Category:Science fiction short story collections by Ursula K. Le Guin[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) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: her collections cannot be delineated into "short story collections" and "science fiction short story collections". i recategorized all that were here into the broader cat, and placed that cat in "sf stories by author" as its true enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the suggested separation fail for Ursula K. Le Guin? (Again, the correct process is to leave the category populated and submit it to cfd. Viewing an empty category is not illuminating. A non-empty example is Category:Science fiction short story collections by L. Sprague de Camp, which looks perfectly acceptable to me.) Oculi (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
again, sorry for the incorrect procedure. i wont do that again. My understanding is that her collections often combine both, and she tends to straddle sf and fantasy in many of her works, instead of, say, producing hard sf vs. high fantasy (larry niven is 90% pure hard sf, with a small number of clearly fantasy works, no middle ground). if someone can reliably categorize her short stories into sf and fantasy collections (i cant, and i dont think its possible, but i could be wrong), then we can have both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry – should have revisited. Nom's additional rationale is persuasive - delete is fine by me. Oculi (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom says, trying to make a neat distinction in her works is dubious at best. Mangoe (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. In the case of Le Guin, this is not a helpful distinction. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 1 February 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:Taiwanese emigrants to 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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category is for people who have emigrated from the Republic of China to the United States. They do not have to have come from the island of Taiwan, and they do not have to be Taiwanese in any sense of the term. What I am unsure of is if we should include in this category all emigrants from Republic of China territory to the United States from 1912-1949. This nomination assumes this will in general be people who came to the United States from 1949 on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if they came from Taiwan (at any time) or from the post 1949 republic they are "United States people of Taiwanese descent" (or extraction). If they came to USA direct from mainland China, they should be "United States people of Chinese descent" (or poissible, "mainland Chinese"). This formulation has been adopted for dual nationality categories of all nations, except USA where the issue has not been tackled. We need to avoid getting hung up about the political status of the area they left when they left, and concentrate on the geographic entity. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:American people of Chinese descent is primarily for people birn in the United States whose ancestros came from China. This here is a category for people who migrated from the Republic of China to the United States. See for an example of what I mean by multiple categories Category:Russian emigrants to the United States, Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States and Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the United States. On the other hand we have categories like Category:American people of Tamil descent so the issue is not what the place is geographically. I also find it hard to believe that we could focus on the geography, that would require us to treat as the same group people who came to the United States from Danzig in 1870 and clearly identified as German and people who came to the United States from Gdansk in 1970 and were without question Polish. They could have left from the same house, but they do not belong in the same group. This is even more clear in the more heavily German parts of East Prussia, which are now essentuially completely Polish. Also you can not call German speaking Jews who emigrated from the area of what was then Lemburg in 1890 "Ukrainian emigrants to the United States" even if though you can apply such a term to someone who left from the same house in 1995. The United States is not the only country we have as a destination for emigrant categories, so the claim that the United States is unique in this matter is incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Israel also has the separation of the Russian and the Soviet emigrants into multiple categories, as well as different categories based on the political state of Yugoslavia at various times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Romania, Turkey and the United Kingdom also have sepeate categories based on whether people emigrated from Russia, the Soviet Union, or Imperial Russia. Not all have all three but all clearly are trying to delineate by political entity at the time of emigration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree since our article on the political entity headquartered in Taipei is Republic of China while our article Taiwan talks about the island. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American people of Taiwanese descent. The form "Fooian people of booian descent" is standard in WP, except possibly for US. The WP consensus (a recent one) is to use "Taiwan" for the polity, officially known as the "Republic of China". This is because its official name is ambiguous: it can refer to the present polity or to the Nationalist republic existing on the mainland between 1911 and 1948. We recently had a discussion about separating these. The categorisation of a person (or his ancestors) by ethnic origin should depend on where they came from, not when. Otherwise we would need to split categories between emigrated from "imperial China" from "Republican China" and from "Peoples Republic of China". That would be far too fine a distinction and might involve WP:OR as to when a person or his ancestor emigrated. Furthermore, I would suggest that "Taiwanese" is the appropriate adjective for a national of that polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepboth per John Pack Lambert. There were emigrants from the pre-1945 Japanese colony, and from the republic before and after 1945/1949/1972/1979. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peterkingiron's argument makes no sense at all. Just because someone emigrated to the United States from the Republic of China in 1960 does not mean they were in any sense "Taiwanese" or "of Taiwanese descent". If they were born in Shanghai and crossed the straight with General Chaing Kai-shek's forces, maybe even staying in Fujian Province and never actually settling in Taiwan proper, they are clearly not of Taiwanese descent. The x emigrants to y and distict from the x people of y descent categories. Someone who came to the United States from the island of Taiwan in 1920 would be properly categorized in Category:Japanese emigrants to the United States. These categories are based on nation of origin at the time of emigration, not what the nation of origin is now. We do not people who came from Lemburg to the United States in 1895 in Category:Ukrainian emigrants to the United States but in Category:Austro-Hungarian emigrants to the United States, even though today Lemberg is Lvov and clearly in Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Many of those people who retreated with the Generalissimo aren't culturally nor ethnically tied with Taiwan. If they had only spent, say, less than a decade there, they aren't probably be identified as Taiwanese. But then Taiwan is clearly identifiable geographically, with a people of its own, and was a distinctive administrative unit between 1895 and 1945. It had, e.g., a Governor General who had authority over the whole archipelago. These people are clearly Taiwanese despite being Japanese at the time they left. People of Russian ethnicity who left the RSFSR before 1990 are probably identified as Russians too. I therefore suggested that we need to have both categories. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually people of Russian ethnicity who came to the US before 1990, assuming they were coming from the Soviet Union, are identified in the category Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States (well, unless they came before 1918). However there is now a current attempt to rename the article on Republic of China, so we may want to wait on actually making a decision here until that is sorted out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 10 February 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.
Comment (Re John Pack Lambert): Notwithstanding of the RM attempt, the creation of a separate category for ROC emigrants can be justified, since there are people who left the ROC for the US before 1945 or 1949. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn - I can see Bearcat's reasoning. I am willing to withdraw the nomination although there is an oustanding delete !vote. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thank you to the nominator, I was considering doing the same thing for the same reason. PKT(alk) 19:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the category isn't redundant to Category:Communities in Halton Region, Ontario. While I've certainly been heavily involved in reverting many of said sockpuppet's contributions (and blocking the puppets), it doesn't necessarily follow that every edit he made needs to be reverted — any city or town, regardless of size, may have a dedicated category if we have enough articles on Wikipedia to justify one. While admittedly this one looked like a one-article delete at the time, it took me less than ten minutes to significantly populate it and I'm still not sure I necessarily got everything I could have. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat is right, this is a town for a dedicated category that Bearcat puts the category on to the related articles. Keep. Steam5 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 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:Neighbourhoods in Halton Hills, Ontario[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:Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn - I can see Bearcat's reasoning. I am willing to withdraw the nomination although there is an oustanding delete !vote. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thank you to the nominator, I was considering doing the same thing for the same reason. PKT(alk) 20:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the category isn't redundant to Category:Communities in Halton Region, Ontario. While I've certainly been heavily involved in reverting many of said sockpuppet's contributions (and blocking the puppets), it doesn't necessarily follow that every edit he made needs to be reverted — any city or town, regardless of size, may have a category of this type if we have the content to justify one, and every other municipality in Halton Region has a "Neighbourhoods in" subcategory of its own with no compelling reason why Halton Hills needs to be the isolated exception. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat is right, this is a town for a dedicated category that Bearcat puts the category on to related articles. Keep. Steam5 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with Category: Jewish vegetarians below, these are non-notable intersections. While there is such a thing as Christian vegetarianism, mostly these people don't have anything to do with that, at least as shown by evidence; those who can be shown to have such a connection may be recategorized accordingly, but most of these people are just Christians who happen not to eat meat. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - jc37 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37. Steam5 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nearly all Christians who follow vegetarianism are not just Christians who happen not to eat meat. They also embrace the nonviolent teachings of Jesus, with many also Category:Christian pacifists as per the article Christian pacifism. It is part of their faith, not just coincidence. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple. I started going through the articles, and leaving off the quarter of the cases which are uncited, they tend to divide up into three groups: 19th and 20th century restorationists who were Christian vegetarianists and can thus be recategorized; medieval and earlier saints who abstained from meat as a kind of asceticism; and random other people (e.g. Antoni Gaudi) who abstained for other reasons. Theoretically everything a faithful Christian decides to do is part of their faith, but in practice this means that, once the vegetarianists are eliminated from the group, the rest are acting out personal decisions in the context of a much greater group of co-religionists who decide differently. The ascetics are a particular problem group because their abstention is a secondary characteristic of their asceticism: they reflect a view of vegetarianism as a deprivation, not a superior way of life. Mangoe (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eating certain types of meat is permitted to Christians (and Jews), see Leviticus ch. 11; and Jesus himself encouraged people to eat fish (Luke 9:13-17). Being a pacifist does not require you to be vegetarian. It's a lifestyle choice. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection. Resolute 16:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the majority of cases, this is a trivial intersection. In the instance where it is non-trivial, their are better ways of categorising the belief systems involved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being Christian and being vegetarianism are two traits that trivially intersect here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorisation, see WP:OC#EGRS. Being Jewish is a religion; being vegetarian is a lifestyle choice permitted by the Torah but not required by its dietary code. Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the category for Christians above, as most of its members (e.g. Fred Rogers) don't appear to have anything to do with Christian vegetarianism; they just don't eat meat. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - jc37 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37. Steam5 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection. Resolute 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment on Christians above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 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:Building and structure National Historic Sites of 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 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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per jc37. Steam5 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Not enough to populate. JJ98 (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 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:rename per creator's request.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this today and only afterwards realised Categories related to statues are called 'Sculptures by .....' not 'Statues by......'. Can someone, if in agreement, rename this category?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:19, 31 January 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:Populated places in Greater Moncton[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) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More Moncton-cruft from User:Genehogan, I'm sorry to say. He must have seen the populated places tree and thought he could apply it to Greater Moncton. But we don't use it for neighbourhoods or communities within populated places, even for truly humungous urban agglomerations like the Greater Toronto Area. No upmerge is necessary as category contents seem to be adequately categorized under parent Category:Greater Moncton, and elsewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with nomination - unnecessary subcategory. PKT(alk) 20:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Shawn's analysis. Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with PKT and Pichpich. User:Genehogan created too many duplicate categories of Moncton. Steam5 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 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.
