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: It makes more sense to categorize recording studios by location, not nationality (assuming that even makes sense). — ξxplicit 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, makes sense to me. Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the articles appear to be about physical recording facilities, but there are a good number of record labels and companies scattered here and there. Probably this is usage borrowed from film; a movie studio is a production or distribution company. I do not know whether this suggests recording studio is ambiguous or not, but if not someone will need to write clear category descriptions and undertake some cleanup.- choster (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some record labels do actually directly operate their own recording studios, so I'd double-check those first — a record label that does own and operate its own studio should be allowed here. But you're right that a record label and a recording studio are, strictly speaking, two different things. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Other types of buildings are categorised by location (which tends to be fixed), rather than by nationality of their owners (which can change as companies are bought and sold), and I see no reason to make recording studios an exception. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Rename all per the brunette; recording studios are fixed buildings, with a very few exceptions. Record labels and recording studios are seperate but related entities. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:30, 24 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 06:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Category has an NPOV name, and no description, or possible description. The sole entry also has the same NPOV name, which I've proposed for merger to another fork at Crisis (Marxian) which was renamed in 2008 from another NPOV name, Crisis (economic) — Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category page carries a brief text "Economic Financial Military Political Social Ideological", which maybe indicates a possible scoping. Arguably, the category may be appropriate for political positions such as a Schmittian State of exception, the Strategy of tension, etc?) AllyD (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't want to get into a debate that's better had on the article's talk pages, a one article category just won't fly. Delete, (or merge, don't know the field enough to know if that's suitable), and allow recreation if/when a decent number fo articles can be so categorisied. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:33, 24 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. Any user should feel free to create sub-categories and move articles into them. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category space is being misused here in the implementation of this category. It should be deleted, and possibly recreated as a "parent only" category (to purge it of all articles). It is described as for "EthnicGaels or Gaelic-speakers, from Ireland or Scotland, in the Middle Ages.", but virtually all people in medieval Ireland and in the highlands and islands of Scotland where Gaelic speakers. The category is expressed to be a subcategory of "People of medieval Scotland" AND "Medieval Irish people". However, few people fall into both categories (which is what the form of the tree implies they all do). The category contains 1114 articles (and is no doubt still growing). This is too many for a manageable navigation tool. The normal solution is to split the category, by place or by date or some other means: other the Scottish and Irish categories are duly split by century, each with a manageable 20 (odd) categories and 30+ articles. If there is a need to distinguish Gaels from Normans, it should be done much further down the category tree, by splitting the "by century" categories for Scotland and Ireland respectively. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or split, given the large number of notables, but don't delete.Red Hurley (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nom) -- I suspect that most of the articles are already in what ought to be the subcategories. The alternative means of closing this discussion might be as a keep as a parent only category, which should be manually emptied of articles. I had hoped that the editor who is populating it - in my view inappropriately - would have responded. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 21 February 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:Romanesque revival architecture in Connecticut[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. Please note that capitalization fixes can be nominated for speedy renaming. Jafeluv (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "Romanesque Revival" is a proper name and therefore should be capitalized. Note that all the other architecture categories with "Revival" in the name are capitalized. Gatoclass (talk) 12:28, 17 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 06:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is titled Antonio Canova, and the category should use the artist's full name as well unless there's a very good reason not to. Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Although I don't think the argument is a very strong one, it is still correct. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 17 February 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 and repurpose. Current name simply groups together three soccer teams that operated in different leagues and eras with different owners that happened to share the same name. There are so unrelated that two of them are indoor teams and one was outdoor. Purposed name would allow Edmonton Brickmen, Edmonton Aviators, and FC Edmonton to be included, defined by geography rather than a common name. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom and BrownHairedGirl's idea Mayumashu (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; but BHG's idea for a redirect is a good one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:37, 24 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist. Only two articles are various artist compilations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one artist is not a defining feature of a compilation album. Polarpanda (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for either of the 2 reasons given: redlink artist + it's a compilation album anyway. Occuli (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRed link parent, albums are compos anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:46, 18 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I was sure that we preferred "(United Kingdom)" as a disambiguator to "(UK)", and was about to propose renaming of the main article, but apparently the manual of style does recommend the abbreviation after all. This could be speedied per C2.B, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename (a pity really, as it is the Alpine Club and not some Johnny-come-lately upstart like all the others, but I regret that it is now ambiguous). Ericoides (talk) 18:58, 19 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename. Jafeluv (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match naming convention used in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 17 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match naming convention used in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 17 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. — ξxplicit 06:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the category text says, these are two terms for the same thing; having both is redundant. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Rampage killer refers to both mass murderers and only in most cases spree killers. Spree killers like Paul John Knowles and Andrew Cunanan aren't rampage killers. Rampage killer is just a universal term for anyone who kills many people in a really short amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.165.30 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - "Rampage killers" is not a valid category for this project. Rampage killers are spree killers. This term is a non sequitur term that is being misused here. People do "go on a rampage", but this is not sufficiently a broad enough classification to encompass mass murderers and spree killers. We don't even have an article exploring this terminology. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Spree killers. They are much the same thing, and the target has a main article and various subcategories. Knowles is categorised both as an American spree killer and as an American serial killer, and I would suggest that the latter fits better. I am not sure about Cunanan, whose offences took place over a couple of months. It may be necessary to purge the target of some people, who would be better classified as serial killers. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead of merging. The IP-address account in question seems to be on a crusade to try to get many non-spree killers labeled as spree killers and discussed in the same article. This latest tactic seems to be a backdoor attempt to get his own personal definition codified into Wikipedia as somehow legitimate. No reason to merge, just kill it off entirely. And if it is merged, we will have to go through and clean up to make sure the label isn't applied incorrectly. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of an unfair accusation. I'm the IP user in question and if you took the time to notice, I cleaned up the American spree killer category, taking off numerous mass murderers like Ronald DeFeo Jr. and the Columbine gunmen. I added the rampage killer category just so there could be a place where both would be classified. I quit adding non-spree killings, but Wildhartlivie didn't. He insisted that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were spree killers and when as far as getting me banned for a 31-hour period whenever I removed them from that category. Now he's here just to cover his own ass. I swear to you I'm not on a crusade. Truth be told, I don't care if the category is deleted or not. I just made it so people could classify mass murderers and spree killers of a similar nature under the same category. No need to do any kind of clean-up. I already took care of that, although I had some trouble because Wildhartlivie kept re-adding serial killers like Thomas Dillon and mass murders like the Jonesboro/Columbine gunmen and Biswanth Halder. It seems kind of questionable HE out of all people would be here denouncing the page, but like I said he's probably just here to cover his own ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PostalDude96 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 21 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete'. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to clarify its purpose as a category of images. The two most defining characteristics of the New South China Mall are a) that it is the biggest in the world, and b) that it is 99% empty. The latter factor suggests that it is unlikely to spawn a series of related articles with which to populate it. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the files are on commons and their classification system is better suited to images. No reason to have files on commons categorized here. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 17 February 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 to clarify that is a category of programming languages which children can use to program, not a category of languages which others can use to program children. unless (room.tidied) {{ CanIwatchTV = false }} if (mummy_irritating_me_level > -400) {{ sulk_level = 99; while (true) {{ say "It's SO unfair" }} }} --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some would be interested in the latter concept. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Support per nom. LOL @ the example :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, love the example: so that's how kids are programmed... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 22 February 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.
American people by ethnic or national origin[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.
Two key arguments were raised in favour of this rename: 1) concerns over possible ambiguity, and 2) a desire to achieve consistency within Wikipedia categorisation of this area. Against this we have the view that the status quo reflects 'real world' use and that, to quote one discussant, Wikipedia should not "try to impose its views on actual American culture and society."
Having considered these arguments my view is that the strength of the arguments favour those in favour of renaming. Wikipedia's scheme of categorisation places a high premium on internal consistency and on adherence to conventional forms in category names. In that regard, it is clear that a general standard form has arisen in the broad area of people by ethnic/national origin. The various concerns raised over the possibility of ambiguity are not without merit, but are in my view secondary to this first point. The argument was advanced that this is akin to a WP:ENGVAR situation, whereby the usages of a particular nation should be respected in content pertaining specifically to that nation. I do not consider that this argument is especially relevant to categorisation, but, in any event, this is not a case of enforcing one nation's usage onto another, but rather an attempt to find a common ground which is satisfactory to all. Therefore, insofar as ENGVAR can be considered to be applicable, WP:COMMONALITY is a highly persuasive counterpoint.
More generally, on the question of use of common terms; while WP:COMMONNAME may guide and inform an editor's choice of category name, it does not have any specific applicability to categorisation - there is certainly no presumption for the adoption of the most commonly used 'real world' term, as there is in the case of articles. Categories are governed by Wikipedia:Category names and by tree-specific conventions which have evolved over time. These conventions may have arisen in any number of ways, whether here at Cfd, within related WikiProjects, or by general collaboration between interested editors - the important point is that they are clearly and overwhelmingly used in like categories. Given that such a convention has clearly arisen in respect of this subject-area and, having seen no compelling arguments made to justify maintaining a separate form for the US tree, I consider that this rename is justified.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Over the past few years, there has been a slow change in ethnicity categories from using the "Barian Fooians" format to the "Fooians of Barian descent" format. This change has been implemented for almost all groups of ethnicities, with the exception of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. Right now this category has subcategories that use a mix of "Barian Fooians", "Fooians of Barian descent", and the hyphenated "Barian-Fooians". As it stands now, there are also a number of duplications.
Basically, this nomination is proposing that we change to use the "Fooians of Barian descent" for the American category too. (Note: For now, only the ones for very specific nationalities/ethnicities have been nominated. E.g., I have not here nominated Category:Arab Americans, Category:European Americans and other similar container categories; these can be dealt with later depending on the result here. Similarly, I have not nominated any subcategories of the categories nominated.) There has been some support for extending the "Fooians of Barian descent" format to the American ones in a recent discussion, which has prompted me to try to see where consensus is on this issue. The rationale for this change might be obvious to some, but I will set out some of the reasons below:
Simplification. We don't need a "Barian Fooians" and a "Fooians of Barian descent" category for each ethnicity. While strictly speaking there might be a difference between the two, I don't think categories would be amenable to such fine slicing of ethnic backgrounds. Past consensus supports this point.
Clarity. While it is indeed very common for American people to be referred to in sources by the "Barian American" format, the meaning of these terms are not inherently clear to many. Is a "Cuban American": (a) an American citizen who was born in Cuba; (b) an person with dual American/Cuban citizenship; (c) a Cuban citizen who lives in the United States; (d) an American citizen who lives in Cuba; (e) a person born in the United States to a parent of Cuban nationality; (f) a Cuban who acquired American nationality and gave up his Cuban nationality; (g) any of the above; or (h) any of two or more of the above? I realize that the answer to this question is largely solved by Cuban American and/or a carefully crafted category definition, but changing to "Americans of Cuban descent" would go a long way towards resolving the clarity of the self-standing category name, which appears at the bottom of articles without a definition. It is changing from a shorthand label to more of a descriptive name.
Consistency in the category tree. As mentioned above, most of the other ethnicity categories in Wikipedia have been changed to the "Fooians of Barian descent" format. I don't think there is a good reason to retain the difference with the American ones. There have been many immigrants to the United States and there is a lot of different ethnic groups there, but that is true of other countries too. "Barian Fooians" is more commonly used in the "real world", but that holds true for other countries and nationalities as well, and those have been changed. Why do we preserve the American exceptionalism in this regard?
As a compromise, I would be quite open to retaining category redirects on the old "Barian Americans" categories. Bots take care of moving any articles mistakenly placed in category redirects, so having them would be helpful and would not add to anyone's workload.
Finally, I would note that I acknowledge that issues of ethnicity and nationality and their interplay can be sensitive issues, and my intent with this nomination has not been to insult Americans or any ethnic group. Or Cubans, or anyone else. — Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The "Barian Fooian" format is the one most commonly used in the real world. The problems of the ambiguous meanings of such terms here should be addressed by requiring more unambiguous definitions, not by the renaming that you propose. (And I know you mean no insult.) SamEV (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the American ones be different than that of other countries? Would you propose that they all be changed back since "Barian Fooians" is more common for almost all nationality/ethnicity combinations? Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't propose that the American ones be different. Yes, I do propose that all be in the "Barian Fooian" format if that's the most common one, unless the need for exceptions is clearly demonstrated.SamEV (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC); 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the rub. The problem being that almost all of the other ones have been recently changed, so keeping these American ones in this format will mean the American ones are different. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I didn't vote in the other nominations... :) SamEV (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I swear there is one of the Fables of Aesop that sums this up nicely ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All While I appreciate the time and effort put into the nomination, it ignores the fact that the real-world, reliable and verifiable sources and real life people use "Barian American" to describe people in the United States. The effort to craft an artificial term to describe people adds nothing and takes away the flavor of the joint national background. Alansohn (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble at all. I essentially agree with your underlying point, but as I say above, that is the case for other countries/nationalities too, and we renamed them. "Barian Fooian" not a unique usage to the United States. The nomination is intended to bring some consistency and not preserve the American exceptionalism in this regard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All – "Fooian American" is in constant use and is well-understood. "Booian Fooian" for non-Americans in contrast is not in general use and is easily confused with "Fooian Booian". I am fairly sure that many previous cfds have supported Fooian Americans while otherwise preferring the 'descent' formulation. Occuli (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question (nom). When users say "keep all", are they suggesting that we literally "keep all"—that we should have both Category:French Americans and Category:Americans of French descent and the other duplicate ones? I phrase this generally rather than to the individuals since no one has specified in their comments. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant keep all the 'Barian American' ones. But if the others are kept as well, that's OK. I have no problem with their being considered on an individual basis. SamEV (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Some of these are obviously named by their common names, such as Chinese American, Korean American, etc. I can't say this for all the categories, but clearly they should be considered on an individual basis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are only two issues to discuss here: 1. is there a reason to treat America differently? (e.g. WP:varieties of English or Occuli's argument) and 2. is there some reason why the previous discussions to change similar categories were flawed? Arguments on other tracks, no matter how forceful, miss the point, which is that we are trying to decide if America should be treated differently, not whether or not "Fooian of Booian descent" is a good idea or not. I personally find the formulation a bit awkward, but if all other countries have it, the US should too (baring an excellent argument to the contrary). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity. One specific usage of Fooian Americans is obvious to North Americans in North America, but elsewhere it's quite ambiguous. There still remains ambiguity of "descent by blood" vs. "descent by citizenship" but it is a case-by-case work. NVO (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename for all -- The problem with all booian fooian categories is that it is not always clear if they Booians of fooian descent or fooians of booian descent. As a result of a massive effort perhaps a year ago all non-US were renamed as for the target here, I do not see why Americans should not conform with the worldwide consensus. I objected to the renames in certain ex-Soviet and Middle Eastern cases (such as Assyrian and Armenian), where the "nationality" actually refers to a religious denomination that has grown into an ethnicity, rather than descent from a national of Assyria or the present Armenia. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Good OlFactory sums up the rationale perfectly well and kudos to him for the effort involved (here too). Mayumashu (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shouldn t it be "American people of..." and not "Americans of..." I, personally, actually prefer the later but thought the majority was in favour of the former Mayumashu (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the former so it matches the immediate parent, but I realise others disagree. Since the pre-existing ones in this format in the American tree all use just "Americans", I figured it would be easier to propose using "Americans" for now and the other issue can be pursued later if desired. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What about the fact that many or most of these titles are the names in most frequent use, overwhelmingly so, in some cases? What say you, Good Olfactory, Peterkingiron, Mayumashu, NVO, and BrownHairedGirl (whoever won't duck the question)? SamEV (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no ducks here. I've addressed that above in a number of places. In the nominating statement: "While it is indeed very common [you can read 'most common', if you like] for American people to be referred to in sources by the 'Barian American' format, the meaning of these terms are not inherently clear to many. Is a 'Cuban American': (a) an American citizen who was born in Cuba; (b) an person with dual American/Cuban citizenship; (c) a Cuban citizen who lives in the United States; (d) an American citizen who lives in Cuba; (e) a person born in the United States to a parent of Cuban nationality; (f) a Cuban who acquired American nationality and gave up his Cuban nationality; (g) any of the above; or (h) any of two or more of the above? I realize that the answer to this question is largely solved by Cuban American and/or a carefully crafted category definition, but changing to 'Americans of Cuban descent' would go a long way towards resolving the clarity of the self-standing category name, which appears at the bottom of articles without a definition. It is changing from a shorthand label to more of a descriptive name." ... and my response to Alansohn's comment: "I essentially agree with your underlying point [the point that 'Barian Fooian' is the most commonly used form], but as I say above, that is the case for other countries/nationalities too, and we renamed them. 'Barian Fooian' not a unique usage to the United States. The nomination is intended to bring some consistency and not preserve the American exceptionalism in this regard." And my earlier responses to you: "Why should the American ones be different than that of other countries? Would you propose that they all be changed back since 'Barian Fooians' is more common for almost all nationality/ethnicity combinations?" [You answer: they shouldn't; yes.] Response: "And therein lies the rub. The problem being that almost all of the other ones have been recently changed, so keeping these American ones in this format will mean the American ones are different." I've repeated myself above a few times in this regard; one starts to think that users don't read things the first time, so I sometimes I get repetitive. Quack. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read all of that the first time; nay, I perused it, GO. But the question remains. If the terms are ambiguous: why don't we find out what's most frequently meant and state it on these category pages? Also, aren't we supposed to take the world's knowledge "as is" and report it? I.e. if these ethnonyms have ambiguous meanings then they have ambiguous meanings. SamEV (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC); 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
Yes, that's one approach to take. I can only really tell you what's been discussed at CFD in the past regarding situations like this. The view has been expressed that category names are a little different than article names, in that they (category names) should always be self-standingly unambiguous. Usually this means category names can match the corresponding article name, but sometimes not. The reason given for this approach is that category names appear at the bottom of article pages without any further explanation or definition—to find a definition, one needs to take the (EXTREMELY ONEROUS) extra step of clicking on the category link and referring to the category page. When an article has a name that is not self-standingly ambiguous, we don't have the same problem because the "thing" is defined in the text of the article, which is right there, and nothing generally needs to be clicked on to figure it out. Note that I'm not saying that in past there has been 100% agreement with this approach (some take the approach you suggest), but it seems to have been the "consensus" view in many past discussions, including the ones that changed the other "Barian Fooian" ones to the format I'm proposing here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about retaining these common names in the titles, for example, like this: "Americans of Chinese descent (Chinese Americans)"? SamEV (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I've never considered something like that in this context. That's kind of what I was driving at with suggesting we have both names used, with one as a category redirect to the other. I don't know if this sort of thing has been done elsewhere in categories or not. Personally I'd be fine with it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you add it to the top of the proposal as one of the options to consider, please? SamEV (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two points, really, - ambiguity is only one. Selecting one purportedly common meaning of an ambiguous term does not make is less ambiguous, that's the point. Another case is uniformity for the sake of deterring further disruption. If you prefer to dig into "what is most common..." you will have to resort to digging into each pair separately, adding more confusion to the case. Some are very common (Chinese Americans) others less so and seem unstable (don't you dare mistaking Armenian American from Turkey for a Turkish American). And as soon as you let case-by-case reasoning into local US matters, it will creep into "elsewhere fooians" and start another round of wiki-cleansing. NVO (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine by me, because I think these categories should been treated on a case-by-case basis in the first place.
What do you think of this idea of using both names in the titles? SamEV (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, because they're categories, the lenghthiness of their titles may not pose the kind of problem, when editing, that long article titles can: Categories usually appear only once in each article. And I bet some categories have so few members that they're linked to from discussions, such as this one, more than in actual articles. (I don't know if that makes sense...) SamEV (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies SamEV - I see now that you already suggested, above, embedding the common name (in brackets) within the 'explanatory' type of naming. I see too now that Good Olfactory has mentioned not being opposed to this. It seems to me a decent compromise, for I sense that many American users do quite favour the current name and these are 'their pages' in a way (and everyone's in a way too of course) Mayumashu (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, Mayumashu. I must say that I favor the format 'Barian American (Americans of Barian descent)' (as opposed to 'Americans of Barian descent (Barian American)), especially whenever the 'Barian American' form is the most frequent one. For newer groups, (like "Liechtensteiner American"; hypothetical, as it exists neither as article or category at WP), it seems to me appropriate to use the descriptive format 'Americans of Barian descent' by itself. SamEV (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split all To fascilitate distinguishing between those who are of Fooian nationality and those who are not. Those who are not are more correctly describes as "Americans of Fooian descent", and I am sure that is they way they feel about themselves as well.Debresser (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good example of how confusing the "Barian Fooian" format can be. Interpreted correctly, I believe the people in these categories should all be of American nationality. A "Chinese American" is of Chinese ethnicity, but he may or may not also be of Chinese nationality, and I don't believe "Chinese American" is reserved for people of dual nationality, so we wouldn't want to split them out in this way. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, we ll need to check each link by hand to make sure that other interpretations have not been made. I don t mind doing some of this work Mayumashu (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These categories for Americans and similar categories all over the world are 'by country of origin'--not by ethnicity. And 'Fooian Americans' (or whatever single name is chosen) are fooian Americans no matter whether they are the first generation immgigrants who obtained American citizenship or their descescants. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as it should be inline with the rest of the categories that are clearer. I don't understand what a French American is, but I can understand when someone is American of French descent. -NYC2TLV (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears incomplete as it does not say a word about the estimated one hundred thousand U.S. citizens in France [1]. NVO (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not incomplete at all. French American and all similar categories means people of French origin who either immigrated to the US or were born here. American citizens living in France may be 'American expatriates in French' or 'French of American descent'--a completely different set of people. Hmains (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- More concise and more common. Maurreen (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split all New categories should be created, in the vain of the Canadian descent and ethnicity categories. A Barian American would be an American citizen of full Barian ethnicity (which could be either from both or one parent). An American person of Barian descent would be an American citizen only of partial Barian ancestry. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good gracious, I don't understand that at all. I mean—I understand what you're proposing, I just don't see why we would want to do it. If someone is only of partial Barian ethnicity, there is a good chance that it's not a defining characteristic for them, so why would we even want to categorize by it? Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are people and not horses, what's the point of this pedigree digging? NVO (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the ridiculous model that one user promoted for the Canadian categories: that "Fooian Canadian" implies a different blood quantum than "Canadians of Fooian descent". Complete nonsense with no basis in reliable sources or common understanding of the terms. I have no real strong feelings about this move request itself, but whichever way we go, we definitely should NOT split "Fooian American" and "Americans of Fooian descent" in this unencyclopedic way. cab (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep the naming convention of 'Category:booian Americans' OR change to 'Category:booian Americans (Americans of booian descent)' . Keep 'booian Americans' because it is short and is what is used in the United States and there is no good reason for WP to try to impose its views on actual American culture and society. Change to 'booian Americans (Americans of booian descent)' only because it may satisfy those CfD editors who insist on everything in WP being uniform even when it flies in the face of actual reality. Delete and somehow salt the 'Americans of booian descent' categories (except those which have been agreed to because no 'booian American' name is in common use) which keep being created by good faith editors who nevertheless fail to do any research into the WP category structure to see the existence of the full 'booian American' category tree. The 'booian American' categories already contain inclusion criteria which explain the purpose of the category. Hmains (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many of the non-people articles in these categories and its subcategories (e.g. Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, pretty much everything in Category:Chinese American history, etc.) aren't merely related to "Americans of Fooian descent" but "Fooian expatriates in the United States", so it seems somewhat misleading to move them all over wholesale. cab (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alansohn and Occuli. - Darwinek (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though we Americans use "Fooian Barian", it's completely ambiguous with many possible interpretations. Good Ol'factory lists eight. The rename helps conform these cats to the growing consensus favoring "... of Barian descent". (Articles can explain their names themselves.) I see no reason to treat America differently. lol@Quack Ruodyssey (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the Americans of French descent, or Americans of Indian descent, or Americans of Hmong descent is a better format. I would say that the various immigrant categories should be treated as sub-categories. Unless you want to overturn the consensus related to France, Great Britain, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and several other countries, this should stand. Anyway, the Polish-American Century Club, the American-Polish Cultural Center, the Croatian American Civic League and any other number of organizations are dominated by, and in some cases almost exclusively composed of, US born people. The majority of people in the Mexican Americans category were born in the US, and the same goes for several if not most European categories (Polish, French, English, Scottish, Cornish). There are some, such as Americans of Indian descent and Americans of French-Candian descent that only make sense in the Fooians of Barian descent format. Indian Americans is too easily confused with American Indians, and French-Candian-Americans just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the "Amercians of x descent" allows for easily making it a sub-set of "people of x descent", which leads to more uniformity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of people being confused about "Booian Fooians" being either a-Booians in Fooia or b-Fooias in Booia, is actually a serious problem. Until I edited it, American-born, New Zeland raised Jessica Lee Rose was in the category of "New Zealand-Americans" even though prior to her birth no ancestor of her's had ever lived in New Zealand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another group that real is open to interesting interpretations is Spanish-Americans. So often "Spanish" is used to refer to those who speak the language that confusion would be greatly reduced if we used the "Americans of Spanish descent" formula.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support reame all per nom, for all the reasons stated above (lack of ambiguaity, consistency with WKI usage, etc.). However, it should be noted that the two categories are not, or should not be, identical in their application. "Booian Americas" would include both "Americans of Booian descent" and "Booian immigrants to the United States". However, "Americans of Booian descent" should not generally include those born in Booia, who should be allocated the the well defined category of "Booian immigrants to the United States". Davshul (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support Davshul's view, but their is one special case that has to be remembered. The easiest way to explain it is to give a real-world example, because it involves three countries. Vijay Singh was born in Fiji, to parents of Indian descent but now lives in the US. So he clearly qualifies for "Americans of Indian descent" and "Fijian immigrants to the United States". He was not born in the US, but since he was not born in India he is just of that descent, and not an immigrant from there. I think Davshul's views that "of booian descent" and "immigrants from Booia" should be mutually exclusive makes sense, but as far as I have been able to tell this is not the current assumption, and currently the majority of people in "Americans of Indian descent" were born in India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 8 March 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.
