Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Category:Number-one singles in Colombia[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per AfD on National Report. Erick (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Erick (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2012 (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:Gay memoirists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is fundamentally a separate issue from the "Gay people by nationality" batch, and needs to be discussed separately. Unlike those categories, the issue here is whether we really need to intersect "Gay writers" with the particular kind of writing that an individual does; at present, no comparable category exists for Category:Gay poets or Category:Lesbian novelists or Category:Bisexual short story writers or anything of that sort. It's unlikely to be a useful or helpful level of categorization, further, as many writers write multiple different kinds of work over the course of their careers — which would thus end up requiring a person to be categorized in, frex, Category:Gay memoirists and Category:Gay novelists and Category:Gay poets, and we just don't need that. Delete as WP:OCAT by overly narrow intersection. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the contained people have only their memoirs as their literary output and said writings are about their lives including their relevant sexuality.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify I meant most of the contained having it as main output.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also gay writers is huge so some specialization to the specific forms of their work prevents it becoming still larger.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. "the contained people have only their memoirs as their literary output"? This is a joke right? Truman Capote is in there - i looked at the others, and most have a long list of works, fiction and non. The question is not whether they are gay and whether they wrote a memoir. The question is, is this category worth taking note of? marking them as 'gay writers' and then as 'american memoirists' or whatever is sufficient; if people are determined to understand how many jamaican poets were actually gay, let them use the category intersection tools others have written.--KarlB (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I didn't mean every single person in the cat was like that. I meant most the likes of Clay Aiken, John Barrowman, Rupert Everett,Kenneth Williams and so on.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment look here Category:American_writers and Category:British_writers for all of the many possible ways writers can be categorized; do you really want to replicate that whole tree for all of the LGBT (especially considering that at likely >2% of writers are LGBT...) Just stick them in the appropriate 'writers by nationality' category, then in Category:LGBT writers and you're done. --KarlB (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (unless we need some upmerges). Agree with KarlB above. (User:RafikiSykes should slow down on category creation and seek insight.) Oculi (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LGBT memoirists would seem to be deletable by the issues given above. Should it be merged to lgbt writers and memoirists?RafikiSykes (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we could limit this category to people who delt at length about their sexual orientation in their memoirs, it might be a workable category. However that is unlikely to happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (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:Agricultural shows 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. Category:Agricultural shows in the United States would need to be nominated in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: According to the article Agricultural show, "agricultural fair" is the commonly used term in North America. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A look at Category:Agricultural shows in the United States shows plenty of articles named "Foo show", and the convention of Category:Agricultural shows is to use "shows". The head article Agricultural show says something slightly (but importantly) different to the nominator's reading: "The terms agricultural show and livestock show are synonymous with the North American term county fair or state fair". Given the number of "foo show" articles in the US, I read this as meaning that "county fair or state fair" are common N. American types of Agricultural show. So I see no reason to create a WP:ENGVAR exception to the convention of Category:Agricultural shows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving all agricultural shows to agricultural fairs, so as not to be confused with radio shows or TV shows. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, if it is a North American thing, seems an odd choice to me to only nominate the smaller Canadian cat -- though perhaps this is meant as a test case for the U.S. one, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See Category:Agricultural shows. What about the similar categories for USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the UK? PK T(alk) 15:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's position -- based on the main article's lead -- would seem to be that Canada and the US commonly use a term that is distinct from "Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the UK." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this rename and the American one. While there are some such events that call themselves shows in the US, there are clealry more fairs, especially since state fairs in the US tend to be mainly agricultural shows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this rename and the American one, based on the main article and my experience, as a North American, who has attended such fairs in both Canada and the U.S. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2012 (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:Dot-com 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This cat is not defining. Just because you work for 'eBay' doesn't mean you're a dot-com person. Even if some of these guys were doing stuff in 2001, many of them are still doing stuff today, so defining them just b/c they were in the valley at some particular moment in time is *not* defining. Listify if necessary, but everyone else can be merged to Category:Businesspeople in information technology or Category:Technology company founders KarlB (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REname or repurpose -- "People of the Dot-Com Bubble bubble" might be a legitimate category, but should be limited to the failures of the period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category is undefined; the term "dot-com people" is undefined and unclear. PK T(alk) 16:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is we have too many categories for people. No one really knows what qualifies for inclusion here. If people want to make the Dot-com bubble people category, they should start building it seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2012 (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:Gay Hindus[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: LGBT Jews, Category:LGBT Christians and Category:LGBT Hindus, respectively. Jafeluv (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Category:LGBT Jews and other super cats are sufficient here. Note that Category:Lesbian Jews was nominated yesterday. KarlB (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LGBT jews is if anything oversized and Gay Jews is more in line with how the caontained people are most commonly described including in their wiki articles.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment well of course that's true, because no person is ever described as a 'LGBT jew'. But the consensus seems to be to not to have these sub-categories unless the intersection can be shown to be notable. --KarlB (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gay christians as the dual identifications is a significant and widely covered issue eg as covered in relevance to gay ordinations in a way far beyond the other LGBT classifications.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC) E.g. Gene Robinson etc, the interestion is notable.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSignificance also indicated here Homosexuality_in_the_Hebrew_Bible and here History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality RafikiSykes (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to equivalent LGBT cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and upmerge. I am even sceptical about Category:LGBT Jews, &c., as these crossover categories seem to me to achieve very little. Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per Moonraker. Non-notable intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per Moonraker. Oculi (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree, of course, that these should be upmerged to Category:LGBT xxx; sorry if that wasn't reflected properly in the nomination. --KarlB (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to relevant LGBT cats. People should probably be only included in these categories if they openly identified with both the designators at the same time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the relevant LGBT categories per the standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 11 May 2012 (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:Healthcare law[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. Re-subdivision could be considered if someone could provide some sources that would justify having two separate categorization schemes. Although one can draw a distinction based on the dictionary definition of the words used, in practice it appears that there is no distinction made between these two areas of law. As an indication of this, there is no separate article for Healthcare law. The relevant distiction is probably between Health law and Medical law. (On a personal note, I took a course once called "Health Law", and it covered issues related to "health" and issues related to "healthcare", and I have never seen a law school offer two separate courses in the field that would divide health law in this manner, so I am inclinded to think that the distinction is artificial when it comes to law.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Healthcare law to Category:Health law

Nominator's rationale: Merge Per definition of health law: Health law is the federal, state, and local law, rules, regulations and other jurisprudence affecting the health care industry and their application to health care patients, providers and payors, and vendors to the health care industry, including without limitation the (1) relationships among providers, payors and vendors to the health care industry and its patients; and (2) delivery of health care services; all with an emphasis on operations, regulatory and transactional legal issues. Healthcare law currently redirects to Health law. Through google I have been unable to discern any difference. It's possible that some of the articles in Health law could be sorted under a new Category:Public health law instead, but everything in healthcare law belongs in Health law per the more common definition of the term. For examples of how these terms are interchangable, see [1] and [2]. In google books search, Health law about 9x as many hits as health care law. Even books titled 'healthcare law' call it 'health law' within... KarlB (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do not feel there is a clear separation between "health" and "healthcare."--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Healthcare law has only ever been a redirect to Health law and so the subcategory header is actually referring to the higher level anyway. From an organisational perspective this needs rationalising. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Health law includes a range of topics such as sanitation, reporting of infectious diseases, health and safety regulations, etc -- and none of those belong under healthcare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm sure you'll be able to provide us with references to back up that point of view. Thanks. My research has indicated that those in the law profession make no such distinction. --KarlB (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a reference, consult a dictionary. Health and healthcare are not synonyms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You've now clearly established that you weren't able to find any references where a distinction is made between health law and healthcare law. That should make it easier for other editors to weigh in. Appreciate it! --KarlB (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Useful quote from Brownhairedgirl here: "but of course what matters here is not your judgement or mine, but the evidence of usage in reliable sources. I have offered empirical evidence of usage in reliable sources, and if you have some contrary evidence then please present it for scrutiny rather than simply making vague assertions."--KarlB (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Healthcare law" is a useful category. If anyone wants to see references, the existence of university courses in health care law should be enough. See here, here, and here. We can note, though, that in the UK the expression "health care" is usually spelt as two words. Moonraker (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks, I'd ask that you reconsider your vote. The reason I proposed this merge is that the two terms are used interchangably. If you want evidence, look at the links provided above. Or see this: [3]. I'm not claiming no-one ever uses the term 'healthcare law' - they absolutely do. But they do not use it to refer to something *different* than 'health' law. For another example, look here: [4]. Quote: "Hempsons is the UK’s quintessential healthcare law firm" then "The firm [...] has ever since been an acknowledged specialist in medical and subsequently health law." Every website, every article I've looked at, uses these terms interchangably: [5]. I'm sorry but the people in this field really don't seem to differentiate, so we shouldn't either. --KarlB (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those in the field use two interchangeably, but health and healthcare are not the same thing. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising brochure for legal firms, and he distinction is relevant to our purposes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as if BHG is a fan of original research. The fact that law associations, legal journals, law firms, law schools, and journalists use health law and healthcare law interchangeably doesn't seem to sway her opinion - she prefers to maintain a distinction between two terms that isn't even supported by the articles themselves. Perhaps given her understanding of this topic, BHG could propose to write the Healthcare law article and show how it is different from Health law (no sources needed, because Health is different than Healthcare, and that's all you need to know...)?--KarlB (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In my mind, the two concepts so closely overlap that the distinction is lost on the reader.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Please see here [6] for an amazing resource from Georgetown Law Library. I'll just copy the top part here:

The following sources provide good introductions to and overviews of health law.
Health Law (KF3821 .H4343 2000) One volume hornbook summarizing basic principles of health law from regulation of health care institutions to end-of-life decisions. Also available as an expanded, two-volume practitioner treatise (KF3821 .H434 2000).
Fundamentals of Health Law (KF3821 .H37 2008) An introduction to the basic issues of health law from the American Health Lawyers Association.
Treatise on Health Care Law (LexisNexis: Treatise on Health Care Law) (Print: KF3821 .T74 1991, no longer updated in print) Four volume comprehensive, definitive treatise on a range of health care law issues.

If someone wants to dive into this resource and come back with some way to separate health law from healthcare law, please do so, but I just can't see the difference. --KarlB (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Despite BSG's attempts to delineat a distinction, I am unsure of what it is. Who is going to report infectious diseases besides health-care professionals? I think these two are so intertwined, that to distinguish them is unwise. This is a case where the average editor will put an article in the wrong category at least 50% of the time. It is unclear that there are two seperate bodies of legal jurisprudence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the continuing attempt to remove health care categories. Health and healthcare to two related but very different things so merger is not called for. If there is really this much confusion over the terms, then merge the articles first. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment If you would be so kind as to provide a 3rd party reference that defends your POV that "health law" and "healthcare law" are different, it would be appreciated. The numerous references I've provided above suggest otherwise. In fact, splitting them is equivalent to original research IMHO. The fact that 'health' is different than 'healthcare' does *not* mean that health law is different than healthcare law (which redirects, by the way).--KarlB (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin I have repeatedly asked for any sources that demonstrate that 3rd party sources differentiate between health law and healthcare law. No sources have been provided to date. I have provided copious sources that show how these sources use the terms interchangably, and that health law is the more dominant usage, and am happy to provide more if requested. I'd just kindly ask that the closing admin take the lack of evidence provided by the oppose votes into account when closing this CfD. --KarlB (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2012 (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:Puerto Rico First Ladies from Ponce[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Puerto Rico First Ladies from Ponce to Category:People from Ponce, Puerto Rico and Category:First Ladies of Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. In my view, Category:People from Ponce, Puerto Rico is broken down into subcategories to the point of being excessive. "Miss Puerto Rico winners from Ponce" was one example; this is another. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nom. This is much too specific. We have another Ponce categoreory recently. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Not a notable intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmergeas GO nom.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge there is no precedent to subdivide Frist Ladies of any place by location they came from. Even if cases of the Queen Consorts of a few locations were we have over 60 articles we have not sub-divided by any means. This is a collection of holders of a specific title, that in general only has one holder at a time. There is no reason to subdivide the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2012 (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:Bacteria organized by method of differentiating[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. Only content has already been manually added to the merge target so no upmerge is necessary. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I am no bacteriologist and I have no idea how many different methods there are of differentiating bacteria but until such time that there are other methods documented here it should be deleted and the sole subcategory upmerged to Category:Bacteria. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. I would be forgiving if this category were new, but it has been around for years and still is not categorizing anything. The category description remains incoherent. LeSnail (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, but support upmerge per nominator's rationale, though not per the nominator's proposed action. (Editors nominating categories which they believe to redundant should check more carefully whether the solution is deletion, or whether merger would be better.) This single-entry category currently serves no navigational purpose, and having been was created in 2006 there has been plenty of time to populate it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused. If the only subcat is upmerged to Category:Bacteria we will end up with an empty category, which would then be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what "merging" means: first the articles are transferred to the target category and then the old category is deleted. "Deletion" means that the articles are removed without being recategorized and then the category is deleted. You wanted the first, but technically proposed the second. LeSnail (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete I added the child to Category:Bacteria so this cat can now be deleted. --KarlB (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a category like this should only be created if people are ready to immediately place to subcats in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2012 (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.

Sportspeople 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: Merge all per nom. - jc37 23:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted the two discussions below from CfD April19 to allow for a fuller consensus to emerge. At present, the two discussions appear to be heading for different outcomes, which seems perverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent[edit]

Propose merging the following:

Nominator's rationale: Merge. As per nominations here below. (It's the tip of iceberg of the subcats of Category:American people by occupation and ethnic or national origin - upmerging these will take some time.) Mayumashu (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this amonts to attempting to classify people by race. We do not classify people by race, we classify them by ethnicity. Only a racial categorization would merge people with ancestors from India and those with ancestors from China. From an ethnic view these groups are clearly distinct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you would support the first (as listed) but not the second upmerge suggestions, right? (See comment by me below.) Mayumashu (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment i guess it depends if you see 'Asian descent' as a racial characteristic or a geographical one.--KarlB (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Likely this continental/racial aspect of the overall tree Category:American people by ethnic or national origin should be gotten rid of, ultimately, but this particular nomination is meant only to start the process of removing the triple (or even quadruple) aspect of the overall tree, at its most specific level, as it stands now. I would favour nominating, subsequently, the 'by Asian descent' and 'by European descent' subgrouping categories up for deletion. Mayumashu (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Many of these are an adequately populated intersection to be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CfD 2012 April 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the categories are populated doesn't make the intersection notable. I think I agree with JPL's objections as a justification for deleting the proposed merge target. I don't see that however as a reason for the merge not to take place first. Regardless of whether Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent is inappropriate, these subcategories are unreasonably fine intersections. LeSnail (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per the above comment. I guess I failed to !vote in this discussion till now. LeSnail (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and then consider Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent. Oculi (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. I propose renaming these categories back to their original ethnic (non-racial) category titles Category:X American sportspeople (e.g., Category:Japanese American sportspeople). The original classification by ethnicity is justifiable. — Myasuda (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge as nominated. Categorizing by specific ethnicity may be justifiable, but not combining the specific ethnicity with occupation. Have the two more general categories rather than the single more specific one is preferable, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So for consistency, should all the subcategories of Category:African-American people by occupation and Category:African-American sportspeople (for example) be upmerged too? Or are these cases somehow different? — Myasuda (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think we are discussing those categories here. But I do think it's true that categorizing someone as "African American" is more akin to categorizing them as "Asian American" rather than as the more specific "Thai American", "Vietnamese American" etc. I support having "American sportspeople of Asian descent", which is, I belive, akin to "African-American sportspeople". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JPL and Peter. Jeremy (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support an upmerge of everything to say Category:American people of Thai descent and Category:American sportspeople. However, it we are going to subdivide sportspeople it should be on real, not fake, ethnic lines. African-Americaness is an ethnicity, Asian Americaness is not, it is a hoge podge of clearly distinct ethnic groups such as Thais, Hmongs, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indians, Karens and Bangladeshis. Even at that too often "African-American" is really used as a race category, and to call all who are so designated the same ethnic group is often to ignore what makes an ethnic group. However there is more clearly a feeling of unity, than you have among "Asian Americans". For that matter, the various Gujarati, Punjabi and Malayam Americans I went to high school with knew they were not part of some amorphous "Indian-American" ethnic group, despite the attempts of outsiders to peg them all together in one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of reference, a related discussion can be reviewed at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_17. — Myasuda (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While even the broad Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent is of questionable utility, it's an edge case which at least has the merit of being roughly comparable to the way we accept categories for African-American sportspeople — whereas subdividing it by individual ethnic origin (Chinese, Japanese, etc.) is right off the WP:OCAT cliff. We don't subdivide the African category by whether they're specifically of Ethiopian or Jamaican or Congolese or Nigerian or Senegalese or Bahamian ethnicity, so we shouldn't be doing that here either. Upmerge per nom and delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian sportspeople of Asian descent[edit]

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:Overcategorization - too fine a distinction. Mayumashu (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge triple intersection. again. please merge. --KarlB (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per KarlB. Note that there are a bunch of similar categories in Category:Canadian sportspeople of Asian descent which should also be merged. Actually I think I'll add them to this nomination. LeSnail (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I support the additions too. Mayumashu (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment can you combine all of these into one discussion to centralize? just delete the other headers and bring them all together.--KarlB (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Mayumashu (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this would amount to a classification by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Category:Canadian people of Korean descent etc. Less sure about Category:Canadian sportspeople of Asian descent, which is still a triple intersection (and I don't see what connection there is between a sportsperson and their descent, whether Korean, Asian or anything else) Note there is no Category:Sportspeople of Asian descent, neither is there Category:Sportspeople of Korean descent; it is never a good sign to find a national subcat of a non-existent scheme. Oculi (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While not as well populated as the American categories, those I checked have at least half a dozen articles, making an adequate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CfD 2012 April 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the categories are populated doesn't make the intersection notable. I think I agree with JPL's objections as a justification for deleting the proposed merge target. I don't see that however as a reason for the merge not to take place first. Regardless of whether Category:Canadian sportspeople of Asian descent is inappropriate, these subcategories are unreasonably fine intersections. LeSnail (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge as nominated. Categorizing by specific ethnicity may be justifiable, but not combining the specific ethnicity with occupation. Have the two more general categories rather than the single more specific one is preferable, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While even the broad Category:Canadian sportspeople of Asian descent is of questionable utility, it's an edge case which at least has the merit of being roughly comparable to the way we accept categories for African-American or Afro-Caribbean Canadian sportspeople — whereas subdividing it by individual ethnic origin (Chinese, Japanese, etc.) is right off the WP:OCAT cliff. We don't subdivide the African categories by whether they're specifically of Ethiopian or Jamaican or Congolese or Nigerian or Senegalese or Bahamian ethnicity, so we shouldn't be doing that here either. Upmerge per nom and delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2012 (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:Florida Architecture, 100 Years, 100 Places[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: Listfy & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization by previously published list. If they are notable, WP list articles about such lists are created, but we never have categories for such lists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This per nom and per WP:OC#Published_list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note this previous related discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify all in one list. Appearance in a list is far too like a performance by performer category to justify retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are awards given by the Florida Chapter of the AIA, akin to a Nobel Prize. See Category:Nobel Prize and its subcategories. clariosophic (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Clariosophic (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Florida Chapter of the AIA is just like the Nobel Society. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify; this is certainly worthy of mention, but not categorisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would certainly like to see a list, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we avoid award categories like the overcating plague they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is not even in the same league as the Nobels. Not convinced that we should listify since it would be nothing more then the list as published by the association. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2012 (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.