The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The category lists people from the region of South Tyrol in Italy. This region with its universally German-speaking population was joined to Italy from Austria after World War I. Today, the region is completely bilingual and all citizens are obliged to know both Italian and German languages, therefore basically all citizens of South Tyrol are "Germanophone". Native people of the region define themselves as South Tyroleans (German: Südtiroler). The current category name is just weird and contains de facto only South Tyroleans. For other people Category:Italian people of German descent should be used. Please, note also that German Wikipedia and several other ones have already de:Kategorie:Person (Südtirol). Darwinek (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not sure - depends on what we want from this category. "South Tyrolean" and "Germanophone" are two different concepts. There are also Ladin- and Italian-speaking South Tyroleans. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AndreasJS, we already have a category for people from South Tyrol and there are also South Tyroleans which are not germanophone. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to disagree, but the claim that the first lanaguage of a person is in general not notable is a specific American viewpoint. In fact, in European countrys like Italy, where immigration is a rather recent phenomenon and which were formed more or less according to linguistic borders, it is quite notable if someone is a native speaker of another language than the majority of the population. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to many Italy has a broad array of first languages. At a minimum you have to grant Sardinian and French areas, alos Romansch and Ladin. There are almost certainly significant numbers of native Slavic speakers along the eastern boundary, there are the Albanian communities in the south as well. Then there is the fact that Sician is sometimes considered a seperate language, same with Lombard and some others. The linguistic picture is far more complexed than you admit. I can not speak for Italy, but I can say that Britian and France have had significant immigrant communities for hundreds of years. Berlin's rise in the 18th century was fueled by immigration from France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a linguist I'm aware that linguistic borders are usually rather "imagined" than clearly determinable. But considering Weinstein, it is quite evident that the founders of modern Italy clearly orientated themselves along the borders of a bunch of Romance dialects which were considered to be "Italian". Today, the 300,000 German-speaking South Tyroleans are by far the largest autochthonous non-Romance (we could also say: linguistically by no means Italian) language community in Italy.
Regarding my comment on immigration: I wasn't talking about Britain, France and Germany. I don't say that there wasn't immigration at all in Italy, but compared to other countries it was quite insignificant. I could also add that even in Germany, Britain and France there are huge differences to the US regarding the perception of immigration, diversity and the need for assimilation, but we're getting off topic. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. The article is titled Kaiserliche Marine. Either the other categories should be renamed to use that title, or the article should be renamed. No reason for the article and the categories to use different names in this case. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care either way - I would just appreciate if we would decide to use one or the other. --FJS15 (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Those are the same thing, and the rest of our categories use the "German Imperial Navy" form.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Felice News was deleted at AFD here so the need for a category seems weak. Additionally there are only two members, so WP:OC#SMALL may apply. Tim! (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously, if the subject is not notable enough for an article there should be no category named for it. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:59, 21 May 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:Beauty pageant contestants from America[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category:Beauty pageant contestants is not divided by nationality, but this new category has started to do that. If it is retained, it needs to be in the standard "American FOOs" format. Personally, I think we should categorize people for having won a beauty contest as with Category:American beauty pageant winners, not for merely having been a contestant, but I don't know that much about the topic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – indirect subcat of Category:American people. Most are winners of some contest (eg Miss Smallville 1962) whose success has led to either a more prestigious pageant or fame and fortune elsewhere (eg Maria Kanellis). Occuli (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't feel like this fleshing-out of the contestant categories is worthwhile, as simply being a contestant is non-notable and the vast majority of contestants with articles will be more appropriately categorized as winners, but for the time being I guess we might as well conform to standard naming conventions. Mbinebritalk ← 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the rename to support a category of contestants of any nationality in American pageants or American contestants in any pageants? The proposed name would seem to be for the former. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me 14:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:American beauty pageant winners etc. I would interpret this as 'American [beauty pageant winners]' and would write 'Winners of American beauty pageants' for the other. Occuli (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is what Occuli said—to just make this a standard nationality (of the person) category. I suppose there is some potential for confusion, but if so I do think we would need to change Category:American beauty pageant winners as well to a "Beauty pageant winners/contestants from the United States" structure. I am not proposing the latter with this nomination, and I'm unsure how common it is for the problem to be relevant (I don't know how many non-nationals compete in beauty pageants in any given country). Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. I suggest disambiguating this highly ambiguous category name. It is for albums by Theatre (band), not for albums of musical theatre cast records and the like. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely nothing to do with albums of recorded theatrical performances. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Occuli (talk) 08:51, 20 May 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.
