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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category was nominated for speedy deletion by another editor. This was declined. I suggest this redirect is not necessary. meco (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this has been left as a redirect as an attempt to avoid cfd following the article move from Punjab (Pakistan) to Punjab, Pakistan (see eg this diff). The 'rename' seems perfectly reasonable (and various subcats should be renamed too), as does this delete. I would also say that Category:Punjab should be a disamb category (as Punjab is a disamb page). [Category:Punjab groups both together.] Occuli (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This redirect is a valid search term. I disagree that Category:Punjab should be a dab-category. Historically the Punjab was one province and earlier one kingdom. It is thus appropraiate to retain this category, which is well-populated, though it is possible that some of the articles need to be recategorised into daughter categories for its current divisions. If there is an inconsistency, it is that Category:Punjab (India) is not Category:Punjab, India. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While notability is not inherited, a relationship to a notable figure (such as a national leader) will be a notable characteristic. If we were dealing with an AFD for a list article, I would certainly vote for deletion. However an article can only be entered in a category, if the article already exists, which in turn implies that the bio-subject is notable. I note that the US category is quite large. If it has NN people in it, then they should be removed by an AFD nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I really dislike the way editors insist on messing up the likes of Category:Heads of state (which should only include heads of state) by providing ill-begotten offspring such as Category:Siblings of national leaders. IMO someone like Billy Carter should be categorised under Category:Carter family (as he is) and not under any 'siblings of' categories (eg siblings of peanut farmers, siblings of Nobel laureates etc). There is no Category:Siblings and I support 'delete' for this and its 3 national subcats. Occuli (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli. Category-wise, these should be dealt with in individual family trees, if at all. They really do confuse the tree. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This nomination deals with moving/renaming/merging nearly all of the New Taipei-related categories. (The need for merging/renaming comes from the fact that recently, Taipei County became a Republic of China municipality with the Chinese name of 新北, but the controversy of whether it should be referred to as Xinbei or New Taipei was not settled until this morning, when the ROC Ministry of the Interior declared "New Taipei" to be the official rendering. The categories should be reorganized to reflect the Taipei County -> New Taipei renaming. --Nlu (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Subsequent to this nomination, the only article that was in the category was deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. I now recommend here, instead of a rename, a deletion of the category instead. --Nlu (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Consistency of spelling with the main article. Geregen2 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Consistency of spelling with the main article. Geregen2 (talk) 14:22, 31 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Consistency of spelling with the main article. Geregen2 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. For consistency in spelling with the main article for the team. Geregen2 (talk) 14:19, 31 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. For consistency in spelling with the main article for FC Dnepr Mogilev. Geregen2 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The team was renamed from FC MTZ-RIPO to FC Partizan Minsk a year ago (see the article). Geregen2 (talk) 14:10, 31 December 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.
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.
Rename per nom. (And, FWIW, I agree with the article move.) Occuli (talk) 13:58, 31 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Single entry category whose entry is already a member of all of this category's parents.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate -- The main article Locked room mystery should probably be renamed to match the category. I cannot so this is the target exists as a redirect to it. That article lists a significant number of works in this genre, with which this category should be populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate -- I have requested administrative assistance in making the move you suggest. — Robert Greer (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a great solution. Thanks for doing that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a good thought, but Transmedia should exist as an article on its own. It'd be the right main article. This topic is such a magnet for junk content (sigh) or I'd have more seriously considered creating a stub. --Pnm (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it doesn't exist currently. How about we get a main article before we name a category after it? Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an argument for Cfd instead of Cfr. --Pnm (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not. Ultimately, renaming an category is the deletion of the old one and the creation of a new one, so if you want to think of it that way, that's fine. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot about Transmediation until it popped into my watchlist moments ago. I think it could be the main article. (I also think it could be moved to Transmedia.) --Pnm (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I favor Category:Transmedia is that it reduces the likelihood that other transmedia-related categories will be created in the future. I suppose it's an eventualist argument for keeping the category. --Pnm (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a good example of why we should not categorize "performers by performance", or writers by media outlet, as in this case. These writers and critics are not defined by their having written for NME at some stage in their careers. Yes, it is true that each of them wrote one or more articles for that magazine, but is having done so defining for them? No. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without listifying. A clear case of performance by performer, albeit in a journalistic forum, rather than the usual stage/film/TV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. I'd say that a few are notable as NME writers, esp. Tony Parsons and Julie Burchill, although they have gone on to other notable things. If they'd both been killed ca. 1979 they'd still get articles (and we'd have been saved from some dreadful books). Tassedethe (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, categorising a writer by the publication they write/wrote for seems logical as in the same way BBC journalist are categorised Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists even though many of them are now more notable in other fields.yorkshiresky (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Support" what—the nomination or the existence of the category? Note that many of these authors were not staff writers of NME; many simply had one or more articles appear in NME during their career. A category for staff writers could be reasonable; this one as currently constituted is not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshiresky clearly argues for retaining the category, so unless they reappear to contradict this we can hardly interpret their contribution otherwise. __meco (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the association between writers/journalists having worked for the same publication or media organization a notably cluster which the category system seems an adequate outlet for. I think the issue of distinguishing between the regular staff writers on one end of the spectrum and the accidental guest writer on the other a relevant issue to be dealt with in turn, though I don't believe this problem necessitates that this category must go. __meco (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a statue is a reflection of existing notability, not a defining characteristic of anyone. If we start categorising people by the various ways in which they are commemorated, we could clutter up biogs with dozens of similarly trivial categories: people with blue plaques, people whose portrait was painted, and so on. Not a good idea. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – at most tangential to the person. Occuli (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). The AFD resulted in the deletion of the list article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match article Void (band). Here I am concerned with confusion regarding albums named Void, of which there are several, one of which has an article on WP called Void (album). (And then there is The Void (album) ...) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – in my opinion, the 'albums' category should always match the band article (for simplicity). Occuli (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2011 (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 communities with African American majority populations[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 keep/delete, especially as the breakup of these by state changes the matter (to a debatable amount). The suggestion to rename to Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations will be enacted, however. Should someone desire to nominate the tree, they should feel free to do so. Courcelles 08:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not sure that we need this category. While some may argue that it is defining or deserving of a category, it currently has over 1,200 articles. There is also a list which should be the preferred form of navigation here since some of the populations of these communities is not well documented. Also communities is ambiguous so any neighborhood can be included without definitive sourcing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Part of an established pattern found in all the subcats of Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United States. There is no valid reason to delete those; no valid reason to delete this one either. If the category is too large, that represents facts. Nicety of WP should not be used to tarnish fact. Perhaps, the category needs to be subcatted by US state so the subcats could be put into each state's category tree. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If specific articles don't have documentation, OK with removing them. If the cat is too large, we can start doing states as per Hmains suggestion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ultimately, it's pretty arbitrary. A "community" (however one limits that) is in if it is 50%+1 AA, but out if it is 50% or 49% AA. Then there is the problem of defining what is included within the borders of the "community". These issues haven't been addressed by the comments above. One common problem in addressing categories is treating them like an AFD, which they are not. Just because something may be inappropriate for categorization does not mean that the information is being removed from WP completely or that WP is being used to "tarnish facts", as was commented above. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Community' is clear. It is a different word for the now used 'populated place' in WP. All the communities included are articles on towns, cities, and so on. Hmains (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not always. Do we limit this to places that are segregated out (no pun intended) in official censuses? Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We limit it to places that have WP articles. We are discussing categories which are made up of artcles. Hmains (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The defining feature of category is encyclopedic, and Hmains' suggestion with regard to further refining the category is worth considering. – Athaenara ✉ 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to take on the (probably all-day) task of re-organizing this into subcategories by state if we agree upon a consistent naming convention for them (e.g. [State] communities with African American majority populations, United States communities with African American majority populations in [state], or something else). – Athaenara ✉ 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Olfactory as arbitrary, and also as subjective, because its application depends on the area defined as the "community"; it could be anything from a cluster of houses to a city. Additionally, such categories depend on census data, which are updated periodically, and a "community" which was 95% white in 1900 may have been 60% African American by 1960 an majority Asian American by 2010. So to avoid misleading the reader, any such categorisation would have to define the date of the data ... and what do we do if a "community" is 45% AA in 1960, 55% in 1970, 60% in 1980, 50% in 1990 and 35% in 2000? Is it included or not? Categorising by year of census data would lead to massive clutter, so that's no solution. This sort of material is fine in the body text of an article, because it can be explained and dated and is not subject to arbitrary thresholds ... but it doesn't work as a form of categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories provide for navigation; text in articles does not. The visibility of the information becomes lost to WP with this nomination. 'Community' is clear. It is a different word for the now used 'populated place' in WP. All the communities included are articles on towns, cities, and so on. Hmains (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text in articles is highly navigable via wikilinks. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of such places backed by reliable and verifiable sources and with rather clear inclusion criteria that can be readily confirmed. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so listify! And there is already a list where the information could be added where missing. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why your argument has any specific relevance to this category, as no category is capable of having sources. The list and category are designed to work together and there appears to be no reason why that can't work here as it does throughout the encyclopedia. Hmains's suggestion that this category be broken down by state would make it far more manageable and address the other issue you raised. The arguments offered elsewhere that we can't define "community" and that the term majority is arbitrary is belied by the fact that reliable and verifiable sources such as newspapers, magazines, books and the United States Census Bureau (among other government agencies) all define such communities in this manner. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reliable and verifiable sources is really the issue. It is not obvious that all of these will meet that criteria. If in fact we do have those sources, then creating a list where you can confirm this is simple. Arguing for a category where someone has to read every article is appropriate is not appropriate. Then we still have the definition of community to deal with. Community is inherently ambiguous. Not a good criteria for a category. How big is the community? How small? There are communities out there with a population of 5 or less. So if they have 2 or 3 African Americans, then they should be included here. Is that the intent of the category? Is that defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Ol'factory and BrownHairedGirl. LtGen (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Examples I'm honestly confused by the concern over what qualifies as a "community" and verifiability. Glancing through the category, it seems to consist of municipalities, census designated places and a few urban neighborhoods. The first two can demonstrate their AA majority population through the census, articles like Harlem would need to provide some other source analyzing census data in most cases. What are some examples of a "cluster of houses" or other examples of poorly defined communities in the cat? (If the cat is truly being widely applied incorrectly, I'm willing to re-evaluate my position.) RevelationDirect (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the term "community" does indeed cover cities, towns, villages and the myriad other definitions for municipalities and communities in the United States, for which the Census Bureau has data that unambiguously provides data on population and the proportion of African American residents. For the small handful of neighborhoods, such as Harlem, there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims. The "cluster of houses" is offered as a hypothetical, but there don't appear to be any such place that might challenge the existence of the category. Should we find any questionable cases, we are far better off by discussing the issue at the article's talk page rather than using it as justification to delete the category in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or listify. More usefully listify by decennial census, using the census designations. RichFarmbrough, 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Certainly the best idea at this point, given the choking going on above about 'communities' Hmains (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The category has been emptied out in its entirety so that all of the entries (other than the list article) are now in subcategories that use the term "populated places", addressing a major issue raised in the nomination. The suggestion to use "populated places" in the title of the category under discussion would address the remaining concern about the shift away from using "communities". Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Relisted at 2011 JAN 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)