Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 16 July 18 >

July 17[edit]

Category:Flying lemurs[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Flying lemurs to Category:Colugos
Nominator's rationale: The main article is named colugo. The name "flying lemur" is now getting out of fashion (see, for example, doi:10.1186/jbiol74), since colugos cannot fly and are not lemurs. Ucucha 21:13, 17 July 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.

Former pupils of Scottish and Welsh schools[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of Oban High School to Category:People educated at Oban High School
Propose merging Category:Former pupils of Kilmarnock Academy to Category:People educated at Kilmarnock Academy
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of Wrexham Grammar School to Category:People educated at Wrexham Grammar School
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of College Merion-Dwyfor to Category:People educated at College Merion-Dwyfor
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of Howell's School Llandaff to Category:People educated at Howell's School Llandaff
Propose merging Category:Former pupils of Gowerton School to Category:People educated at Gowerton Comprehensive School
Nominator's rationale: In Category:Former pupils by school in Scotland and Category:Former pupils by school in Wales, the "People educated at" format has taken hold where "Alumni" and "Old (Whatever)s" are not used. These are the only "Former pupils of" categories in those two parent categories.--(talk) 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many of the categories in Category:Former pupils by school in Scotland and Category:Former pupils by school in Wales have been recently created, so that until recently few of the subcategories used "People educated at". Several of the new categories only have 1 or 2 entries. Cjc13 (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Before the creation on the new categories, "Former pupils" was prominently used in these parent categories and it is the term used for the parent category. The new categories can be changed to the "Former pupils" format. Cjc13 (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. According to this discussion, there were only three "People educated at" categories in February. Hmmm. I realize that there's likely no overturning the "Old (Whatever)s" in bulk, but maybe we should have a discussion about those that aren't saddled with names like that. I don't care which is used (I prefer "alumni" for everything), but let's settle on a standard.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The general consensus that developed in the Febuary discussion of this matter was to use "People educated at" except in the cases were there is an Old Foo or Old Fooian or Old Fooite form, which was basically not decided on in any way. However there was a clear consensus to move everything else to People educated at, and we sould do that. Amont the many advantages of people educated at X is that it allows us to put people in the category who become notable while still in school. This would include members of royal families who are notable from birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "People educated at" seems to me to be a fine compromise. It avoids the use of "former", which is usually a good idea to avoid in category names, lest users get the idea that it's a good idea for them to start categorizing all sorts of things by former status. (Ideally, all the "Old Fartian" categories would be changed to this easily understandable option, but I realise that's probably pie in the sky.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (including as creator of the Howell's School Llandaff category). Having recently created many of the categories for all four parts of the UK, I used "People educated at..." because it's the term that's found favour in recent CFDs as the best compromise. As well as what others have said, it's a term that avoids the use of "pupils", "students" and "alumni", all of which people have opposed for UK schools because each individual term is not used at individual schools (for those outside the UK terminology is not terribly consistent here) and led to lengthy debate in past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume that all four parts of the UK use the same terminology. If you had looked at the separate categories you would have seen that was not the case. In Scotland for instance "Former pupils"(FP) is a commmon term, as noted in the article for Alumnus. Cjc13 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did look at the separate categories and they all demonstrated much the same mess of uses, rather than a consistent form predominating. Certainly there's no clear pattern across them all. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of the previous discussion, I looked at both the Wales and Scotland parent categories which were both fairly consistent. Around that time some new categories were created using "People educated at ...", (it appeared to be an attempt to influence the discussion then going on), which created the mess in those categories. Before these categories were created, for Wales, Old Fooians and Former pupils categories dominated. For Scotland it was a mixture of Old Fooians, Former pupils and Alumni, but this reflected the different nature of the schools, for instance drama schools tended to use Alumni. At the time these were not big categories. In the UK, pupils is used to describe schoolchildren, while those studying at universities are described as students, so "Former pupils" dominates for schools that do not use Old Fooians in the UK. Also it is the term used in the parent categories for Wales and Scotland. Cjc13 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the stats for the Wales non-Old Fooian, non-People cats to hand and they don't bear out that claim. The categories were created at the following times:
      • Alumni of Monmouth School - 23:17, 15 November 2009
      • Former pupils of Gowerton School - 10:41, 28 February 2010
      • Former pupils of Wrexham Grammar School - 13:27, 4 March 2010
      • Former pupils of College Merion-Dwyfor - 22:01, 9 April 2010
      • Alumni of Dynevor School, Swansea - 20:38, 30 December 2010
      • Alumni of St. Michael's College, Llandaff - 22:52, 30 December 2010
      • Alumni of Llanelli Boys' Grammar School - 11:33, 25 January 2011
      • Former pupils of Howell's School Llandaff - 21:04, 26 January 2011
      • Alumni of Cardiff High School - 15:57, 19 March 2011
      • Brecon Grammar School alumni - 14:42, 15 May 2011
    • That's a mess, not the near clarity you are claiming existed. I created the categories because the schools in question had not yet been categorised and a naming form was needed, so it was natural to use the one produced by the most recent CFD with consensus on the matter. There's also little indicating the Scottish cats really reflect the different types of school; nor is such a distinction flagged.
  • Even your ststs show it was much clearer before 30 December 2010. Cjc13 (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was before the most recent of discussions but whilst yes Wales was clearer than other parts of the UK overall there was still a mess. Demands for separate consideration for each part of the UK have been limited. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In previous CFDs people have objected to using "pupils" because some schools now call the the educatees "students" and this has added to the protracted discussion. Hence "People educated at..." was proposed as a format that bypasses the problem. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other countries, such as Australia, pupils may have been a problem but the UK parent categories do use pupils, so it suggests pupil is not a problem in UK. Cjc13 (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That situation is primarily because the parent categories have been near ignored in the lengthy past discussions that have included them and are really rather waiting on a firm outcome on the individual categories before trying to sort them out. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pupils was and still is perfectly fine. Like Cjc13, I'd rather see them all renamed to 'former pupils', where there is no better 'Old Fooian' option. Per Necrothesp in February, "The English language doesn't lose a word just because one government decides to rename something!" JPL's claim that there was a clear choice indicated in February's no-consensus discussion is incorrect. Timrollpickering's creation of those new categories in the full knowledge that there was no agreement was quite unhelpful and has contributed to the mess, albeit done with good intentions, I'm sure. Ephebi (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there was a very full discussion in Feb. Why are none of those active participants informed of the re-opening of this discussion? Ephebi (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When creating the categories some name form had to be used and Category:(Name to be filled in later) is not an option. It is natural to use the one upheld in the most recent CFDs to actually get consensus - here, here, here and here. Some users may not like it but the show must go on. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. "Former pupils" is the usual form for those schools without a specific name for their former pupils. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous discussion was primarily about the Old Fooians form but the bulk of comments that addressed a clear form for at least the non-Old Fooians were for "People educated at". Other recent CFDs that have found consensus have gone for that form. And overall across the UK tree "Former pupils" is the third most usual form for categories not using jargon. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As noted previously, many of the "People educated at " categories are recent additions, several by yourself, so the current state of the categories is misleading. Cjc13 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In this case this small sampling makes sense, since the Febuary discussion failed because there were too many possibilities floated for too many things. This is a much more concise and precise discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per long exposition at previous discussions such as the Old Edwardians one in Jan 2011, which settled upon 'People educated at'. ('Pupils' has not been used above primary school in the UK since the 1990s, at least in the state sector.) Occuli (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the exposition says "if such consensus proves elusive, then this change, too, should be reconsidered." I am not sure from where you get your last point but the glossary from UK government statitics website states "Secondary schools generally cater for pupils aged 11-16 or 11-18".[1] Cjc13 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying that the word pupils no longer exists or that the government is up-to-date with current usage (I teach in the UK secondary state sector). Compare [2] (pupils - 380,000 results) with [3] (students - 13,100,000 results). Or [4] (pupils - 53,500 results) with [5] (students - 407,000 results). I rest my case. Occuli (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were claiming 'pupils' has "not been used" in UK secondary state sector, which seems a very broad claim. Even the evidence you provided does not show that. Cjc13 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Occuli's evidence does show there is no overwhelming pro-pupil consensus. It, combined with Cjc13's vehement counter reactions shows that we need a more neutral term that everyone can come to accept, and "People educated at X" is clearly that. I also think that Good Ol'factory's comments on not wanting people to get the idea that "former X" is a good category form is very important. So it seems to me that People educated at X is a win, win, win.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occuli's evidence related to some searches about exams. Those exams are taken not only by schoolchildren but also by people who have left school, so in that case students is the more general term and the more likely term to be used. These categories however refer specifically to schoolchildren, so the searches are not directly relevant. Cjc13 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "pupil" does seem to be used mainly for primary schools and "people educated at .." is a fine compromise. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your evidence regarding the use of "pupil" is? Even Occuli's searches show evidence of usage of "pupil" for A-level and GCSE candidates (see also my comments above) and even if "student" is used by some secondary schools it does not make "pupil" incorrect. Cjc13 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main point is that "people educated at .." is neutral, while there have been massive arguments about "pupil", "student" and "alumni" with people disagreeing about whether they really apply. Let us just end that argument. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Cjc13 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind pupil is neutral. Where is the evidence against it? Cjc13 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not give you firm sources as I am at the other side of the world from my home base at a conference and rather busy, but if you look at older discussions, you will see that some people think it does refer to younger people, so some people think it is not neutral. Nobody I think has suggested that "People educated at" is not neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 17:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below for examples of the use of pupils for these Secondary Schools. There was some debate about "People educated at". "People who attended" is just one alternative. Cjc13 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not compromise and use pupil?. Cjc13 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 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:Yomiuri FC 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Yomiuri FC players to Category:Yomiuri F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The standard WP category abbreviation is 'F.C.' with the periods. Mayumashu (talk) 16:19, 17 July 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:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors to Category:Answers in Genesis staff and speakers
Nominator's rationale: Membership in the category as originally titled appears to be unverifiable, as AiG does not publish a list of "fellows and advisors", nor does it appear to have either of these as an official designation. It does however list officially designated Answers Outreach Speakers, which has a considerable (if imperfect) overlap with this category's membership. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:48, 17 July 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:American academics of Asian descent[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American academics of Asian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Due to the deletion of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation All or nearly all bios under this category are already listed under a second category, 'American of Indian descent', 'American of Chinese descent' etc., so an upmerge to Category:American people of Asian descent is unnecessary. Mayumashu (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In reality the mixing of people of Chinese descent and people of Indian descent has little justification considering how ethnicities are actually formulated and thought of. We are not to classify people by race, and being Asian is a race, that many people would debate even being just one race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep American people from differnt countries are mixed together all the time in categories. This is not a racial category--Asians never have been and are not now a 'race' in any case. It is a country of origin category. Hmains (talk) 18:19, 22 July 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:American people of Asian descent by occupation[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Due to the deletion of this tree's top supracategory, Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a container category and can be deleted when / if its subcategories are removed. Why work top-down rather than bottom-up? — Myasuda (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Asian descent is a race, not an ethnicity, and we are not supposed to categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a container category with 26 sub-categories, none of which are going away any time soon. The purpose of categories is to help users find articles; this category does that. This cateogory is not based on race: read the contents. If is based on based on country of origin, with the countries being located on Asian continent. And Asians never have been and are not now a race in any case Hmains (talk) 18:13, 22 July 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:American people of Japanese descent by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American people of Japanese descent by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Due to the deletion of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:. The discussion of the parent category should have been propagated to all potentially affected subcategories to allow for a fair hearing. As it was, no comments were made to the deletion of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation ([6]) since I imagine few editors had this category on their watchlist. I would expect a much broader response if, for example, deletion of Category:African-American people by occupation and all of its subcategories were pushed. Why is this being done in such a piece-meal fashion? To slowly establish precedent? — Myasuda (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's a huge list and there was no discussion to delete the supracat I've cited, as you point out. I don't see this move including Cat:African-American people by occupation' however, as 'African-American' is an ethnicity (perhaps arguably so), where 'Japanese American' is an ancestry (some Americans with Japanese ancestry, those who are first generation particularly, have Japanese ethnicity too - key point being ancestry and ethnicity are too different things) Mayumashu (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the discussion needs to be expanded to all affected categories simultaneously at the outset rather than one by one. Otherwise, if a successful counter-argument is made 1/3 of the way through the process (for example) then the category deletion will have been applied unevenly and arbitrarily to different ancestry groups. — Myasuda (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think one could well argue for the existence of a Japanese American ethnicity, with a set of largely shared traditions and history, EO 9066 being a common thread for many JAs families. See also [7] if you get a chance. I personally don't see much distinction between 'Cat:African-American people by occupation' and the one under discussion here. — Myasuda (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, Japanese Americans who experienced EO 9066 did develop a degree of ethnicity, that is collective identity as a group; and does every U.S. citizen of Black African ancestry have "African-American ethnicity" (however one would define or describe it?) Matters of ethnicity and identity in general are so personal, aren't they, and their definition can be so debatable. And sources are so few and far between (in part because of the personal nature of identity). I think (after looking at this for a few years now) that WP should stick to articles on Japanese-American experience, African-American experience, Kurd ethnicity/culture, Ainu ethnicity/culture, Basque ethnicity/culture, etc., etc. , and scrap the whole of category tree(s) for individual people by ancestry/ethnicity (and stick to just citizenship, to identify people to places through categories). Mayumashu (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right too that discussion needs to happen where as many editors as possible can take part. But where? I guess the talk page for here, but few editors would happen upon the talk, I'm sure. Categories in general interest only a few editors, and those for ethnicity/ancestry, even fewer. So many editors work just within their area of interest and only get involved in categories that affect their area, once they are tagged, though categories, obviously, interconnect globally. (Not a criticism, just pointing out what happens) And with categories, those who want particular ones do largely for reasons of sentiment while those who don't want those same ones, don't care about them, are apathetic about them and therefore don't contribute to talk on deleting them. So the haphazard WP cat. trees go on, with Category:American sportspeople of Filipino descent in existence and Category:American sportspeople of Irish descent deleted, though the argument to delete the second equally applies to the first. Mayumashu (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This has 11 subcategories, none of which are being deleted. The purpose of high level categories is to logically connect other categories. This does that. The purposes of all categories is to help readers to navigate to articles. This does that and the articles are not going away. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The underlying issue is not whether the articles are going away, it's whether the subcategories are going to be deleted and therefore the articles removed from this categorization scheme. But I think you are right that the subcategories need to be discussed first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Japanese American" is clearly an ethnicity. "American people of Japanese descent" less clearly so. However I am of the opinion we should start applying rules for ethnicity instead of "descent" in these categories. This would mean to include people it is not enough to show that someone once did their geneology and showed they had an ancestor who landed in Charleston as a Chinese laudrman in 1870 and married a freedwoman. This would not effect how these categories are used in some cases, but it would probably force the removal of Barack Obama and a few others from the meriad of categories they are in. Of course if the person with the ancestry I mentioned before had actually proactively identified as being Chinese, tried to convince a San Francisco electorate to vote him into office as a Chinese person or something like that, it would be totally appropriate. Still Japanese Americans are an ethnicity and not just an "Ancestry". To make things more fun Japaneseness is one of approaximately 40 recognized racial classifications on the US census that one can mark by cheking a box (maybe there are not that many, but Japanese is one). True it is grouped as part of the super race of Asian, but it is a recognized race. In reality ethnicity, race and ancestry are all used in different nuances depending on context so to claim that either term is clearly distinct from another is impossible. They also have specific histories and are used in the social-historiacal context of the time and place of the speaker/writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Category:American people of Japanese descent. My main reasoning is that these categories have been used to haphazardlty and been built without any consideration of whether they meet the rules for ethnic intersection with both nationality and occupation. I think it would be much better to start them over with clearer consideration of the guidelines on these matters and with closer scrutiny to the applicable rules. There may even be a few people who need to be removed from the Japanese descent cat as it not really being significant to them, but due to the unique history of Japanese Americans with internment during World War II and the not totally unique situations of exclusion acts, refusal to naturalize immigrants, lynchings and anti-marrying white women laws putting people in this category with no good justification is probably less common than many other ancestry categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category should remain as is until a better alternative is proposed. I agree that a fundamental purpose of Category:American people of Japanese descent by occupation is to enable readers to find related articles. The proposed merger to Category:American people of Japanese descent will make locating relevant articles much more difficult because Category:American people of Japanese descent is a more generalized category that contains several hundred articles.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American academics of Japanese descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American academics of Japanese descent to Category:American people of Japanese descent
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Due to the deletion of this category's supracategory Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is building a whole set of decisions on a precedent that had noone besides the supporter support it. I am wondering if we need to figure out better ways to list categories for discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know this may seem odd based on my vote on the immediate supra-category, but I think academics have generally avoided the haphazard placement in categories. Haphazard placement in occupation categories tends to be most common in the entertainment cats. Also since those cats have a very strong presentist bias the unique aspects of Japanese-American history affect those in them less than in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to academics, other occupations are deserving of similar consideration as separate categories -- including writers, artists, film directors, journalists, musicians, and civil rights activists. -- The categories American military personnel of Japanese descent and American politicians of Japanese descent are also of particular importance because of the longstanding belief that Japanese Americans are somehow not 100 percent Americans. This false perception led to the mass evacuation and incarceration of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II.
The cats exist, the unsigned above commentor just did not link to them. They are Category:American military personnel of Japanese descent and Category:American politicians of Japanese descent. The fact that they have not yet been proposed indicates the draw backs to not proposing subcats when a parent cat is nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 21 July 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:Western Australian Football League clubs[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:31, 24 July 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:South Sudanese culture[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; revisit the demonym if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:South Sudanese culture to Category:Culture of South Sudan
  • Nominators rationale. Proposed rename is in line with the name of the main article Culture of South Sudan, and consistent with the style used for most of the subcategories of Category:South Sudan. Davshul (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not consistent with Category:Culture by nationality. That entire tree probably should be renamed, but we're unlikely to start South Sudan.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mike. This is the standard convention of subcategories of Category:Culture by nationality. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to changing them all, but I do oppose changing one but none of the others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does anyone know if their is discussion in South Sudan about adopting a name that will express an indepedent identity instead of perpetuating their connection with the rest of Sudan whose government they despise?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prior to independence South Sudan did consider alternate names for the new country but chose to use "South Sudan" for continuity from its previous name of "Southern Sudan" and because it was thought it would be better recognized in the world community by this name than the proposed alternatives. "Southern Sudanese" is the acceptable form of demonym. They don't despise the concept of being "Sudanese" people; what they didn't like was being ruled by the Muslim north. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I do not think South Sudanese is yet an accepted form to refer to the nationality. Consistency with the parent article name makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 19 July 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:Christan songwriters[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Christian songwriters to Category:Christian religion-related songwriters
  • Nominators rationale. I originally considered just nominating deleting this and upmerging Category:Christian hynmwriters to being a subcat of Category:Christian writers. However there is enough Christian pop music that there are clearly people who could fit here who are not hymn writers. Also there are some Christian related songs that might not be universally classified as hymns. Is "Joshua fit the Battle of Jericho" a hymn? My first guess would be no, but its author if known and if Christian (I am pretty sure the author was Christian and not Jewish) would fit here. I decided to go to religion-related, because this makes it clear we are both going for songwriters whose works clearly have religion content, but that we will include people who write things that are not strictly devotional in nature. We would after renaming have to go through and make sure everyone here really belongs, but that would not be that hard. I considered whether we could just prune it without renaming it, but the current name just leaves things to open to including pop-music performers who make their religion a matter of public knowledge. However we only want people in this cat whose religion is a direct factor within their songwritting. Even if someone here was the Archbishop of New York, if their songs were not religious in content, they would not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this for Christians who write songs, or for writers of Christian songs? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category is meant to be for Chrisitans who write songs of a religious nature. I would say "Christian songs" but there are some songs that are based on Old Testament background by Christian writers that are not overtly "Chrsttian". However I think it is safe to say those writers see themselves writting their songs within the Christian tradition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 18 July 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:Russian people of Jewish descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Russian people of Jewish descent
  • Nominators rationale. This category basically functions to list people as Jewish who do not self-identify as Jewish. It also has a tendency to include people where there is no evidence in the article itself. The worst part though is that some of the inclusions seem to possibly be driven by antisemiticism and a desire to portray different disliked and discredited people in Russia as having Jewish origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the wider scheme of Category:People of Jewish descent by nationality. "It also has a tendency to include people where there is no evidence in the article itself." Then these entries should be removed, unless a source can be found for the bio page. Lugnuts (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Lugnuts. Mayumashu (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriately defining characteristic. Unsourced entries should be addressed on the talk pages of the articles in question. Alansohn (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Self-identification is the over-riding standard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we just deleted the parent category Category:People of Jewish descent. This recognized that the category itself was built on unjustified assumptions and perceptions. It seems a bit much to call to preserve subcats when the overall parent has died.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This example demonstrates the foolishness of nominating a parent category like Category:People of Jewish descent without nominating all of the subcategories like this one at the same time. The discussion for the parent category involved a moderate number of users, but this discussion has attracted users that the former discussion did not. It would have been far better to discuss them all at once, because if this category is kept, it makes little sense as noted above that we have already deleted the parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Part of an established category structure. We do not delete such individual categories when the entire structure has the merit of being what categories in WP are for: to aid in navigation of the reader to articles--which are not going away. Hmains (talk) 03:06, 21 July 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:Extraterrestrial place of origin user templates[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Extraterrestrial place of origin user templates to Category:Humorous userboxes
Nominator's rationale: The two userboxes in this category are intended to be humorous rather than part of the Category:Location user templates category tree, and I think there's no need yet to start categorizing humorous userboxes by type or topic. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a totally inapropriate creation of a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete null set of Wikipedians would apply to these templates. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inappropriate or merge per nom Delete because it is useless, or merge: b/c it is not an appropriate use of categoriesCurb Chain (talk) 06:25, 17 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_17&oldid=1074807562"