Category:Place names of Welsh origin in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is the categorization of things by a shared name, which we do not do. The origins of place names are complicated processes, and at best only get fleeting mention in the articles. In many cases the articles do not describe the origin of the name at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. origins of these names is seldom clear or simple anyways.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. All of these categories should have been up for discussion collectively, rather than one at a time. When you do it this one-at-a-time way, some end up listified (French, Spanish, etc,) while others are inexplicably deleted with being listified (Dutch). They should all be listified. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 18:37, 31 December 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.
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. Since the delete proponents were mainly concerned that ethnicity is not a good way to categorize people, I don't see any problem with looking through the cat and putting any South Africans in Category:South African soccer players. I'll put this at WP:CFDWM so anyone who wants to help out with this should feel free to go ahead. delldot∇. 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is a categorization by race, which we do not do. It is especially odd as it is a contient wide racial grouping. Most of the contents of this category were recently moved from Category:White South African footballers which was deleted for the same reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not limited to South Africans. It contains anyone who is a white footballer from a country in Africa. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would this include most footballers from Egypt, or are we using "white" here in a way that does not include Egyptians? The main point, the idea behind this category is not good. White means something different in Liberia than it does in Kenya, than it does in South Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it's supposed to mean. I'm guessing the intent was to categorize footballers from African countries that have or had a specific ethnic classification system that included "white"—such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no more appropriate than Black or Latino or whatever footballers. We categorize on nationality (as in what passport does one hold) not on ethnicity or race - to the extent that the proponents of the latter practice still "like" it when it points to non-whites, it's just part of Wikipedians' own problems with race and ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, that was a vote for 'delete but with a manual process. Feel free to ask me to do it. – FayenaticLondon 17:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 16:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most (if not all) pages in this category refer to algorithms for computer arithmetics, but, in most cases, the algorithms are not specific for arbitrary precision; they work also for fixed precision and multiple precision. On the other hand, the algorithms for computer arithmetic share, independently of any specification of the precision, a specific technicality that deserve to regroup them in a category. D.Lazard (talk) 16:35, 1 December 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 3 December 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.
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:Ethnic group templates, except where the contents are already in a suitable sub-category of that target (because of the rule in WP:SUBCAT). – FayenaticLondon 18:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There appears to be little or no difference between the two. The "people" category is a subcategory of the "people and person" category. When do people lose their persons? All the subcategories of "people" fit into "people and person" and "pope" is actually in both already. 86.40.106.57 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 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.
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: What the heck is the "British Underclass". Is there even a remotely formal definition of this? I'm not hot on sociology but there is some history regarding the creator of this cat & so I am concerned. Sitush (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Google search for the term "British Underclass" Google BooksGoogle ScholarGoogle . This is a valid category under which more articles could be categorized for this topic in the future as well Intothefire (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUnderclass is valid topic. Started in the US it is relevant to UK although I am not sure there is a specific difference between the two. The current contents are all occupational terms and should not be in this category. Probably delete for the time being or merge to Category:Occupations by type somewhere. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scavengers. Remove grubber which seems to be a person employed to clean sewers, an unpleant occupation but not an obvious underclass one. I have seen the term grubber used historically for a coal miner. I regard inclusion in an "underclass" as a POV issue. The present underclass consists of those long-term unemployed, who have sunk into a dependency culture to such an extent that they cannot or will not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment concerning current usage of underclass in popular British terminology seems spot-on to me. As for the POV aspect, well, "there is some history ...", as I said. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Underclass is defined as having earnings of X per year? If there's no empirical definition of the term, then we shouldn't be using it to class people. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:SOCIOLOGY can come up with a useful way of creating and using a category tree around it. While, yes, there is such a concept as "British underclass" we certainly can't define it as people who scavenge for a living (or 19th Century names for those who scavenged for a living). The category Category:Scavengers is for scavenging animals, so isn't an appropriate rename target. Also, in 19th Century London, not all those who made their living from dealing with human waste were in the "underclass". According to Johnson, Steven (2006). The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic - and How it Changed Science, Cities and the Modern World. Riverhead Books. ISBN 1-59448-925-4. (cited in the article on John Snow (physician)) nightsoilmen were able to live comfortably on what they were paid to remove the waste. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The underclass phenomenon certainly seems controversial , as are issues of social stratification in all societies with a wide spectrum of opinion . However there are voices of recognition for the phenomenon from the British establishment itself -goverment and the responsible press : See for example The Guardian of 5th September 2011 byKenneth Clarke and a minister in the British Goverment. . As a representative of the British Government (establishment) and discussing the riots . Yes the term underclass could be considered a pejorative , but that is also the position by Charles Murray in his seminal article . What after all would be the implication of the deletion of this category from Wikipedia (1) that there is no underclass in Britain ? See Social structure of the United Kingdom . (2) That because there is no mother article on British underclass (but there is one on the Underclass) , so the various articles discussing this issue should not deserve a category . (3) Majority of opinions during this discussion did not believe that the British Underclass exists , so there should not be a category for British Underclass . I believe that considering the enormous discourse in Britain itself on this issue , should make this a category worthy for Wikipedia .Intothefire (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What people are saying here is that it is not definable in any meaningful way. I don't think anyone is saying that it might be considered pejorative & thus it should not exist because, of course, we are not censored. These are not quite the same as your "Majority of opinions during this discussion did not believe that the British Underclass exists , so there should not be a category for British Underclass" remark. The logical category structure here would have Category:Underclass at the top, with subcategories for Category:Underclass in the United Kingdom, Category:Underclass in the United States, Category:Underclass in India, etc. You've created only one of those (malformed in name and capitalisation) and you have still failed to define what an "underclass" actually may be in the sense of how we would categorise. It is very subjective, just as are terms such as "working class" and "middle class". Blimey, most Brits can't get their head round their own class system, mainly because it is not a system. I think that I know exactly why you created this category and it has little to do with improving the encyclopedia but, FWIW, I can probably describe myself as one of the "underclass" in Britain; others might disagree with my self-identification. That's how meaningless it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my main problem is that the articles listed really do not fit the category name. categorization by class is not really a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where's Lenin when you need him?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are proposing a category that potentially has multiple definitions? How is that going to work? - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NB: the category creator has been blocked for a month. Failing a successful appeal (they've tried and failed once), it looks like I won't get an answer to my query any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 10 December 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories refer specifically to writers. The contents of the subcategories appear to be all, or mostly, navigational boxes. If this is not the case in any example perhaps it can be moved back to a template category. 86.40.106.57 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This problem has been overcome by replacing the category "navigational boxes" with the categotry "templates" as explained in the nomination. The offending pages have now all been fixed. --86.40.111.123 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 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.
