understood to refer to U.S. people not of Puerto Rican birth or descent who live in Puerto Rico. I !vote for the clarity of "American expatriates in Puerto Rico" over any rigorously-correct-yet-idiomatically-appalling alternative such as "Non-Puerto Rican U.S. people in Puerto Rico". --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unimportant time-specific category. Some current categories are justifiable, but this is not. I don't think it is desirable to use Wikipedia categorisation as a location tracker for people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It s not a 'current category', the same as cats for people by occupation does not mean or suggest that people listed are in those occupations now, though they may be of course. Mayumashu (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm thinking is that when the deaths of these people become old memories, will they still be considered "American expatriates in Puerto Rico". If not, and I think not, then I don't think the category is sufficiently timeless. Historical people can still be known by their occupation. Similarly, people may be known by a location of their habitation, but it is not clear that these residents of Puerto Rico will be known for their residence in Puerto Rico, as Puerto Rico may be just their current location. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moving from one part of a country to another part of the same country is not defining or conferring the "status" of expatriate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's completely inappropriate to treat different parts of the same country differently based on some subjective notion of how alien they are to one another. You cannot become an expatriate of the U.S. by moving to one of its territories, any more than (as noted above) someone from Ontario who moves to Quebec is an expatriate. Creating some arbitrary limitation based on the continental U.S. would (on top of ignoring what "expatriate" means) create the absurd situation in which the child of Puerto Rican parents who is born in New York and then moves to Puerto Rico would be a expatriate in Puerto Rico. postdlf (a true American expatriate) 23:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Logical as deletion might seem, deleting this category could create some difficulties in dealing with other categories in the hierarchies to which it belongs. Most of the pages included in this category are articles for expatriate footballers in Puerto Rico (part of the larger Category:Expatriate association football players structure), which has the well-defined scope for non-Puerto Ricans who have played association football in Puerto Rico. A Wikipedia edict that says that a person from Texas or Michigan who has played football in Puerto Rico is not an expatriate will, in effect, classify that person as a Puerto Rican (unlike, for example, a footballer from the nearby Dominican Republic). I would think that Puerto Ricans would be offended to be told that they can't consider these people to be expatriates. --Orlady (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting this category would pose no problem for Category:Expatriate footballers in Puerto Rico because that category should only be for non-Americans, so it's all really beside the point. The Dominican Republic may be much closer than the continental U.S., but it's still a different country; Puerto Rico is also closer to Florida than California is. So what? Distance has nothing to do with it. An American who moves from Niagara Falls, New York across the river to Niagara Falls, Ontario is an expatriate; an American who moves from Niagara Falls, New York across the continent to San Francisco is not. Expatriate means to live outside your country. It's an edict of the English language, not of Wikipedia, and to blur that line is just to make it unworkably subjective and vague. So only non-Americans should be in Category:Expatriate footballers in Puerto Rico, no matter how many Puerto Ricans may "be offended" that they're all citizens of the same country. However (and whether) you want to categorize American non-Puerto Rican footballers in Puerto Rico is another issue that cannot influence the decision here; they're simply not expatriates. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2010 (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:Overseas Fooian to Category Fooian diaspora[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) 10:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Overseas Chinese to Category:Chinese diaspora
Nominator's rationale: are equivalent and the standard WP cat naming convention is 'Fooian diaspora' - see Category:Diasporas. Similiar changes were made previously to Category:Overseas Japanese etc. Mayumashu (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2010 (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 online journalists[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. — ξxplicit 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American online journalists to Category:American journalists
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category has no wider equivalent (there is no Category:Online journalists, and it is a pointless divide because nowadays nearly all journalists write for online news media as well as for print: every major newspaper (and most small ones) also publishes its articles on a website.
(Note that this category is just one of the latest from an editor who is creating a lot of new categories, and in engaging in widespread recategorisation while refusing to discuss the problems created by her high error rate). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless someone can tell me what an online journalist might be (the single person included does not seem to be an online journalist). Occuli (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I agree that online journalists are overlapping and not-syonymous fields. Some bloggers, along with some other people in media in general, are in a gray area where there is probably some division about whether they as individuals are journalists. Maurreen (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --
  1. Now there is Category:Online journalists.
  2. The category is not intended for all journalists who are published online. It is intended for those with an online focus. I added clarification to the category page.
  3. The cat now includes Category:Slate magazine people, from an online-only publication; Adrian Holovaty, a programmer-journalist who has won a couple of major awards; Roblimo, aka Robin Miller, who "was the Editor in Chief of Open Source Technology Group, the company that owns Slashdot;" David Talbot, founder and former editor of Salon.com, an online-only magazine; and Joan Walsh, Salon.com's current editor. Maurreen (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is an "online focus"? Just how online-focused does journalist have to be to be included?
This seems to be one of a series of categories created in order to diffuse Category:American journalists, without proper examination of how it actually works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About what is an online focus -- As with many things, there is some gray area. But this is what I wrote on the category page:
"This category is for those journalists who currently or previously have had a strong online focus, such as being employed by a publication that is solely online, or making a distinctive mark in the field of online journalism.
"Journalists who just happen to published online or who have little work that is digital-specific, should not be categorized here."
Also, the wider Category:Online journalists now has 17 articles that are not under Category:American online journalists. Maurreen (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- I have responded to all questions and concerns. Is there any current rationale to argue for deleting this category? Maurreen (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as it is understood that this is not a mutually exclusive situation. Certainly there can be online journalists who are offline as well. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind, and such people can be in multiple categories. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2010 (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:Norwegian people of 1905[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, but merge contents into the article Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. This will need more work in the article to prevent it from being just a simply list of important figures. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Norwegian people of 1905 to Category:Something which better conveys the purpose of this category
Nominator's rationale: Rename. When I first saw this category, I thought it might be part of a series of categories for each year, which would be a recipe for massive category clutter. However, while it is part of the badly named Category:Norwegian people by historical year, the contents of this category relate to the Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. That seems to me to be a potentially valid basis for a category, grouping together the major players in a historic process, but the name does not convey this.
The best name I can think of so far is Category:People of Norwegian Independence, but that doesn't seem quite right. Any better ideas? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge membership to a new section in Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905, perhaps titled "Significant players in the dissolution" and build some content that explains how these people are significant in the history of the event. I don't see navigational benefit in this category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SmokeyJoe's rationale. I agree that these names had better be incorporated into the article with explanations for each. The category is marginally useful. __meco (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2010 (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:College baseball seasons[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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:College baseball seasons to Category:College baseball team seasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is malnamed in comparison to others in Category:College athletic team seasons in the United States by sport. Category:College baseball seasons would be for articles like 2009 NCAA Division I baseball season. For individual teams the proposed name is better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative is to create the proposed renamed category moving the current contents. Then move all the season to the extant category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 19:51, 16 April 2010 (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:Chinese American philosophers[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 16. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Chinese American philosophers to Category:American people of Chinese descent and Category:American philosophers (and possibly Category:Philosophers of Chinese descent?)
Nominator's rationale: no similar cats for this occupation for Americans by ethnic or national origin, and it s a very lightly populated cat (some similar cats that for other occupations may not have trees but have some population to justify having them as a means of breaking up a heavily populated supra cat page - this is not the case here). Mayumashu (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2010 (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:Government buildings 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: no consensus to rename. — ξxplicit 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Government buildings in the United States to Category:Government buildings and structures in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This matches the main parent category. The subcategories include structures. I can see a need for grouping government buildings, but is there a need to exclude government structures? One interesting observation on this, what is a government building? Is it one that is owned or used? An interesting distinction that should be made clear in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What content needs to be included that is a "structure" but not a building? The answer to that question may just prove that the proposed rename is unnecessary but harmless. On your other point, I don't see a lack of clarity in the category's contents; it's all about buildings used for government functions, such as courthouses, offices for government agencies, fire houses, etc. Can you point out any included buildings that are owned by a government, but not used by it? postdlf (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because there are multiple levels of government in the U.S. and because "buildings and structures" category includes bridges and dams -- many of which are owned by federal, state, and local governments (but aren't currently in a "government" category), I expect that the proposed rename will create a category that is too amorphous to be useful. --Orlady (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2010 (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:County buildings 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 21#Category:County buildings in the United States. — ξxplicit 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:County buildings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is currently a 3 member category. However the question is, do we want to create a category for government buildings by county in the US? I'm thinking with all of the other categories for these, one more is not going to be helpful. Then we would further hide this at some point in a State category. So I think deletion is wise. On the chance that this results in keeping then we should Rename to Category:County buildings and structures in the United States to match the common name for items in this tree and add {{container category}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. As the contents make clear, this isn't intended for government buildings by county, but rather buildings used by county governments, and so it should be renamed to "County government buildings..." to make that clear. No real opinion on whether adding "and structures" is necessary. The level of government is important. We currently have Category:Buildings of the United States government for the federal government; Category:State government buildings in the United States; we should also have Category:Municipal government buildings in the United States for city/town halls and the like. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An important wrinkle to consider in dealing with this category is the fact that many (indeed, it's probably most) of the buildings used by U.S. counties for governmental functions are called "courthouse" and are included in the totally separate category hierarchy under Category:Courthouses in the United States. That category hierarchy does not make distinctions for the level of government associated with the courthouse, so it includes federal, state, county, and city courthouses. --Orlady (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2010 (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:Christian conspiracy theorists[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:Christianity conspiracy theorists. — ξxplicit 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merge with Category:Conspiracy theorists
Nominator's rationale: Not really sure what this category is about. Are these folks people who have conspiracy theories about the Christian faith? Are they people who think that there are conspiracies assailing the Christian faith? I think there are some people in here who hold conspiratorial theories about non-theological matters who are also Christians. This is also a sub-category in the category Christian writers. Does one have to be a Christian to be in this category? This category is broad, rather confusing and I'm not sure what the point is. Empty its contents back into its mother category. - Schrandit (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The inclusion criteria stated in the category is "People whose conspiracy theories are associated with Christian faith." Is there something wrong with this statement? Hmains (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nonsense category with an appropriate inclusion criteria. Szzuk (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2010 (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 Esperanza[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) 10:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Esperanza to Category:People from Esperanza, Santa Fe
Nominator's rationale: Article is Esperanza, Santa Fe. Esperanza is ambiguous. Occuli (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes perfect sense and should be done asap Cls14 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. as a standard one for disambiguation Mayumashu (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. Made me think of esperanto. So yes. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (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.

Norwegian local politicians by county[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 21#Norwegian local politicians by county. — ξxplicit 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: There are two reasons for this nomination. 1) The included articles should be local politicians only, and so they are as of today. However, the current names are ambiguous as to whether the politicians are politicians hailing from these counties of whether they are local politicians in these counties. 2) Today, these categories do not distinguish between the two sublevel administrative subdivisions in Norway, i.e. municipality and county level. Most municipalities still lack a category for their local politicians, leaving these categories filled with municipal politicians as well as county-level local politicians without any distinction. A new hierarchy for county-level politicians can subsequently be created, i.e. Category:Akershus county politicians (or Category:County politicians from Akershus) subordinate to the proposed Category:Akershus local politicians.

This nomination is done in conjunction with developing the Category:Politicians by first-level administrative country subdivision and Category:Politicians by second-level administrative country subdivision structure. __meco (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Today, the categories do not include local politicians only. They also include politicians hailing from these counties, BUT which have a political connection to the county. This is because we have some articles on obscure legislators, and all we know about them is that they were elected on a county ballot, so they had some kind of connection to the county. Geschichte (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. But you don't see that as an argument against this proposal? __meco (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to know what will be done about such politicians. Will their category be removed altogether? Geschichte (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing is that these categories often are in place of e.g. "People from Vest-Agder". Care has to be taken that if "(county) politicians" are removed, then a "People from (county)" is added - except those cases where such a category is already in place (typically when the person is from an old city). Geschichte (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: what is a local or a county politician? Do you have to be a member of the county council, county leader of the party or county board member? Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot give an answer what will be done about the politicians you mention. That would be up to the consensus of editors. I'm sure we would figure it out though, and I think it would be a pity to make this nomination hinge on having that settled first.
  • If these categories are in place of "People from (county)" categories (or "People from (municipality)") that is a problem which I have somewhat also observed myself. Obviously they could no longer serve that dual purpose with the ambiguity now being taken out of these categories, and categories would have to be added in the instances where this applies. That would have to be a maintenance task. Could we define an algorithm to be applied to the bot which will make all these changes? I'm not sure. But we could inquire with the closing admin and the users who run the bot(s) which do these recategorizations.
  • That is a good question. As for your fist question, these categories will form an umbrella hierachy for municipality and county politicians (which are both "local politicians"). Furthermore, I think we should equate the term "local politician" with the Norwegian "lokalpolitiker". Then only people who are elected members of local government would qualify, and also mayors and members of formannskap/byråd which are appointed. I'm unsure how to deal with high-ranking members of the parties' at the local level that haven't been elected into kommunestyre or fylkesting. This is an issue to be discussed and settled in the future, perhaps involving other country hierarchies also. I don't believe it's necessary to have this settled before deciding on the present proposal.
With all of these things still up in the air, I still believe that the proposed change will bring us forward since the present scheme is even more ambiguous than the case will be if we move forward as I have proposed. __meco (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2010 (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:List of Argentinean operas[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. — ξxplicit 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:List of Argentinean operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The name is clearly inappropriate but so is the category itself. It is currently a subcat of Category:Opera by nationality, but this is inappropriate as that category is for general articles about opera (as an art form) in various national traditions. The criteria for inclusion seems to be that the composer's nationality is Argentine. There are no other categories for Operas by fooian composers. In Category:Operas, articles about individual operas are currently subcategorized by Category:Operas by composer, Category:Operas by setting, Category:Operas by language, etc.. I suppose it could be re-named Category:Operas by Argentine composers and be a subcat of Category:Argentine music, but all in all, I thinks it's inappropriate and should instead be made into a true list such as List of Mexican operas. – Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have now created the article List of Argentine operas. Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the nom makes a convincing case. Occuli (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't see much wrong with it. That there are no other nationalities with their own opera category isnt convincing, perhaps they will all follow. Szzuk (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a lot wrong with this; now that the true list has been created, it's probably best to delete this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant to the new list, orphaned, badly named, serves no obviously useful purpose... I could go on but I thinks that's enough --Jubilee♫clipman 22:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - the category isn't orphaned. See Category:List of Argentinean operas. Categories don't show up on "What links here". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2010 (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:21st-century South Korean 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. — ξxplicit 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:21st-century South Korean people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another people by century category. I did a random check and all of the articles I looked at had multiple South Korean categories so deletion should be OK. Note, if this is deleted, then Category:South Korean people by century would empty and could be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many similar recent discussions. Occuli (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2010 (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:21st-century bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of 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: merge all. — ξxplicit 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:21st-century bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America
Category:18th-century bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and Category:18th-century Anglican bishops and Category:18th-century American Episcopalians
Category:19th-century bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and Category:19th-century Anglican bishops and Category:19th-century American Episcopalians
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Better to classify these by diocese rather then century. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per many similar recent discussions. Occuli (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I expect to find a few more of these as I process the results of the March 28 CfD discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. More relics of Pastorwayne/EstherLois, I see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2010 (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:Tom Yoda[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) 10:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tom Yoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category that is OCAT. The various companies should be linked in the article for any needed navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – good example of an eponymous category which serves no useful purpose. Occuli (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two articles are linked, rendering this category next to useless. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2010 (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:Jacques Cartier[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) 10:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jacques Cartier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited possibilities to grow. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – another good example of an eponymous category which serves no useful purpose. Occuli (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much to delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2010 (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:Yury Felten[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) 10:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yury Felten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Three entry categroy appears to be OCAT at this time. Can be recreated when there is a larger number of associated articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – yet another good example of an eponymous category which serves no useful purpose. Occuli (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (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:Popular musicians who committed suicide[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) 10:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Popular musicians who committed suicide to Category:Musicians who committed suicide
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Subjective inclusion criteria. Or is this popularity contest? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Cls14 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. It probably means 'pop' musicians, but this is also subjective. Occuli (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is definitely an opinion that popular music isn't real music, but we don't want to get into it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (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.

Voice actors by video game[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. — ξxplicit 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Code Lyoko voice actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rayman M voice actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performance. Categorizing voice actors by which video games they have provided voices for is similar to categorizing actors by films appeared in, and per much consensus precedent the latter is overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A trivial category, not informative. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2010 (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:Penthouse magazine[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:Penthouse (magazine). — ξxplicit 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

propose rename — I propose that Category:Penthouse magazine be renamed by move to Category:Penthouse. The target name is free. As far as I know, the official name is just "Penthouse" and not "Penthouse magazine". It would also introduce symmetry with the Playboy cats. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (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:Iconic city statues[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, as the category is highly subjective. — ξxplicit 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Iconic city statues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Any time we attempt to categorize something as being "iconic" or an "icon", we run into POV problems. The category definition is "A category for iconic statues that the citizens of a particular city have come to regard as mascots, or as embodiments of the spirit of a place." Well, yes—but unfortunately there's no way of reliably determining what meets this criterion and what does not, since "citizens of a particular city" is never a monolith. It's made up of different people with different opinions, including different opinions about the statues in the area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom, a bad idea which has been deleted many times before with respect to other types of "icons". Better to make a list (if anything) and reference it meticulously. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; or parent with Category:Iconic categories that should be deleted. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Why not rename this "Notable city statues"? "Notable" seems to be the buzzword of choice on Wikipedia. I agree that "iconic" is a subject value juddgment, but "notable" would simply mean that the statue has its own article in Wikipedia.CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally don't include the word "notable" in categories, since notability goes without saying (if it exists in WP, it's supposed to be notable, so everything in every category is a "notable" something.) So essentially this would be "Statues in cities", and I'm not sure why we need to categorize statues by location in any city or populated place, unless it's specific, like Category:Statues in Paris. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify. Despite once living for 2 months in Worcester, Mass., and being interested in sculpture, I don't recall ever seeing or hearing of Burnside Fountain. There are only 4 articles here, and two are of local fame at best. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On behalf of Napier and kiwis, we love that statue. There really is something special about small statues that people feel connected to. And I was interested to find a category of comparable statues at the bottom of the page. I knew about the Little Mermaid, but I didn't know about Worcester's statue. I like clicking on a Wikipedia page and finding something I didn't know about. What's the harm? Why not let people in Napier discover Turtle boy this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.192.119 (talk • contribs)
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/2010_April_16&oldid=1078926565"