Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30[edit]

Category:Depictions of Canada[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A category by a valued editor that I nevertheless fear may be misguided, as it doesn't really correspond to any parent category tree, as the redlinked Category:Depictions of countries indicates. Or is this a category tree that merits planting? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I am biased, but I happen to think that the public image of a country is an interesting topic, but more importantly, a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. We already have category:Canada in fiction, but nothing for non-fiction depictions, which I feel is a gap. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see where the editor is going although I might prefer Category:Perceptions of Canada. All countries and people have attrubutes both in a legal and physical sense that are easily incorporated into the category structure. This is dealing with perceptions - a much more nebulous attribute, but nevertheless still valid. Local to me I can view the people across La Manche as the frogeaters - an important attribute that should/could be dealt with somewhere. Of course, it is going to get a bit POV, racist .... but is still worth considering. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 'POV, racist' thing was at all what the creator had in mind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. I still prefer depictions, since that better fits the articles in question, although perceptions would another interesting topic. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably rushed at my comment and got ahead of myself. I started from Kevlar's comment 'that the public image of a country is an interesting topic'. I agree with that. My reasoning from that is that there is the 'public persona' (how the state would wish the country to be depicted); the 'popular persona' (how the population and the media see the country); and the 'external view' (which is why I chose perception rather than depiction).

There already exist Category:Books about Canada and Category:Films set in Canada - I thought this category was trying to bring in all the other depictions. It does include Category:Canada in fiction.

Perhaps Kevlar could present his headnote for the category so we can be clearer on where he wishes the category to go otherwise we might be talking at cross purposes. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this stage. It's very tough to know what the exact extent of this category is or should be. Unless the creator can enlighten us, I too fear it is a misguided (though undoubtedly good faith) attempt to classify non-fictional depictions which may be better covered by more specific categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:26, 8 May 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:Korean mass murderers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (criterion G7). FYI: Editors can request speedy deletion of pages to which they are the sole or primary contributor by adding {{db-author}} to the page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete:I created this category by mistake. zubrowka74 19:36, 30 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 Eastern Province[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 00:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Eastern Province to Category:People from Eastern Province (Kenya)

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Eastern Province (Kenya) and to avoid confusion with other Eastern Provinces. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (and also per Category:Eastern Province (Kenya)). Occuli (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - The Bushranger (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious rename needed for disambiguation for relatively common placename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 3 May 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:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Canada[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 delete. — ξ ^xplicit 05:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: not part of any tree (no Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants or Category:Russian and Soviet people) and not all that necessary as a container page Mayumashu (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This catagory was created, primarily as a container catagory, along with the other catagories of "Russian and Soviet immigrants", in light a full CFD discussion (here and here) on the need to diffrentiate, where possible, between "Imperial Russian", "White Russian", "Soviet" and "Russian" immigrants (the latter term applying solely to immigrants from the present Russian Federation). The CFD also recognised the difficulty, in some circumstances, of allocating article between these categories and that, in many instances, articles had been incorrectly allocated to "Russian immigrants" instead of one of the other names categories. By having this as an additional parent/container it focussed users' attention on the existence of the other catagories. Davshul (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??The result of both discussions was 'keep', i.e. not to create these 'Cat:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Fooia' container cats. Like Black Falcon, I can see there being some merit but question this approach WP-wide, of creating pages to draw attention to distinctions where attention can just as well be created with good hatnotes and subcatting (Imperial Russian under Russia, for instance. Category:Russian emigrants is not meant to strictly refer to post- Soviet Russia. Russians from the Soviet era would be double-catted (as would Ukrainians, etc.), with one link as Russian and one as Soviet) Mayumashu (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of both discussions was not to "merge" the existing categories into a single all embracing category "Cat:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Fooia'. Regarding the double catting, all discussions to date maintain that these categories do not relate the ethnicity. Accordingly an emigrant from the Soviet Union should not be catted under "Russian" or any other of the ethnic groups of the former Soviet Union. Davshul (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to agree with the format as a whole (at this point, anyway) but in that case, Category:Russian emigrants needs to be remained to Category:Russian Federation emigrants etc. for subcats. I don t know if Russians in the U.S.S.R. were merely an ethnic group, that Russia was merely a province of the U.S.S.R. - wasn t it still more of a country? I can still having Category:Russian emigrants housing subcats Category:Russian Federation emigrants, Category:Imperial Russian emigrants and listing Soviet emigrants who were Russian there as well. Mayumashu (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestions/comments ("Russian Federation emigrants"; listing according to ethnicity) are in no way consistent with the CFDs, in which the issues were discussed at length. As regards the province/ethnic group suggestion, it was agreed by all concerned that the emigrant/immigrant categories relate to the emigrants from one sovereign country to another, without reference to ethnicity, nor to the province (or in this case, SSR) from which the emigrant came.Davshul (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely consistent with categorising people by place where there is ambiguity and Russia was not a mere province nor 'homeland to an ethnicity' at the time of the USSR. Mayumashu (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the cited discussion, you will see how inconsistent your suggestion is. Davshul (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Immigrants to Canada per nom. Quite simply, "Soviet" != "Russian", and we should not combine Soviet and Russian identities even at the level of a parent category. I understand why the category was created in light of Davshul's explanation, but I believe that clear category descriptions would be more effective in focusing "attention on the existence of other categories" than creating a category that is questionable from a historical perspective. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As mentioned in the cited discussion, until the creation of these additional container categories, over 90% of the articles had been incorrectly allocated as "Russian immigrants", rather than, say, as "Soviet" or "Imperial Russian" immigrants. The container categories have, I believe, drawn users' attention to the need to correctly allocate. (Incidentally, as you may have noted from the cited discussion, I was opposed to this sub-categorization, being of the opinion that, for example, "Russian" could just as easily include "Imperial Russian", but the consensus was to maintain the separate sub-categories, and I have been allocating the various articles accordingly.) Davshul (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to house the 11 or so such 'by country' categories. It is being used correctly as essentially a container category with 4 or 5 more precise subcats. (There are several other categories beginning 'Russian and Soviet' - see index - and more still beginning 'Soviet and Russian', or 'Soviet and post-Soviet'.) Occuli (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occuli, whilst I have no strong objections to creating a Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants, and am agreeable to creating it, I am not sure that it is necessary. Each of the of the "4 or 5 more precise subcats" are also housed in a parent category relating specifically to such subcat - e.g. Category:Imperial Russian emigrants, Category:Soviet emigrants, etc. Davshul (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Canadians of Russian descent", but purge of any non-Russian Soviet people who should be listed according to theri proper ethnciity. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "immigrant" categories are in a completely different category tree from the categories relating to "descent", and the former are based upon the relevant counties and the latter are based upon ethnicity. Davshul (talk) 19:41, 11 May 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.

Playboy Playmates by decade[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. — ξ ^xplicit 00:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Parenthetical disambiguation in this case is, in my opinion, not only more concise but also more intuitive than either "from" or "of". Also, the hyphen needs to be changed to an en dash per WP:ENDASH (see speedy renaming criterion C2.A). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Mayumashu (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur – Occuli (talk) 10:13, 30 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.