Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25[edit]

Category:College soccer in 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: rename. I suppose this qualifies as speedy criterion #4. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:College soccer in Canada to Category:University and college soccer in Canada
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Convention of Category:University and college sports in Canada . --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 January 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:Films about Stalinism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Films about the Soviet Union in the Stalin era; may be renominated if anyone comes up with a better name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films about Stalinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Miscategorized and arbitrary category, filled with unrelated films. How can, say, The North Star (1943 film), be in category:Films about Soviet repression? In general, the category "films about <some abstract notion>" is poorly-defined. "films about socialism", "films about christianity", etc. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 25 January 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:Stalinism in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Stalinism in the United States, Category:Stalinism by country, and Category:Stalinism in the United Kingdom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stalinism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An arbitrary category without evidence that such a concept exists or existed. - Altenmann >t 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Rationale: Preserve. Prior to Khrushchev's Secret Speech, the Communist Party USA was unabashedly Pro-Stalin. If one doubts that such a movement existed in the United States, one need only read the memoirs of David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh, both of whom grew up in American Stalinist families during the 1930s, '40s, and '50s. During the 1930s, there were also a large number of Americans who emigrated to the Soviet Union expecting to find utopia. In reality, almost all were caught up in the paranoia of Stalin's Great Purge. I created this category to include both members of the American Communist Party from the Stalin era, Soviet intelligence assets, and "fellow travellers," who moved within the orbit of the movement without necessarily being Party members. Kingstowngalway (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The overlapping categories Category:Communist Party USA, category Category:American communists and sub category Category:Members of the Communist Party USA should (and perhaps already do) hold these entries. There is no article Stalinism in the United States. What the creator seems to have done is create something like Category:American communists in the 1930s and 1940s which is not what Stalinism means. There would also need to be specific sourcing beyond simply party membership, which is not possible for a category. Also propose deleting Category:Stalinism by country and Category:Stalinism in the United Kingdom which has Ewan MacColl for goodness'sake! --Sussexonian (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Sussexonian. Category:Stalinism is generally useful and includes theories and events specifically connected with Stalin's thought. There isn't enough to warrant splitting this by country so Category:Stalinism by country and its subcategories are collections of things connected with communism while Stalin was in power - not useful, and should be deleted. The related subcategory Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland may or may not be useful, but should certainly be renamed if kept. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:21st-century Canadian people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete:
--Xdamrtalk 04:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Canadian people by century to Category:Canadian people
Propose merging Category:21st-century Canadian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

21st-century should be deleted. Unless we going to create one for every century and every country. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. Nomination is not complete. No link above and the page is not tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2. Category:People by nationality and century is in fact quite extensive, although I do have my doubts about these 'nth-century fooian booians'. Occuli (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And many of the underlying category have one or two entries. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that it is now time for an RFC on these people-by-century categories. They cause problems wherever they are applied to articles, and I think that the solution is for them not be to be applied to any individual biographical articles, but just to lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • °Keep Category:21st-century Canadian people -- It has very many articles and lacks a replacement system for division of the large and unwieldy number of articles that would fall into Category:Canadian people without it, (see previous CFDs: 1, 2, 3, all kept).
    °I also support having an one RFC on all these people-by-century categories, to get these repeated CFDs over with. If, however, Category:21st-century Canadian people are removed, then merge articles into Category:Canadian people and Category:21st-century North American people. The Category:African people by century works well and could maintain an upper-limit on the number of [:Categories: nth-century fooian people], althou it does work even in more in Africa, due to the frequent changes in the name of counties over the centuries.
    °Merge Category:Canadian people by century into Category:Canadian people; create a like guideline for any like "Fooian people by century" categories that could only have four or less sub-categories. [Category:Canadian people by century] could not possiblly grow longer anytime soon and it adds an extra layer that is not needed. (Added nomination.) Carlaude:Talk 10:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and do not merge. This is a ridiculous category which, if fully populated, will amount to a complete intersection of Category:Canadian people and Category:Living people, added to an intersection of Category:Canadian people and Category:21st-century deaths. I haven't run catscan to count how big that will be, but it will inevitably be far too huge to be of any use for navigation ... and as it gets huge, its proponents will then start sub-categorising it, so we will have all the other sub-cats of Category:Canadian people chopped up by century until we end up with another unholy mess of triple and quadruple intersections.
    Since we are only ten years into the 20th-century, nearly all the articles which would be included in this category will also be included in Category:20th-century Canadian people. That means that there will be at least two new useless categories added to every contemporary Canadian biographical article, and if the by-century categories are sub-categorised we will have even more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. I have advocated deletion of per century categories in general (in most cases). Debresser (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Don't upmerge, as virtually all of the affected articles are already in more appropriate subcategories by occupation and/or locality in Canada anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) as part of Category:People by nationality and century. A nomination needs to address the supracats at the top of the tree Mayumashu (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Bearcat, and BHG. Do not upmerge, as they are appropriately categorized. The by-century categorization of people categories without any possible by-year subcategories must stop! Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given above. The rationales given for keeping by some users above are rather rationales for also deleting a couple of other categories. Ucucha 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the sound arguments provided. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 2 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.

Philippine literature-related categories[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: Split decision. Delete Category:Filipino online literature writers, Keep Category:Short story collections by Filipino writers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the second one and rename it appropriately to suit Category:Short story collections by nationality, and change the parents to correct ones (eg a book is not a writer). (This assumes the book is notable. It is minimally sourced.) The first one should be deleted unless someone can find other "online literature writers" categories (its sole article is in several 'Filipino writers' categories). Occuli (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Short story collections by nationality" sounds silly; surely it is the creator of the collection and not the collection itself that has a nationality. I think the format of this category is actually clearer than that of its sister categories in Category:Short story collections by nationality. Ucucha 03:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep second (possibly renamed). The Short Story is a genre with clear enought boundairies to warrant retention. Delete "online" as too vague to be useful. Almost any literature can be placed online, so that there is no valid distintion between it and what is (only) in print. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 31 January 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:Disney Princess franchise[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Disney Princess and then we'll go from there. Users may create other subcategories if thought appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disney Princess franchise to Category:Disney Princess merchandise
Nominator's rationale: The category as it is named right now is, as the lead says, for merchandise of the franchise. The actual category for the "Disney Princess franchise" is Category:Disney Princess, which includes the characters in the franchise and the main franchise article itself. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. The category is not being used for merchandise, but for media. I considered proposing a rename to Category:Disney Princess media, but it seems the generic "media" categories are being split up into books, video games, movies, etc. - choster (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Category:Disney Princess media" would be a good option for renaming too, per the reasons you gave. However, I oppose an upmerging. Any video game, song, film, etc. about the Disney Princess franchise can be categorized as "Disney Princess media" plus "Disney films/Disney video games/Disney songs". --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:15, 25 January 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.

Filipino to Philippine[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 except Category:Filipino deities and Category:Filipino goddesses. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up nomination to this nomination. The Philippines Manual of Style states:
  • Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects. Example, Philippine National Anthem or Philippine Senate.
  • Filipino may be used with either inanimate objects or people, though preference swings towards the latter. It is also the name of the national language.
Accordingly, I have nominated the inanimate object categories that use "Filipino" for a change to the preferred "Philippine". Although using "Philippine" is not a required hard-and-fast rule, I think it would be beneficial to use the most common adjective in these cases. Some categories that use "Philippine" as an adjective already exist; they are not listed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most are pretty much textbook MOS issues, so support all but those three. The other three seem like they could go either way; but since we tend to talk about gods as if they were people in English, I tend to say leave those three alone. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the articles first then the categories follow. Filipino rock --> you see what I mean. There seems to be a principle that cats are named after articles not v.v. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. And the articles can be done up after this nomination just as well. Mayumashu (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom except for Category:Filipino deities and Category:Filipino goddesses. The articles can follow. Just because CfD found the naming problem before RM did does not mean a correct rename should be delayed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). I don't mind backtracking and doing the articles if the categories are renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 2 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:FC Salyut-Energia Belgorod players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FC Salyut-Energia Belgorod players to Category:FC Salyut Belgorod players
Nominator's rationale: The club has been renamed from FC Salyut-Energia back to FC Salyut: http://www.fc-salyut.ru/news.php. Geregen2 (talk) 13:36, 25 January 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:Phantasm[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Phantasm to Category:Phantasm (film series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. Suggest at minimum disambiguating. Phantasm is ambiguous. Not sure we even need it to house just 4 films, though, especially when Template:Phantasm exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Precedent is to delete small categories when a template exists. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to better match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template:Phantasm covers everything that would be in the category making the category redundant (regardless of its being small anyway). Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The template is sufficient. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 1 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:Canadian Football League Draft[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: Don't rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian Football League Draft to Category:Canadian College Draft
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposal has an ambiguous name and the current name is consistent with the other categories in parent Category:Sports drafts. The draft doesn't really have an official ®™ name and is called by many names including, and particularly when context doesn't make the league clear, "CFL Draft". The official website http://www.cfl.ca/canadian_draft/main seems most often to use "Canadian Draft", "CFL Canadian Draft", and "CFL Draft". "Canadian College Draft" is actually a little misleading as it drafts Canadian players from Canadian universities and American colleges. I'd support moving the main article to Canadian Football League Draft to be more accurate and less ambiguous. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perphas the main aricle is misnamed, and that is the source of the discrepency. First we need consensus on the artilce name before changing the category name. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been called the Canadian College Draft sometimes but that obviously assumes you already what league you are talking about drafting into or it could equally apply to any other drafts of Canadians. I agree that another name for the article would be better. It should really be Canadian Football League Draft, in my opinion. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Canadian College Draft could really mean anything, while with the current name you know what the category is for without question.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a category, a highly ambiguous category name is not useful, and a hinderance. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:24, 1 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:Late Night (NBC)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Late Night (NBC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Limited content base - articles on 3 iterations of the same show, one which has it own also included, subcategory. J Greb (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep has a subcategory, and another should be created for Letterman's iteration. Since it is the show, and a version of the show has its own subcategory... useful for navigation as a parent container. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:42, 25 January 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:Scribal works[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scribal works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Anything written before the invention(s) of printing could be called a scribal work, I suppose. If the term has a real meaning, it is not reflected in the random category contents, which are properly covered by dozens if not hundreds of other categories. If the intention was to capture works not included in a more narrow definition of "literary works", hardly any of the current contents reflect this. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is correct, but I do not think that is a reason to delete. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the nom. Are there any reasons at all for keeping it? Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a hotchpotch of ancient literature. All the works would be better categorised elsewhere. All pre-1400 literature (except in China) could properly be included in it. The one sub-category is the subject of a discussion further up this page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 25 January 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:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily duplicate of Category:Pacific hurricanes. No precedence exists for by-region storm categories. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with 28 entries including an established list, this is a reasonable way to categorize a large number of storms and the only practical way to place these storms into one of its parents: Category:Gulf of California, regardless of precedent Hmains (talk) 21:55, 29 January 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:African American astronauts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge:
--Xdamrtalk 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American astronauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
added later by BHG:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wikipedia policy wisely states, "categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic" and gives the example, "Category:African American economists should not exist." 67.132.197.172 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:American astronauts. Rationale per nominator, but also note that WP:CATGRS#Other_considerations says that categories based on race should not be used to ghettoize people, as this one does.
    Category:American astronauts by ethnic or national origin has 4 other subcats, which I will add to the nomination because the same issues apply to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With all due respect, I get the impression that this is not about avoiding "ghettoizing" but about trying to deny diversity. The categories have especial interest for studying how a previously all-white, all-male profession became more (somewhat) more reflective of the diversity of the American population. Even NASA itself maintains, for educational purposes, specific data on, for instance, its African-American astronauts and Hispanic astronauts. It would be very reasonable for an educator, who is perhaps aware of the name of one or two astronauts of a certain ethnic or other background, to search for information relating to other astronauts of the same background. Wikipedia currently facilitates this research, as it should. How it assists Wikipedia's educational mission to delete such data and links between articles is not explained by either nominator or the referred policy. RandomCritic (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, I get the impression you should read WP:AGF. Having spent a decade of my life working solely to promote diversity, I find it rather offensive for someone to make the sort of negative assumption you just made about me.
      The reason I supported this nomination and expanded it is one of ghettoization, and I suggest that a list would be a much better way of organising this information. You are quite right that this was yet another exclusive white-male profession, and since you've already found a good source, a list would be a great idea. I have no objection to any or all of these categories being listified before merger, if that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American astronauts per nom and BHG. This is entirely about avoiding ghettoizing. As there are no other subdivisions of Category:American astronauts, this will only serve to leave all non-Hispanic white American astronauts in the base category, while those of every other ethnic group will only be searchable by their ethnicity, thus segregating them and implying that their status as astronauts is defined by their ethnicity. List articles can document diversity/demographics information without segregating the category, so merging these will not prevent that information from being maintained. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These categories are part of wider categorisation Category:People by ethnicity and occupation. These categories are in addition to Category:American astronauts so it is not ghettoising as the entries are all separately included in that category. Cjc13 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If NASA itself categorizes people in this way, then there is no good reason for WP not to. Clearly race is indeed important to the topic, so fits in the definition underWP:CATGRS#Other_considerations. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference? To WPedians there is an important, techinical meaning of the word "categorized". But to NASA? If they have a list, that is the same a the common-parlance definition of "to categorize", is it not? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Category:American astronauts as overcategorized triple intersections of nationality, ethnicity, and occupation. Where's the article on Chinese American, Indian American, and Hispanic American astronauts? Oh yeah, the don't exist, and these astronauts are no different than any other American astronauts. I agree with postdlf on this too—why do we want to create artificial ghettos in this way? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, these "merge" votes are meaningless, since all the American astronaut articles are already in the American astronaut category - so there is nothing to "merge". Second, it would be helpful if those who object to the category could avoid loaded and inflammatory language like "ghettos" (clearly meant to imply that those who create or fill such categories are racists or Nazis) and explain what the basis for their objection is -- namely, how they think altering the categorization is supposed to aid the educational mission of Wikipedia. RandomCritic (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one is assuming or implying that these were created and populated out of any bad motivation. But even though all articles may presently be in the parent Category:American astronauts category (I don't know that, I take your word for it), that isn't a stable situation as past practice with such categories has illustrated. As every African American astronaut is necessarily an American astronaut, the tendency over time will be for editors to remove the general parent category as redundant in favor of the more specific one. The end result will then be that the only articles directly in Category:American astronauts will be white astronauts (American astronauts without qualification) and all astronauts with non-white ethnicities will be expressly identified as such, and only identified as such (astronauts only as [ethnic]-Americans). That's what we refer to as "ghettoization" or "segregation"; it is meant as descriptive of the state of content, not any contributor's state of mind.
      • Category:People by occupation and ethnicity does not exist so that every every occupation category will eventually intersect with every ethnicity category; it's far more selective than that. Instead, as the relevant guideline on this issue states, such categories "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right...[P]eople should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." In other words, African American astronauts should not be the subject of a category if they are not a discrete, culturally recognized group that has been the subject of independent study. It isn't enough that information on astronaut diversity may be maintained by reliable sources; such information just means that the real subject is the demographics of American astronauts rather than any particular ethnic grouping. For which you can create an article such as demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, list articles, etc. Doing it through categories in this instance just doesn't work well and isn't reflective of a defining relationship between occupation and ethnicity.
      • One last word; even where all the articles in one category are also in another, a "merge" request and result is still helpful so that the closing admin ensures that's still the case when the category is deleted. So it's not "meaningless." postdlf (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take extreme issue with the characterizations above. First, it is futile to claim that the use of the terms "ghetto" and "segregation" is not an attempt to stigmatize the existence of the categories by associating them with past racist and genocidal practices. The terms themselves are patently malicious, and skew the content of the discussion in a needlessly hostile way, regardless of what the motivation claimed for using them is.
        • Second, the following claim, "As every African American astronaut is necessarily an American astronaut, the tendency over time will be for editors to remove the general parent category as redundant in favor of the more specific one. The end result will then be that the only articles directly in Category:American astronauts will be white astronauts" is very poor crystal-balling. No reasonable person would take "African American astronaut" and "American astronaut" as mutually redundant categories. The first is a categorization by ancestry and culture. The second is a categorization by nationality (i.e., citizenship). And in fact, no such "tendency over time" has surfaced with regard to these articles; leaving no ground for the assertion that it will happen in the future. All articles are liable to some degree to poor-quality edits; but that's a case for vigilant editorship. As far as I can tell, categories tend to be more stable than the content of the articles themselves; they are more generally added to than deleted.
        • Third, the failure to answer my question: "How does changing the categories in this way advance or enhance the educational mission of Wikipedia?" suggests that, in fact, the question is unanswerable. It cannot be denied that deleting these categories makes Wikipedia less useful. Replacing the categories by lists implies adding a link to those lists in every single article; and that is both a more cumbrous operation than adding a category, and also makes it much more difficult to check for inclusiveness. And the idea that we can cure a potential future deletion of articles from one category by deleting an entire set of categories now, is like prescribing universal laryngectomies on the ground that people sometimes get sore throats.

RandomCritic (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per BHG. Good example of an occupation to which race is perfectly irrelevant. Ucucha 03:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this case of such a rare occupation, having a member of one's ethnicity on board a spaceship is a matter of pride and much notable. Compare also Category:Jewish astronauts. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep national and ethnic backgrounds of astronauts are strong defining characteristics of these individuals and often used in describing and grouping spaceflight participants. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nerge but also Listify into one article; then delete all. The categories are too small to warrant retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American astronauts. It is sufficient to classify the individuals article by ethnicity. There is no need to carry this information into every possible subcategory. That simply makes navigation more difficult. This can be converted to a list, but I don't see the need to delay the merge waiting for the list article. The data is available from the NASA list any time someone wants to create it. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a minority every African American astronaut that makes it to spaceflight its a highly notable individual. Besides from the practical point of view its a category that is very likely to be extremely useful.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:01, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_25&oldid=1144513644"